back to the beginning: morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
441

I generally agree. In regard to “basic philosophy and especially logic” what is or is not applicable in regard to discussing Mary’s abortion? On the other hand, what factors involved in performing an abortion as a doctor revolve around objective necessities? And what factors involved in reacting to the abortion as an ethicist revolve more instead around actual existential contingencies?

It is the objectivists among us who insist that only their own moral and political prejudices are not prejudices at all…but reflect the actual obligation of all rational men and women to agree with them. Whether they call this “being logical” you can take up with them.

Also, is it necessarily logical to call someone who punches babies a moral monster? Anymore than it is necessarily logical to call someone who aborts them moral monsters? In a No God world for example.

Bloviator. Isn’t this the epithet the fulminating fanatic William James O’Reilly Jr. loved to hurl at those who refused to be “one of us”?

And, no, any number of anti-abortion folks I came across over the years as a political activist, did not construe “unborn baby” to be a contradiction at all. Again, they may not have been “technically” correct, but they used it because they wanted to be sure that others understood that they were not talking about just a “clump of cells” but an actual human baby that had simply not actually been born yet.

442

This, of course, is an example of the logical fallacy of stacking the deck, a technique that iamatroll employs in all his answers to me and others. Once you have stacked the deck that a fetus is actually a baby, then you shift the grounds of the discussion from, “Oh, you intend to abort your fetus,” to “Oh! You intend to murder your baby!” Gasp! Followed by pearl-clutching, fake fainting and smelling salts.

Now, it’s perfectly OK by me if someone wishes to elasticize language to say that a fetus is an unborn baby. I expect many women think of their fetuses that way, whether they carry the pregnancy to term or not. The difficulty arises when the change in terminology is used tendentiously, which of course what the anti-choice busybodies do. That’s stacking the deck.

Stacking the deck is among the logically fallacious techniques that people employ when they know they have no good argument. It’s a form of propaganda. In the same way, iamatroll stacks the deck in all his discussions with others, simply ignoring their points, their arguments and their evidence so that he can circle back to his propaganda. Example:

HIM: How do you explain, under your regularity theory, how Mary can be morally responsible for having an abortion or not when hard determinism forces her to do whatever she does?

ME: But as I have explained one gazillion times, I do not think that hard determinism forces Mary or anyone else to do anything. That is the whole point of regularity theory! I REJECT the metaphysics of hard determinism. So Mary can be held morally responsible for all of her choices, because at any given time she could have done other that what in fact she did.

HIM: Yes, that’s all well and good, but how do you explain, under your regularity theory, how Mary can be morally responsible for having an abortion or not when hard determinism forces her to do whatever she does?

It should be perfectly obvious that debating with a deck stacker (to say nothing of a malignant troll) is a total waste of time. Nevertheless, I will from time to time allude to his propaganda in the hope of stimulating a discussion with others who are honest in their philosophical approaches.

443

I don’t know why you feel the need to write this.

If you thought that he used a fallacy, you could have just said that politely. Especially considering that he restrained himself in his post.

444

He’s a troll because when you can’t express your side, it’s obvious that you won’t win a debate. It’s checkmate from the very start.

445

If someone is making an effort to post appropriately, then respond in kind.

446

That’s what a debate is supposed to be about.

447

You may not have noticed that when he quotes me in his responses, he changes my user name from “pood” to “Moe” — you know, one of the Three Stooges. He does not deserve any politeness if he refuses to show politeness himself.

448

He didn’t do that in his last post

449

He did do in his last post. He didn’t do it in the first quote from me, obviously because he forgot, but he managed to remember and did it in the second part he quoted from me. Scroll up and check.

He has been doing this for some time now, ever since he asked me if I posted under another name at a different board. I told him I have never posted under the name that he designated. He responded by calling me a liar, and ever since he has been quoting me as “Moe,” except, I guess, when from time to time he forgets to change my name in the quote citations.

He is clearly and repeatedly in violation of several written rules for this board, and in the absence of moderation of his actions he will continue to behave in this poisonous manner that is intended to thwart discussion by means of insult.

