| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2010 04:04:52 PM · #4226 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is your wife's love for you self-evident? Millions of people believe that God's love for them is self-evident, but you think its all fantasy. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Do you really believe that your God is corporeal in the same way as Louis' [spouse]? This is an astonishing statement to make that really undermines the credibility of your argument. |
|
|
|
|
01/22/2010 04:11:23 PM · #4227 |
One of the few benefits of threads like this occur when you learn something. It seems what I may have been arguing against Louis is referred to as the "is-ought problem" without knowing it carried a name. I've been reading about it on wiki and while I enjoy stuff like this, it's not for everbody as it plunges down the rabbit hole of philosophical jargon. Read this quote by Hume. I appreciate the distinct irony of the phrase "the being of a God", but I will leave it intact and say that when I have been using it here, I would replace that phrase with "the process of evolution". It appears both sides (morality derived from God vs. evolution) may have the same difficulty and we only appreciate it most as a weakness of the other side. Ultimately this probably proves the idea I mentioned that being on "offense" in these discussions is much easier than being on "defense".
The quote by Hume:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God (ED: for my argument replace that with "the process of evolution"), or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.[1]
So basically I have been asking Louis how he goes from the "Evolution is." statement to the "Actions which cause suffering ought not be." statement. When do we change from "is" to "ought"?
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 16:14:10. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 04:27:02 PM · #4228 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, I can prove my spouse exists, and I can prove love and beauty exist, and, with a statistical probability that would satisfy even the densest person, I can prove they'll be there tomorrow. |
Is your wife's love for you self-evident? What if she's lying... |
LOL! OK, who wants to clue in the new guy? ;-) |
Several hints, oblique references, removals of pronouns, and accusations of presupposition later, I give up. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 04:35:11 PM · #4229 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Suffering is abhorrent. (11/18/08..."Suffering is abhorrent.")
2) Actions that lead to suffering are immoral. (11/18/08.." that which causes suffering is immoral")
3) Evolution, among other things, lead to suffering. (1/20/09 "We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering.")
... Given those statments, what are the logical conclusions that can be made and do you agree with them? |
I have been slow to answer (time zones, workload and baby).
It is a logical leap to accept "actions that lead to suffering are immoral" and "evolution leads to suffering" and conclude that "evolution is immoral". Evolution is not an action (as we agreed - it just *is*).
You might argue that evolution is enacted by God (the halfway house between evidence and religion), logically proving that God was immoral. But that would be your argument, not mine, to take up if you so choose...
|
|
|
|
01/22/2010 04:44:50 PM · #4230 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is your wife's love for you self-evident? Millions of people believe that God's love for them is self-evident, but you think its all fantasy. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Do you really believe that your God is corporeal in the same way as Louis' [spouse]? This is an astonishing statement to make that really undermines the credibility of your argument. |
|
No, I don't believe that God has a material body. My point is that love from a material being is no more provable than love from an immaterial being. Love is an affection. How can you prove if it's genuine?
Still waiting on this one...
Is every human action that causes suffering immoral, and is every human action that abates suffering moral?
In addition. Is suffering subjective? If so, then morality should also be subjective. Correct? |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 05:03:13 PM · #4231 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
No, I don't believe that God has a material body. My point is that love from a material being is no more provable than love from an immaterial being. Love is an affection. How can you prove if it's genuine? |
Well let's cut to the chase and just ask both Louis' wife and god and find out.
Louis, you are probably best placed to ask your wife. As for God - Johny, please let me know the process.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2010 05:18:35 PM · #4232 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems what I may have been arguing against Louis is referred to as the "is-ought problem" without knowing it carried a name.... So basically I have been asking Louis how he goes from the "Evolution is." statement to the "Actions which cause suffering ought not be." statement. When do we change from "is" to "ought"? |
"The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem. As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments that claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. An example of a naturalistic fallacy in this sense would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false."
