Truth of Moral Propositions

[Vera_Ljuba]

I don’t think that intelligence can arises from chaos. What do you think? Studying particle physics in my opinion doesn’t help. How do you think that it is related to intelligence?

All beside the point. You said that the world is deterministic. I pointed out that it is not. That is all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

None of these observations, even if they were true, provide a clear reason for not fornicating. Some people may well seek instability, care not for romance and prefer short term excitement.

Riiiight.

Or they might want to avoid all of the potential risks identified in the risk and keep their knickers pulled up until their honeymoon.

 

[STT]

All beside the point. You said that the world is deterministic. I pointed out that it is not. That is all.

Material world is deterministic. Chaotic system are deterministic but any error in in solving the equation numerically or any small difference in initial conditions leads to different results which differ significantly. Quantum system is also deterministic since the Schrödinger equation is deterministic.

 

[Bradski]

In a logical argument, the truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of each premise submitted. Premises are the
conditionals. I think you find my argument incomplete not on its merits but its format.

So, to put the argument into the requested format:

It is morally evil to directly kill an innocent person

• IF… you believe that human needs exist and
• if you believe that a human need translates into a human right which creates in oneself, others and the community a reciprocal obligation to respect that right and
• if you believe that one needs to live in order to be human

A bit cumbersome but claims the same moral truth in the beginning instead of the end.

And as if to prove what I said in my last post, Randy has given us a list of things that might be detrimental IF we have pre-marital sex. For example:

Premarital sexy is wrong IF it leads to infidelity in later relationships.

So if you could prove that cheating on your wife was caused by having premaritall sex, then it would have been wrong because of that. In relation to that. Relative to that fact.

Actually I would imagine the greatest difficulty in proving any such link. And in any case, doing something which caused infidelity is not, in itself, necessarily a moral problem.

 

[o_mlly]

A premise isn’t conditional…

Who said it was? But to the point, conditionals can be premises. Your water may go down the loo backwards but not so the rules of logical arguments.

“Conditionals, however, can figure as parts of arguments–as premises, conclusions or both.”
home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/conditionals.html

… one needs to live in order to be human’ (a somewhat vacuus statement, but let’s move on).

Good try, but not so fast. An argument that begins with a self-evident truth is not vacuus but rather more likely to succeed.

You then have to make your argument on the assumption that we both agree with that statement. In other words, what you are saying is:

On the assumption that one needs to live in order to be human, is it morally acceptable to kill an innocent person IF…xyz.

You cannot use a premise, which needs to be agreed by all parties before you can continue, as the basis of your argument. You are actually asking me to accept your argument by accepting your premise and not offering an argument.

You need a conditional clause. The argument then becomes relative to that clause.

Well, that’s pretty muddled. You might want to take another run at that one because …

… Am I not being clear enough? I try to take care in what I am saying and the way that I say it. It may not always be right, but surely it is comprehensible…

If you can’t win the argument then argue the process.
If you can’t win the argument or the process then baffle them with …

 

[o_mlly]

And as if to prove what I said in my last post, Randy has given us a list of things that might be detrimental IF we have pre-marital sex. For example:

Premarital sexy is wrong IF it leads to infidelity in later relationships.

So if you could prove that cheating on your wife was caused by having premaritall sex, then it would have been wrong because of that. In relation to that. Relative to that fact.

Actually I would imagine the greatest difficulty in proving any such link. And in any case, doing something which caused infidelity is not, in itself, necessarily a moral problem.

Probably better to take your issue up with Randy.
I submitted an argument in answer to the thread topic on principles. Randy’s argument appears to take another aspect and that is from evil effects. Both work.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And as if to prove what I said in my last post, Randy has given us a list of things that might be detrimental IF we have pre-marital sex. For example:

Premarital sexy is wrong IF it leads to infidelity in later relationships.

So if you could prove that cheating on your wife was caused by having premaritall sex, then it would have been wrong because of that. In relation to that. Relative to that fact.

Actually I would imagine the greatest difficulty in proving any such link. And in any case, doing something which caused infidelity is not, in itself, necessarily a moral problem.

:nope:

Premarital sex may be considered bad BECAUSE it increases the likelihood of infidelity later.

The person who engages in premarital sex is ALREADY more likely to have problems in the future, and there’s no going back…it can’t be undone.

Will these things happen to EVERYONE who engages in premarital sex? Probably not.

Some people survive the game of Russian Roulette, too, but why take the chance?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Riiiight.

Or they might want to avoid all of the potential risks identified in the risk and keep their knickers pulled up until their honeymoon.

I think the point I am making is that assuming everybody objectively sees the same thing as “risky” does not appear true. Consequently “risk” may not easily be objectified in concrete actions. Identification of risk therefore becomes subjective and dependent on individual values.

If we value a long personal life for oneself and one’s community then the 10 Commandments make sense. (Even here there can be conflicts between what is good for me and what is good for my family).

If we value burning fast but brightly, not so much.

