Logic: “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.”
Now, with respect to the morality of capital punishment [as opposed to the fact of it], how far from being logical about it is being rational about it?
With regard to a “technical” understanding of logic [the rules of language] what are the limitations imposed on philosophers in discussing the morality of the death penalty? In regard to particular instances of capital punishment in particular contexts?
Okay, but my “thing” here at ILP is then to ask this: “what is logic useful for as it relates to the things that we say and do in the course of living our lives from day to day?”
Again:
“magine taking this ‘general description’ assessment to folks outside the Huntsville Unit when a particularly newsworthy execution is about to take place. Imagine their reaction to it. One of them looks at you and says, ‘so that’s what serious philosophy is’”
And today we have the Mueller Report. Were its conclusions “logical”, “rational”…in sync with what was in fact objectively true?
Now, you can make the distinction between how serious philosophers might react to it and how [inevitably] the talking heads in the media will, but one way or the other, value judgments such is this will precipitate behaviors and these behaviors will precipitate very real consequences one way or the other.
So, is your point basically that all of this has little or nothing to do with being “logical”?
See how far that takes you in the discussions here.
Yes, political interactions precipitate political morality. And political science is clearly not the same thing as the sort of science practised by physicists, or chemists, or geologists or meteorologists.
But that’s my point. And philosophers – with the tools at their disposal – are able to react to the point I make. Whether in relationship to logic, to rational thought or to things that either can or cannot be known.
But: Out in world of actual human interactions people draw lines here in very different places.
I’ve never argued that “I” is an existential contraption in all respects. I’ve merely suggested that in regard to value judgments “I” is often derived more from the life that we have lived than from anything that philosophers or ethicists are able to establish.
Then I suggest that in discussing something like this as philosophers we establish a particular context involving particular choices that particular individuals make.
Such as in regards to capital punishment or the Mueller report.
With respect to capital punishment what on earth is this supposed to mean?
I have never argued that morality is not possible without God, only that mere mortals will derive particular “rules of behavior” from particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts that evolve over time in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
And that the objectivists among us will react to this [and your top ten list] by hammering it down to size. A reality said to be in sync with their very own “one of us” set of assumptions.
Follow the news from day to day. What are the biggest headlines derived from if not precisely the manner in which individuals will answer the question, “how ought one to live”?
Being a “serious philosopher” doesn’t change that.