Gee.. THAT sure looks familiar. Most of these arguments have names. Your "continuum" is called a Fallacy of Necessity: A. suffering is immoral B. evolution produces suffering C. evolution must be immoral (it assumes that B is always true and ignores the possibility of evolution reducing suffering). Johnny's, "Christians experience God's love, and believe that it's real. You can't prove either scientifically" is both an Argument From Ignorance (it assumes human love cannot be proven only because he personally doesn't think it's possible) AND Proof by Assertion (God is real because Christians say he is).
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 17:34:59. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 05:22:55 PM · #4233 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems what I may have been arguing against Louis is referred to as the "is-ought problem" without knowing it carried a name.... So basically I have been asking Louis how he goes from the "Evolution is." statement to the "Actions which cause suffering ought not be." statement. When do we change from "is" to "ought"? |
"The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem. As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments that claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. An example of a naturalistic fallacy in this sense would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false."
Gee.. THAT sure looks familiar. |
I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I fully buy into the theory of evolution....
I did see the naturalistic fallacy page, but it doesn't describe what I've been talking about. I seem to be on the "is...ought problem" instead which is different.
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 17:23:47. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 05:51:03 PM · #4234 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false." |
I did see the naturalistic fallacy page, but it doesn't describe what I've been talking about. I seem to be on the "is...ought problem" instead which is different. |
It's EXACTLY what you've been talking about. Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If human beings evolve through suffering [survival of the fittest is immoral], wouldn't that be a self-defeating method for the propagation of the species? [evolution must be false] |
|
|
|
|
01/22/2010 05:53:37 PM · #4235 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false." |
I did see the naturalistic fallacy page, but it doesn't describe what I've been talking about. I seem to be on the "is...ought problem" instead which is different. |
It's EXACTLY what you've been talking about. Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If human beings evolve through suffering [survival of the fittest is immoral], wouldn't that be a self-defeating method for the propagation of the species? [evolution must be false] |
|
No I've been arguing exactly the opposite. If you hold evolution to be true, then the ideas that survival of the fittest is "immoral" is wrong. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 06:09:51 PM · #4236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Christianity, for better or worse, says that the act of homosexuality is wrong. |
The Fourteenth Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) are not beholden to that particular point of view.
Also, "Christianity" is not monolithic in this particular viewpoint -- I think you'd better just speak for your own denomination's determination on this point, and not for all of Christendom....
Even the otherwise reactionary SCOTUS has ruled that "acts of homosexuality" cannot be made illegal, so to discriminate on the basis of whether or not two citizens partake in a legal activity would seem on the face of it patently illegal discrimination. We're all still waiting for you to advance some legal or logical argument for denying any two unmarried, competent, consenting adults the right to enter into this state-sanctioned legal relationship. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 06:20:49 PM · #4237 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Christianity, for better or worse, says that the act of homosexuality is wrong. |
The Fourteenth Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) are not beholden to that particular point of view.
Also, "Christianity" is not monolithic in this particular viewpoint -- I think you'd better just speak for your own denomination's determination on this point, and not for all of Christendom....
Even the otherwise reactionary SCOTUS has ruled that "acts of homosexuality" cannot be made illegal, so to discriminate on the basis of whether or not two citizens partake in a legal activity would seem on the face of it patently illegal discrimination. We're all still waiting for you to advance some legal or logical argument for denying any two unmarried, competent, consenting adults the right to enter into this state-sanctioned legal relationship. |
All reasonable points Paul. The SCOTUS will speak to it sooner or later and either affirm you or reject you. These are legal questions and I'll leave it to the courts to decide. Given yesterday's ruling though, I'd be scared the conservatives have grabbed control (which I tend to think of as a "bad" thing).
I will also agree that Christianity has a varied opinion on the view and isn't even the only religion to speak against the matter. I was only speaking from my on viewpoint there and probably speaking from "mainstream Christianity" or "mainstream American Christianity" as well.