The “truth” of moral propositions seem to be as much in the eye of the beholder as they are in nature.

 

[Bradski]

Will these things happen to EVERYONE who engages in premarital sex? Probably not.

I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that *any *of those things are likely because of premarital sex.

But even if it were true and even if it happened to the majority, then premarital sex would not be a wise course of action IF xyz.

And in any case, saying it might be one of the causes in, for example, infidelity, does not make the statement a moral one. No more than saying that having a boring and unsatisfying marriage is a moral problem.

 

[levinas12]

That is right. But this is simply a biological “imperative”. Our social environment is much more complicated than “kill or be killed”. The “correct” and “incorrect” social behavior is a learned phenomenon, which we learn in our formative years. I am not sure what your point is. Would you enlighten me?

I was thinking of Thomas Hobbes who tried to bridge the gap between the biological and the social. Using the starting premise of the instinct for self-preservation, he built an elaborate structure known as the Leviathan.

Hobbes argued that there is no fundamental difference between the biological imperative and the moral imperative.

If there is no difference, then “correct” and “incorrect” can only be assessed in terms of the survival of the species.

But even here in this restricted Hobbesian perspective there remains a “truth dimension” to moral statements… i.e., we can ask whether a behavior “truly” promotes survival.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was thinking of Thomas Hobbes who tried to bridge the gap between the biological and the social. Using the starting premise of the instinct for self-preservation, he built an elaborate structure known as the Leviathan.

Hobbes argued that there is no fundamental difference between the biological imperative and the moral imperative.

If there is no difference, then “correct” and “incorrect” can only be assessed in terms of the survival of the species.

But even here in this restricted Hobbesian perspective there remains a “truth dimension” to moral statements… i.e., we can ask whether a behavior “truly” promotes survival.

What is that difference then?
It seems to me that all morality flows from a personal desire to realise a commonly held, if implicit, goal - survival and happiness of the community.

Yet not all members actually have that goal all the time - especially when the good of the individual is at odds with that of their local community.

 

[levinas12]

What is that difference then?
It seems to me that all morality flows from a personal desire to realise a commonly held, if implicit, goal - survival and happiness of the community.

Yet not all members actually have that goal all the time - especially when the good of the individual is at odds with that of their local community.

Contrary to Hobbes, some philosophers argue that there is something better than simple biological survival - i.e., the virtuous life that exemplifies prudence, justice, courage and temperance.

This “noble” existence is not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn’t mean that virtue is useless. It has a social “benefit”.

 

[levinas12]

I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that *any *of those things are likely because of premarital sex.

But even if it were true and even if it happened to the majority, then premarital sex would not be a wise course of action IF xyz.

And in any case, saying it might be one of the causes in, for example, infidelity, does not make the statement a moral one. No more than saying that having a boring and unsatisfying marriage is a moral problem.

What is your idea of the good life?

 

[Bradski]

What is your idea of the good life?

Apart from the love of my family…freedom.

Freedom from hunger, freedom of choice, freedom from ill health, freedom of speech, freedom from oppression, freedom of and from religion, freedom of movement, freedom from poverty, freedom…well, you get the idea.

Oh, and a cold beer on a hot day.

 

[STT]

Apart from the love of my family…freedom.

Freedom from hunger, freedom of choice, freedom from ill health, freedom of speech, freedom from oppression, freedom of and from religion, freedom of movement, freedom from poverty, freedom…well, you get the idea.

Oh, and a cold beer on a hot day.

You need maturity for freedom. Don’t you?

 

[Bradski]

You need maturity for freedom. Don’t you?

I don’t think so. Perhaps to properly appreciate it.

 

[STT]

I don’t think so. Perhaps to properly appreciate it.

So your kid has freedom to engage in sexual activity at age 12 or even lower?

 

[Bradski]

So your kid has freedom to engage in sexual activity at age 12 or even lower?

No.

And I fail to see the connection between what I consider to be the definition of a good life and under age sex. If you want an argument rather than a discussion, take it elsewhere.

 

[STT]

No.

But you disagree that maturity is needed for freedom. Why your kid shouldn’t be free to have sex under 18 then? Because they are not mature enough. Or you have another explanation?

And I fail to see the connection between what I consider to be the definition of a good life and under age sex.

Well, to be honest I was strongly attracted to women when I was 5 or so. I used to have sexual fantasy about having sex with women when I was older, around 8 or so.
I just don’t find it fair or good that why I was not allowed to touch, be touched and look at women when I was very young. I of course cannot have an intercourse at that age but I don’t know an argument or scientific evidence that why this should be bad.

If you want an argument rather than a discussion, take it elsewhere.

I am open to both.

 

[Bradski]

I of course cannot have an intercourse at that age (8) but I don’t know an argument or scientific evidence that why this should be bad.

It seems that English is not your first language, so I’ll be generous and suggest that maybe didn’t come out as you might have intended. At least, I hope that that is the explanation.