| Subject: I only make sure bets |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/20/02 8:04pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "You betcha." on 12/11/02 10:55pm
Wade,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. Things have been busy. I’m also planning to respond to your post regarding morality. I don’t think my views are as slippery as they may seem, but maybe it will help to spell them out more clearly. I think that there are places where I’m not convinced on what I think about morality, and in those places perhaps it seems I’m intentionally avoiding an issue, but that isn’t my desire. Anyway, on with the show…
>>>Yet it may be much simpler than that. It could be an
>>>irreducible truth. That is, a truth that cannot be
>>>further reduced into other axioms to support it. A
>>>possible example: can you prove the law of
>>>noncontradiction? Probably not. It is nonetheless
>>>objectively true, however.
>>
>>Yes, I agree. But this analogy doesn't prove your
>>point. It is useful only in illustrating your point.
>
>True enough. I haven’t stated otherwise. From this
>and your other comments on the post it seems you may
>have misunderstood the purpose of this analogy. I was
>not using it to prove my point, only to explain it.
Okay, just making sure. I agree with you on the axiomatic nature of the law of noncontradiction, as well as the axiomatic nature of mathematical expressions such as “2+2=4”. To me, though, appealing to such axiomatic truths in situations like these is a kind of cop-out. The context of your statements involved my asking you why it’s okay to euthanize kittens but not humans. I see no objective reason, and you must not either, since you appeal to “irreducibility,” which is something no one can argue with. However, the catch is that things which are axiomatic are that way because they can be proven to be so. So I must ask you to offer proof for the “irreducible” nature of the idea that human abortion is wrong.
>>I don't think homicide being wrong is an objective
>>truth. I think it's relative to our culture. In our
>>culture, we all agree that homicide is wrong.
>>Certainly, it is good if we all agree to this. It
>>protects our society from chaos. But I cannot agree
>>that this is an objective, absolute moral truth.
>
>You almost seem a little inconsistent here, since
>there are hints of you rejecting moral objectivism.
>If morals are not objective, why is it “good” that we
>agree to tabooing homicide? Why is it “good” to
>protect our society from chaos? Is there a real
>objective “good”?
Well, I use the word “good” there in a different sense. When I say it is “good” for society, I mean it is “good” in the sense that, as far as that society is concerned, it is a positive thing. In other words, in relation to a society, if the society falls apart, that is “bad.” Anything that helps it stay together is “good.” I do not think these are moral absolutes or objective truths either, so I have not been inconsistent. They are simply relative goods and bads.
As far as whether or not there is a real objective “good,” I do not know. I see no evidence for it. Of course, that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful for us to perceive things as such.
>>Well, if it's an irreducible truth, you'd think it
>>would be easy enough to agree on.
>
>Again, that need not necessarily be the case. I have
>yet to see any identifiable logical reason for this
>being so. (It is logically conceivable for everyone
>being mad and thinking that 2 + 2 = 5, but that still
>wouldn't change the objective truth.)
Okay, I withdraw that argument. It was weak. You could have called me on ad populum had you so desired. I should have said what I said above, which is that irreducible truths are said to be so because they can be demonstrated to be such.
>>You still didn't answer my question. What about the
>>example I gave of the severely retarded person's life
>>versus the life of the very intelligent, helpful dog?
>>Which one's life is more valuable?
>
>I don’t know. I would hate to see either life
>perished.
That may be, but I’m asking you to make a value judgment. Are you saying they are equally valuable? Or are you still avoiding the question?
>>By your
>>definition, the human's life would be more valuable
>>simply because he's human, but by any objective
>>estimation, the dog's life would be worth more, since
>>it contributes more to society.
>
>Objective estimation? Do you accept
>utilitarianism?
Well, why don’t we back up a bit… you think that human life is worth more than animal life. Why do you think that? The only objective way I can think of is to measure a being’s contribution to making the world a better place. Tell me a better way, and I’ll consider it.