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 18:21:32. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 06:25:56 PM · #4238 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These are legal questions and I'll leave it to the courts to decide. |
Yes, but here in this thread we are interested in your (legal/logical) opinion on the matter -- I refuse to believe you don't have one. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 06:30:15 PM · #4239 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false." |
I've been arguing exactly the opposite. If you hold evolution to be true, then the ideas that survival of the fittest is "immoral" is wrong. |
Like it or not, the reverse is the same fallacious argument (and it's already been pointed out that evolution is not just "survival of the fittest." |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 07:03:26 PM · #4240 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false." |
I've been arguing exactly the opposite. If you hold evolution to be true, then the ideas that survival of the fittest is "immoral" is wrong. |
Like it or not, the reverse is the same fallacious argument (and it's already been pointed out that evolution is not just "survival of the fittest." |
The reverse is the "is...ought argument". Read up on it. You read up on naturalistic fallacy. and we already went over "survival of the fittest". Come on. Get with the program. I used the term because you, yourself used the term in bold.
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 19:04:12. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 07:06:48 PM · #4241 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These are legal questions and I'll leave it to the courts to decide. |
Yes, but here in this thread we are interested in your (legal/logical) opinion on the matter -- I refuse to believe you don't have one. |
Legally the courts are going to find it to be either discriminatory or they are going to find it legal to define the institution of marriage however the people want to define it. (ie. Everybody can "marry", but everybody must marry in the way it is defined. Gays can marry, but they must marry someone of the opposite sex (which they obviously won't want to do).)
That's the way I see it. One side sees it as a discrimination issue and the other sees it as a definition issue and the right of the people to define it.
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 19:07:15. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 07:08:27 PM · #4242 |
| Why am I talking only with Shannon? Where did Matthew and Louis go? |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 07:37:52 PM · #4243 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Suffering is abhorrent. (11/18/08..."Suffering is abhorrent.")
2) Actions that lead to suffering are immoral. (11/18/08.." that which causes suffering is immoral")
3) Evolution, among other things, lead to suffering. (1/20/09 "We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering.")
... Given those statments, what are the logical conclusions that can be made and do you agree with them? |
I have been slow to answer (time zones, workload and baby).
It is a logical leap to accept "actions that lead to suffering are immoral" and "evolution leads to suffering" and conclude that "evolution is immoral". Evolution is not an action (as we agreed - it just *is*).
You might argue that evolution is enacted by God (the halfway house between evidence and religion), logically proving that God was immoral. But that would be your argument, not mine, to take up if you so choose... |
|
|
|
|
01/22/2010 09:33:26 PM · #4244 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false." |
I've been arguing exactly the opposite. If you hold evolution to be true, then the ideas that survival of the fittest is "immoral" is wrong. |
Like it or not, the reverse is the same fallacious argument |
The reverse is the "is...ought argument". Read up on it. You read up on naturalistic fallacy. |
Oh for pete's sake. IT'S THE SAME THING!!!! "The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is-ought problem), and has inspired the use of mutually reinforcing terminology which describes the converse (deducing an "is" from an "ought") either as the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or the "moralistic fallacy."" Here's what you said you were arguing:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If human beings evolve through suffering [survival of the fittest is immoral], wouldn't that be a self-defeating method for the propagation of the species? [evolution must be false] |
This is freakin' identical (as highlighted) to the Wiki example of a reverse naturalistic fallacy, and it doesn't make an iota of difference how you present it. Watch:
"evolution --> human behavior --> human suffering" or your attempt to weasel out of it: "if evolution is true, and evolution is survival of the fittest/suffering), then "immoral" is wrong."
Either way, you are committing a naturalistic fallacy by assuming evolution is ONLY suffering, which leads to a false conclusion. Evolution gave us the capacity to induce suffering... and also to reduce suffering. YOU chose to seize upon only the suffering part. Louis never said it was exclusive, and neither did I.
Originally posted by scalvert:
(and it's already been pointed out that evolution is not just "survival of the fittest.") |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
we already went over "survival of the fittest". Come on. Get with the program. I used the term because you, yourself used the term in bold. |
Here's where I used the term (the same thing I said above):
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, that's "survival of the fittest," and it's NOT the message of evolution. "An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution." The message of evolution is that organisms faced with suffering (hunger, predation, disease, etc.) either find a way combat that suffering or ultimately perish. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why am I talking only with Shannon? Where did Matthew and Louis go? |
A. You posted that immediately after a response to GeneralE. B. They're probably getting tired of wasting their time while you play these pointless word games. They ruin any chance of a decent debate.