450

Here he is quoting me in his most recent post:

451

I saw that. He made at least a half effort.

You can choose to go along with his polite response and raise the level of discussion or you can choose to go along with his three stooges response and lower the level.

It’s up to you.

452

I had a feeling you might say that. But in my view the most plausible assumption here is that in the first quote he cited from me, he wasn’t trying to be “polite” by using my correct user name. He simply forgot to make the change, because after all, you have to remember to go in to the quote tag and alter the user name. He remembered to do so in the second quote he cited from. He has been calling me “Moe” ever since he called me a liar.

In any case, even if he “politely” let my user name stand in first quote citation, why would he then go back to rudely switching my name back to “Moe” in the second citation? Ask him, not me.

I have raised the level of discussion. My last post was a reasoned and thoughtful response to this business of “unborn babies.” I have consistently tried to raise the level of discourse with him, only to be repeatedly trolled, including the repeated alteration of my user name for derogatory and insulting purposes. To forestall this behavior requires, IMO, moderation. I will continue to make thoughtful posts, but I find myself under no obligation to be polite to someone who behaves impolitely and indeed abusively. If you wish to chastise someone for altering someone else’s user name, why not address him instead of me?

453

The tone of the response was polite except for :

and

Anyways, you’re choosing how to respond.

454

I really think this side discussion is of little consequence. This guy called me a liar and then repeatedly changed, in quote citations, my user name from “pood” to “Moe.” As I have demonstrated upthread, he also has repeatedly responded to my arguments by stacking the deck. This is not doing philosophy, and is a clear violation of at least two stated rules on posting style for the philosophy forum specifically.

Again, if you wish to take issue with someone changing someone else’s user name, why don’t you start with him?

455

I already noted to him that there is no Curly, Larry, Moe or Shemp here.

I would like to raise the level of the discussion here. I can’t do it alone.It takes an effort from everyone.

456

I have been making that effort since I started posting here. It doesn’t seem to be paying off, though. :wink:

More such effort in my new post forthcoming shortly.

457

Is it morally permissible to have an abortion? Is it morally permissible to stop someone who wants an abortion, from having one? Is it morally permissible to punch a baby? Is it morally permissible for a woman to copulate with a man for the purposes of insemination, and then, after doing so, kill the man, cook him, and eat him?

For that matter, what does “morally permissible” mean, anyway? Who or what is giving permission?

I think in these matters philosophy can help, but cannot give definitive answers. Those who seek definitive answers from philosophy are doomed to disappointment, unless, of course, they just make up something that sounds good or makes them feel good and then they go with that. But that’s not philosophy; that’s self-indulgence.

Science will never give you definitive answers, either. Science does not deal in proof positive, because it’s an inductive enterprise and induction can never yield absolute truths.

We can, though, use philosophy to clear some ontological and epistemic grounds. We can ask, is there an objective morality? And if so, is that objective morality necessarily true? Or is there a difference between objective truth and necessary truth?

A useful heuristic is possible worlds, due to modal logic. A “possible world” refers to a logically possible world. Such a world does not have to be physically possible. For example, there are logically possible worlds at which pigs fly and donkeys talk. Such is not our world, however. Such things are physically impossible in our world.

The test for a logically possible world is as follows: can you conceive it, without bringing about a logical contradiction?

Since I can conceive a world in which pigs fly without logical contradiction, then it is a possible world.

A necessary truth is one that is true at all possible worlds. That is, such a truth cannot ever fail to be false.

Here are some necessary truths: Triangles have three sides at all possible worlds. Bachelors are unmarried at all possible worlds. Two plus two equals four at all possible worlds.

However, there are some propositions that may be necessarily true but are not known to be such.

One such is Goldbach’s Conjecture. It is not known whether it is true or false. But if it IS true, it is necessarily true — true at all possible worlds. However, if it is false, then it is necessarily false — it cannot obtain at any possible world.

That is, the conjecture cannot ever be contingent — meaning that it is true in some possible worlds, but false in others.