>Again, now I see possible signs of utilitarianism, but
>then again I see your claim of murder not being
>objectively ethical. So then, why is it “good” for
>society to be together and functioning?
It’s just “good” in relation to the society. That doesn’t imply a moral absolute.
>>I see no
>>universal law that says murder is wrong.
>
>And I “see” no universal law that says it is “good” to
>have a society functioning together.
I certainly agree. Since you said “and,” can you also agree that there is no universal law saying that murder is wrong?
>>Since God created nature, why don't we just
>>look to nature for our morality? They kill whenever
>>necessary, and for various reasons. Why would God
>>have them do this if not to help us know the natural
>>way things should be done?
>
>There are alternate theistic explanations than what
>you seem to be implying.
Well, of course there are. I doubt many theists would look at it this way, although it’s a perfectly logical way to see it. The implications of such a view aren’t too good for a society that doesn’t want people killing each other, so it hasn’t done very well. Are you familiar with the idea of “memes,” dreamed up by Richard Dawkins? I guess that’s basically what I’m talking about here. Since any society that believed that we should look to nature for our morality would disintegrate, this idea, or “meme,” hasn’t stayed in the “gene pool” of commonly held beliefs.
>>I completely disagree. The immorality of homicide is
>>not an axiom in any sense. 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic,
>>the the immorality of homicide is culturally derived.
>
>I disagree.
Well… you can disagree all you want, but a reason can be offered why mathematical expressions are axiomatic. They are true by definition. The burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate why taking a life is immoral by definition.
>>>We have to be careful on what we call “biases.”
>True,
>>>it may not be proven. But it is possible to
>>>rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence.
>>
>>Again, it's becoming more clear how you are able to
>>maintain your beliefs in an invisible, untestable
>>being.
>
>Not untestable, any more than atheism is untestable.
Here we go again. Atheism in its pure form does not make assertions. It is simply the lack of belief in something which is asserted by other people, i.e. the existence of God. The burden of proof does not lie on the atheist, since he is not asserting a positive. We’ve been through this before. No one wants that pesky old burden of proof.
>Believe it or not Ben, we both rationally
>accept beliefs without proof or evidence. We
>both base our beliefs on what we intuitively
>“feel” to be true.
I’m not sure we’re on as equal ground as you think. I live as if certain things are true, but I admit that they may not be. In order to function in the society in which I live, I must act as if things are true, such as memory being reliable, reality being what I think it is, but I admit I could be wrong about those things.
>A quick example. How do we know that memory is ever
>reliable? One could try to justify belief in memory by
>saying something like, “I remember many times when I
>recall where I parked my car. When I went to the place
>where my memory told me I parked my car, it was
>there.” One could also say, “I remember people telling
>me my memory is sometimes reliable.” Yet, since those
>responses would be using memory to justify the
>reliability of memory, there is the logical fallacy of
>circular reasoning (assuming the truth of
>something that the argument is supposed to establish).
>Consequently, we have yet to provide any real evidence
>to support the reliability of memory. We can go and
>do the same for testimony and sense experience. No
>proof. Not one shred. I suggest you go to
rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgn&phi
>l/skepticism.html">this brief web page of mine for
>further elucidation on this matter. Feel free to
>comment on it if you wish. I’d like to hear your
>input.
Basically, I agree with you. Memory is not an accurate perception of reality… memories can be altered quite easily, actually. We trust our memories because it’s hard not to, but they are faulty. Kind of like “Total Recall,” huh?
Speaking of the unreliability of memory, what do you think about the fact that none of the gospels was written until 20 or 30 years after Jesus’ death?
>>>>I don't really see how feeling pain is all that
>>>>important.
>>>
>>>Well, consider what we have here. The ability to
>feel
>>>pain implies sentience, and sentience implies life.
>>>It is my belief that killing a sentient human being
>>>for the purposes of birth control is an unethical
>act,
>>>and I am unable to see any point of view that would
>>>dictate otherwise.
