What the extremist-fundamentalists ignore

[billydee4]

Paul is apparently unaware of the rich irony in his claim above.

Paul failed utterly to establish any sort of philosophical basis for his "universal" and "objective" system of morality (dogma).  He had no basis in fact (unable to cross the is/ought divide), thus his adherence evidently stems entirely from the wish to believe.

And now he's trying to destroy the historic philosophical foundation of the United States of America with one that is philosophically incoherent (at least to hear anyone at KOTW tell it).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Check this out: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08...in_congress.php

[Bryan]

Check this out:  http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08...in_congress.php

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that the Constitution provides the historical philosophical foundation for the United States of America, or are you just trying to change the subject?

[Guest Melanie]

Paul is apparently unaware of the rich irony in his claim above.

Paul failed utterly to establish any sort of philosophical basis for his "universal" and "objective" system of morality (dogma).  He had no basis in fact (unable to cross the is/ought divide), thus his adherence evidently stems entirely from the wish to believe.

And now he's trying to destroy the historic philosophical foundation of the United States of America with one that is philosophically incoherent (at least to hear anyone at KOTW tell it).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you are perhaps the stubbornnest person I've ever encountered, and that's not a compliment. Pretty much everyone who has taken you on has thoroughly demolished your arguments. Gavin did it, Paul did it, Dave did it, Strife did it, I've done it. It's not hard, it just takes time. Not because you're making any particularly good arguments, because you're not. You're not tying any skillful or intricate knots, but you're tying so many little knots that unraveling them is like trying to unravel a long, thick head of hair that hasn't been combed or brushed in months. Gavin did the best job of it with a single post, but that's because he took the time. Any of us could do the same thing, it just isn't worth the time.

You've arbitrarily chosen one sentence from the Declaration of Independence as the foundation for your philosophy. You don't explain why it's the foundation, you just keep repeating it. And you're not doing it on any philosophical grounds, you're just doing it to justify your theology, and then you have the colossal gall to accuse others of ends-based thinking. At least their ends are related to things that matter to us all. The fact that the existence of a creator isn't written into our laws, that our Constitution is a completely secular document not just according to me, but according to the US Supreme Court, doesn't matter to you. The facts never do. So while you keep insisting that you're offering a superbly defined philosophy, you're not. You just cherry picked the one sentence you liked from one of our founding documents and arbitrarily declared it to be the core of all things. It's not.

By contrast, Paul's philosophy, as I understand it, is well-defined, firmly grounded in reality and eminently sensible. He makes the point that morals, ethics, society, religion, etc., are all about values, and that values require valuers. You can make an argument that chimpanzees and other non-human species also have values, and I don't think Paul would disagree, but we have enough on our plate trying to fashion moral, ethical, etc., systems that work for human beings. The grounding in Paul's philosophy, as I understand it, is our human experience of life. That is what we value for ourselves, and because we observe that others also value their lives, we have an objective foundation (in the sense that it is univerally shared) for such systems. That is the philosophical basis for the Golden Rule, and you can't credibly claim to be a Christian if you don't accept it.

And yet you don't accept it, Bryan. You accept the statement from the Declaration of Independence not for the sake of the people for whose benefit it was written, but solely to justify your theology. In other words, morality is about what you and you alone believe. And you expect the rest of us to call that a philosophy, much less take it seriously. I think not.

I'm t'ru wit' dis one.

[Guest Melanie]

QUOTE(Melanie @ Aug 3 2007, 11:20 AM)

"Your daughter is a murderous psychopath --- not that there's anything wrong with that."

The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them. Yeah, these are bad things on their face.

Bryan - what a knucklehead!

Poor Melanie doesn't understand the fallacy of begging the question.

She joins the battle unarmed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan doesn't understand that the foundation of values is experience, not logic. The foundation is living itself. There's no mathematical proof for why life has meaning. We experience meaning, and if someone doesn't see meaning in life, then he doesn't see it. But even that won't prevent him from treating something in his life as being important. People don't sit around and prove these things. They live them, and either they understand it or they don't.

Bryan doesn't get that. The person who understands that life's meaning is not the subject of a proof is not the one who is unarmed to discuss these matters. Bryan, whose philosophy is so divorced from reality that he has to resort to arguments about sentient and morally perfect rocks, is the one who is unarmed.

[Guest Melanie]

Bryan wrote:

In the broad context in which I quoted those definitions, the whole lot. But if I had to chose just those definitions which describe why I believe that Serial killing is immoral, then I would probably go for,

- that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency

and

-  having undesirable or negative qualities

and

- capable of harming

Of course having defective brakes constitutes a fault! Except perhaps in your own little fantasy world. Just try arguing something as ridiculous as that with the vehicle safety inspector the next time your car is in the DMV workshop for it's compulsory annual safety inspection, and see how sympathetic he's likely to be towards such an absurd argument. I dare you.

So now you want me to argue the moral philosophy behind faulty vehicular braking systems?