Another is the existence of the omnimax God as postulated by certain Christians, a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (morally perfect and all-loving).

Hundreds of years ago St. Anselm sought to prove the existence of such a god by logic alone. It’s called the ontological proof. Very few people think he succeeded.

However, in the 20th century there arrived modal ontological proofs, one such by Kurt Godel.

To cut to the chase, Godel’s proof seems to show only that the omnimax God is like Goldbach’s Conjecture: Either God necessarily exists, or necessarily fails to exist. Knowledge of this, as of Goldbach’s Conjecture, is not a priori but a posteriori, a matter of evidence. The evidence is not yet in for either Goldbach’s Conjecture or God, and may never be.

Unlike necessary truths, a contingent truth is one that is true at some possible worlds, and untrue at others. Unlike necessary truths, contingent truths could have been otherwise.

If it rained today, it’s a contingent truth that it rained. The Kennedy assassination is a contingent truth. The existence of humans on earth is a contingent truth. And so on.

What has this do do with morality? Unfortunately perhaps, philosophy can’t be done in sound bites or even in short message board posts. The argument I am presenting is perforce long and therefore I shall be obliged to break it up into a series of posts. This is Post One. More posts later. I do this in the hope of stimulating a real philosophical discussion among those of you who might be interested in this subject.

458

Just for the record:

When pood posted this…

…he was actually responding substantively to the points I rasied above. And I responded in kind:

But then he shifted gears and made the discussion about me instead…

…so I shifted gears right back at him:

Again, as with karpel tunnel, he can focus in on a reasonably intelligent and civil exchange about the matter at hand. On this thread, morality. Or he can shape-shift into this outraged individual with a personal problem. That problem being me.

Now, none of this is a science. Sometimes I react subjectively to what he posts as pood, other times as Moe.

But back again to this: he regards my intelligence with contempt. He calls me a troll even on those philosophy forum threads [like this one] where I am doing my best to at least keep ILP in the general vicinity of what it once used to be back when I first joined.

How hard can it be for him to take his own advice about me and ignore me?

459

Post some philosophy if you have it.

460

Exactly.

And here I make the distinction between a God world and a No God world.

In a God world [as most construe God], we have both an omniscient and omnipotent entity. God knows all so there is no question of aborting the unborn, punching a baby or cooking and eating another human being and it not being known. And if God calls such behaviors Sins and has the power to punish those who commit them, there is no question of getting away with it.

But in a No God world, who or what is judging you on this side of the grave? It’s not for nothing some argue that “in the absence of God, all things are permitted”. Why? Because for any number of personal reasons rooted [in my view] in dasein, everything can be rationalized. And, given human history to date, not much hasn’t been.

Exactly.

But the moral and political objectivists among us insist that not only are there definitive answers in regard to conflicting goods, there must be. Why? Because they have already invented or discovered them. And some are philosophers who connect the dots between morality and reason. The deontologists among us. Some re God like Kant and others re No God like Ayn Rand.

I agree. I merely note at this point that even with science that functions in the either/or world, the either/or world itself is still a profoundly mysterious thing. This part:

“It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.” nasa

And then “the gap”. The enormous chasm between what any of us as “infinitesimally tiny and insignificant specks of existence in the context of all there is” can know about human morality and how human morality itself factors into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

As for this…

…okay, let’s take whatever epistemic conclusions one has arrived at here out into the world of actual human interactions in which conflicting goods produce, among other things, newspaper headlines. The ones here in American for example where some suggest it is only a matter of time now before the Supremes make abortion illegal. Or to the abortion clinic where others argue that the reason abortions should be illegal is because they are immoral. Re God or No God.

Okay, but my main aim still revolves more around taking conclusions one arrives at in regard to “real philosophical discussions” out into the world where some, in regard to abortion, argue it must revolve around the rights of the unborn and others insist that, on the contrary, it must revolve around the rights of the pregnant woman.

Then the part where I root this in dasein and, as such, I eventually come around to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.