>>
>>Then by your logic, you must certainly believe the
>>same thing about cats and dogs, which clearly feel
>>pain.
>
>You’re stretching what I said. I simply said that
>killing a sentient human being is morally wrong when
>done for the purposes of birth control. That doesn’t
>imply the same goes for cats and dogs.
But why not? What I’m asking is what makes cats and dogs different than humans so that we deserve to live and they don’t? In other words, you are saying that killing a sentient human being for the purpose of birth control is wrong. Since cats and dogs can also feel pain, which you say implies sentience, then your logic implies that killing them for those same purposes must also be wrong. Otherwise, you must explain what is different about humans and cats which makes it okay to abort them.
>Nonetheless, I do believe that kitty cats and puppy
>dogs should not be unjustifiably tortured and killed.
Why? Is that another irreducible moral truth?
>BTW, if we’re speaking about logic and all, how do you
>know they feel pain? What “proof” do you have?
You’re right. I have to make certain assumptions about reality in order to function, as I said above. I admit that I do not “know” they feel pain (when did I say I “knew” that beyond doubt) any more than I “know” you feel pain. But going by my rational senses, I assume that they do based on their reactions to stimuli.
>You don’t. Ultimately, we both intuitively “feel”
>that they are capable of suffering pain. I look into
>my cat’s eyes. I see him meow. I here him shriek
>when I accidentally step on his tail. And I here him
>purr when he his petted gently. How do I know all
>these responses to my actions aren’t caused only by
>mindless chemical reactions? How can I disprove the
>notion that such chemical reactions are what’s causing
>the responses instead of sentience? As of this
>moment, I can’t provide you with a proof to explain
>why I believe my cat is capable of feeling. I just
>look in to the cat’s eyes, observe him, and know.
It’s not just some feeling… you’re observing a stimulus and response. You reach a logical conclusion. That’s different than asserting that there are universal moral truths such as the idea that abortion is wrong. I see that you are trying to level the playing field, but you aren’t succeeding. I can see that a cat feels pain by using my definition of “pain” and by assuming that what I observe represents reality. But whether or not abortion is some irreducible moral wrong is another thing altogether. It’s like apples and oranges. It would be better if you offered reasons that you think these things are irreducible rather than trying to muddy the waters by trying to convince me that I approach the beliefs I have in the same way you do and I just don’t know it. It’s not true.
>Bottom line: if killing sentient human beings for the
>purpose of birth control is unethical, then is
>abortion (for the purposes of birth control) an
>ethical act when done on a fetus? I say yes. Are
>there any who think this to be false? (Note: a
>conditional statement/question like this being
>true/affirmative only means that the consequent
>logically follows from the antecedent; it doesn't
>necessarily mean that the antecedent is true.)
Well, even in this, there are other issues at hand. Contained in your assumptions is the idea that a fetus is the same in nature as a human. Otherwise, your conclusion doesn’t logically follow. That may or may not be true. A fetus is a potential human, but it isn’t a fully developed one. A sperm is also a potential human.
Incidentally, you expressed above that abortion is an “ethical act” when done on a fetus. I think you meant “unethical.” If not, ignore what I said above.
>>>>3) I (and you) may have some inherent biases by
>>>>virtue of being human that are so deeply ingrained,
>>>>they simply seem like absolute moral truths.
>>>
>>>Quite correct. I would like to point out, however,
>>>that there exists the possibility of these “biases”
>>>being correct, even if we can’t explain why (though I
>>>suppose you are already aware of this possibility).
>>
>>Yes, there is that possibility. But I don't usually
>>base strong beliefs on possibility.
>
>What I said was only an observation. It was not meant
>to be an airtight persuasive argument.
Of course not. But you said it’s a possibility, and I responded to that. Of course it’s a possibility, but I can’t base strong beliefs on that, so if I am to form strong beliefs, I need more than that. In other words, you can’t expect to convince me with a possibility.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 