Spare me the agony you twit!

People generally object to getting unnecessarily run over, or having their property smashed. That's a good enough reason for me to assume that needlessly endangering other people is wrong. 'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish to be done unto you', is all I should really need to say about the subject.

Oh, that's right, I forgot that you apparently reject the inherent utility of the golden rule.

I wrote:

You responded:

I didn't use the word 'universal' in the first place, and in fact I probably wouldn't have used it at all in this context. If you carefully read my original post you'll find that I did in fact use the word inherent, which you seem to have overlooked. Here's the line in question.

"Part of what makes us successful as a species is an inherent desire to get along with our neighbours."

But I did understand what those who used the word 'universal', meant by it. If you didn’t, then that's your problem, not mine. You seem to enjoy playing word games just for the sake of it, don't you?

You are being intentionally obtuse as usual. It's very annoying. You would be classified as a boorish troll on just about any other message board besides this one.

Allow me to give you a piece of unsolicited advice Bryan. There are some things more important than mere words. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words. You seem to have lost sight of that fact, somewhere in amongst your maze of pedantic, semantic philosophical quibblings.

If I may be so unholy as to quote a line from the gospels: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matt.23:23-24).

You are a ‘Pharisee’ of the highest order Bryan. Or would it be more accurate to describe you as a ‘Scribe’?

I do believe in evil, but not in some sort of mystical superstitious way that you apparently do. I don't view evil as some sort of malignant fog floating around in the cosmos. The dictionary definition suits me just fine.

-Evil

noun:  morally objectionable behaviour

noun:  the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice (Example: "Attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")

noun:  that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune (Example: "The evil that men do lives after them")

adjective:  tending to cause great harm

adjective:  morally bad or wrong (Example: "Evil purposes")

adjective:  having the nature of vice

adjective:  having or exerting a malignant influence

-Malevolent

adjective:  wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense ill will or hatred (Example: "A gossipy malevolent old woman")

adjective:  having or exerting a malignant influence

Then why have the argument at all? If it’s so obvious to you that that people can and do behave morally without superstitious beliefs, then why attempt to dispute the concept of the inherent human desire for ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, along with empathy? I believe that are lying Bryan (whether implicitly or explicitly), and I’m not buying it. In fact, I don’t believe that you could lie straight in bed!

If you have so much concern for human welfare, then protest to Yahweh in the strongest possible terms, about the hideous fate that awaits billions of people, according to your world view, whether they have ever had the ‘gospel’ presented to them or not.

I wrote:

"The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?"

Bryan responded:

"That's like my saying that you enthusiastically support the doctrine of "survival of the fittest." In other words, another cheap appeal to outrage."

Evolution through natural selection is a demonstrated fact, which is largely beyond human control. We as humans do not in fact practice a ‘survival of the fittest’ policy amongst ourselves, as should be obvious by the existence of hospitals, social welfare systems and charities, along with many other institutions set up for the express purpose of assisting the weak and infirm. Furthermore, it is light years removed from the concept of an intelligent, intentional being, wilfully inflicting unending pain and suffering on other creatures for no good reason, and without any apparent remedial or redemptive purpose.

Some things deserve our outrage Bryan. For example, the 9/11 murders at the world trade centre, the Holocaust of the Jews during the Nazi regime, the genocide in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the massacre of millions by Pohl Pot, and the doctrine of Hellfire, just to name a few. If we as human beings lose our ability to feel outrage in the face of horrific suffering and injustices such as these, then our societies won’t be worth living in. I for one do not feel ashamed for feeling outrage at these kinds of behaviours. I’m sorry to learn that you do not agree with me.   

Somewhere along the line, your religious beliefs seem to have completely erased any vestiges of common sense and human decency. That’s a very sad thing in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well done, Dave. Spot on throughout.

On the negative side, this is worth emphasis from your post:

"I wrote:

"The doctrine of Hell is pure evil, for evil’s sake. It does not represent justice, it is simply malicious vengeance. You enthusiastically support this doctrine, therefore what am I to make of your personality?"

Bryan responded:

"That's like my saying that you enthusiastically support the doctrine of "survival of the fittest." In other words, another cheap appeal to outrage.""

You're right. Bryan's argument is utterly ridiculous. He seems to be implying that one can "support" natural history. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that natural selection is just. It's how things happened. By contrast, hell is described in the theologies that believe in that concept as the product of choice of a just and omnipotent god. That would imply that God is a twisted, sick, vicious %#*. The observation about natural selection doesn't imply that anyone made it that way by conscious choice. The argument for hell does. That's just one of the reasons why Bryan's attempt to compare the two is ridiculous.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you are perhaps the stubbornnest person I've ever encountered, and that's not a compliment. Pretty much everyone who has taken you on has thoroughly demolished your arguments. Gavin did it, Paul did it, Dave did it, Strife did it, I've done it. It's not hard, it just takes time.