Message edited by author 2010-01-22 22:16:55. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:18:10 PM · #4245 |
My own council I will keep.
I don't blame you though...
"The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem (which comes from Hume's Treatise). " ;) |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:29:36 PM · #4246 |
The whole argument above is so twisted and convoluted with people speaking for other people and Shannon putting bolds into my sentences and assuming that's exactly what I wanted to say etc. It may as well be forgotton and started over.
Read Hume's quote. This is a good summary of my question.
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God (ED: for my argument replace that with "the process of evolution"), or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
Louis' argument, to me, followed this pattern exactly. First he spoke of evolution and then human affairs and then that we ought not have suffering. I didn't know about this 'is...ought' problem, but it speaks to what I was trying to get at. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:54:39 PM · #4247 |
I think probably the self-evident truth that is plainly obvious to everybody who is NOT arguing on this thread is that the medium of forum posts is a very difficult and frustrating way to debate a complex issue. Too often words that seem obvious are actually read differently (or even antithetically).
To pull back the curtain and reveal what goes on in my little brain, here is the process for this whole portion of the thread.
I asked someone if they were willing to explain suffering in the world since Johnny was doing such a poor job. Or at least his version of things was being ripped to shreds by those responding. I pointed out that it is easier to rip down than to defend so wondered if anybody was willing to take a shot.
Louis responded that it is easy to understand suffering in the context of evolution. His exact quote:
"What's to explain? We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering. Also, the earth is made up of tectonic plates that shift."
I read this to be what, I guess, qualifies as an "is" statement. Suffering is.
This did not seem satisfactory to me because I remembered a conversation with him from a year ago where he declared suffering to be bad (or more correctly actions which lead to suffering are bad). This is an "ought" statement. It seems I had stumbled across Hume's "is...ought" problem. Of course I wasn't as eloquent as he at getting this point across, but what I was trying to show was that if Louis could not explain the "is...ought" problem of his statements then his original explanation for suffering (my original request) was unsatisfactory.
Of course trying to do something so nuanced and complicated turns out to be a fool's errand when you can only type and cannot talk. Especially when you can't type in real time. |
|
|
|
01/22/2010 11:58:18 PM · #4248 |
The issue is one of the Constitutional legality of a certain law which treats pairs of citizens differently solely on the basis of their gender. Really, the basic discrimination is one of gender, "sexual orientation" is really a biased description put forth to try and inject religious precepts into civil law.
Since the SCOTUS has determined that there is no essential difference between persons and corporations, let's imagine the government (or anyone) wishes to enter into a contract, and has two "bidders" -- A and B. The law does not allow discrimination between A and B on the basis of race, gender, age, etc., but only on the suitability of the bidder to fulfill the contract under the most favorable terms. When the law says that someone may only marry (enter into a contract with) person A but not person B, solely on the basis of the gender of B, it is illegal discrimination on the face of it.
Cohabitation and acts of sexual intimacy between men and women, men and men, and women and women, have all explicitly (sic) been ruled legal already, so how can treating those pairings differently in respect to the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage on the basis of one or the other's gender be justified, when it the choice harms no one and does not infringe on anyone else's civil rights, except on the grounds that it conflicts with the values of certain religious sects? The government is not allowed to legislate according to the rules or values of any specific religion.
Besides, if people are allowed to marry their partner of choice, then there should be more stable, tax-paying families out there to contribute to the betterment of the society as a whole, and wedding planners, caterers, florists, dressmakers, and hotels will have more business and perhaps inject some liveliness (sic) into the economy outside of the investment banking, oil, and pharmaceutical industries. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 01:53:06 AM · #4249 |
| Paul, you can't just parrot everything you hear Scalia say during your squash games! |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 02:23:24 AM · #4250 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These are legal questions and I'll leave it to the courts to decide. |
Yes, but here in this thread we are interested in your (legal/logical) opinion on the matter -- I refuse to believe you don't have one. |
After four thousand posts you're still clinging to that belief? How Jason of you. ;-)
|
|