What it takes, poor Melanie, is the type of detachment from reality you just exhibited.

You're forced to make the claim without any legitimate example.

Not because you're making any particularly good arguments, because you're not. You're not tying any skillful or intricate knots, but you're tying so many little knots that unraveling them is like trying to unravel a long, thick head of hair that hasn't been combed or brushed in months. Gavin did the best job of it with a single post, but that's because he took the time. Any of us could do the same thing, it just isn't worth the time.

Gavin failed, and he's not likely to come back because he, unlike you, has some inkling of the difficulty he would have in pressing his claims.

You've arbitrarily chosen one sentence from the Declaration of Independence as the foundation for your philosophy.

That's an amazingly stupid thing to claim, even for you.

The DoI is not my philosophy. It sets forth the worldview of the framers of the government of the United States, and that is not an arbitrary determination.

You don't explain why it's the foundation, you just keep repeating it.

I don't need to explain why it's the foundation for my philosophy, because it isn't. It is, on the other hand, the basis for rights according to the framers. Try reading it and you'll see.

And you're not doing it on any philosophical grounds, you're just doing it to justify your theology, and then you have the colossal gall to accuse others of ends-based thinking.

Quite right, except that you provided yet another example of ends-based thinking with your suggestion that I don't base my philosophy on philosophical grounds.

At least their ends are related to things that matter to us all. The fact that the existence of a creator isn't written into our laws, that our Constitution is a completely secular document not just according to me, but according to the US Supreme Court, doesn't matter to you.

Even the broken clock is right twice a day, and that moment just came for you.

You're correct that I don't place much credence in the findings of the Supreme Court except when they interpret the Constitution as it is rather than as the wish it to be. And why is that? Because the next Supreme Court could just reverse whatever the present Supreme Court says. That's where the liberal judicial philosophy leads. It's absurd.

The facts never do. So while you keep insisting that you're offering a superbly defined philosophy, you're not.

I haven't claimed to offer a "superbly defined philosophy" and you know it.

I claim that a theistic (philosophical) framework for morality may be constructed that avoids the myriad problems I've pointed out with the system you and Paul blindly laud, and I can back it up.

Why is it that people on your side appear to feel compelled to lie about what I argue, Melanie?

You just cherry picked the one sentence you liked from one of our founding documents and arbitrarily declared it to be the core of all things. It's not.

It's not the core of all things, but it does reflect the opinion of the framers with respect to the foundation for rights (and thus morality). And you don't have any argument against that proposition, since it's as plain as day in the text of the DoI.

By contrast, Paul's philosophy, as I understand it, is well-defined, firmly grounded in reality and eminently sensible.

Is Paul your dad, or your husband, perchance?

He makes the point that morals, ethics, society, religion, etc., are all about values, and that values require valuers.

Wow. That's amazing.

He seems to have trouble finding a way to place the values of one "valuer" over those of another where two disagree, though, doesn't he?

You can make an argument that chimpanzees and other non-human species also have values, and I don't think Paul would disagree, but we have enough on our plate trying to fashion moral, ethical, etc., systems that work for human beings. The grounding in Paul's philosophy, as I understand it, is our human experience of life. That is what we value for ourselves, and because we observe that others also value their lives, we have an objective foundation (in the sense that it is univerally shared) for such systems. That is the philosophical basis for the Golden Rule, and you can't credibly claim to be a Christian if you don't accept it.

Well, you just topped your earlier stupid statement with one that is even dumber.

There is no requirement that a Christian accept the humanist's (pathetic) philosophical foundation for the Golden rule. None whatsoever. You're just using weasel-words to try to make the same claim that others have made--that if I don't accept your (pathetic) foundation for the Golden Rule then I don't accept the Golden Rule at all.

That's ridiculous, but that type of thinking is on par for the geniuses on your side of the argument.

And yet you don't accept it, Bryan. You accept the statement from the Declaration of Independence not for the sake of the people for whose benefit it was written, but solely to justify your theology.

If we were to judge you by your arguments, Melanie, we'd have to say that you're an idiot.

I don't use the DoI to justify my theology. Never have, never will. The DoI just happens to agree with the theistic framework for morality because (surprise!) it was a theistic framework for morality.

Melanie finally offers up a statement that is true, albeit via irony:

I think not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You people should beg Gavin to come back. Send him money. Whatever he asks.

At least he could hold the epee without dropping it on the floor as his first order of business.

[billydee4]

Are you suggesting that the Constitution provides the historical philosophical foundation for the United States of America, or are you just trying to change the subject?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am talking about the historicalphilosophical foundation of the Constitution. At the time it was being ratified there were Christians that said it was un-godly. Now there are Christians who say it is a godly document founded on the Ten Commandments.

[Bryan]

Bryan doesn't understand that the foundation of values is experience, not logic.

And as Melanie denies that logic provides the foundation, it follows that she has no argument in principle to support her claim. It is up to you to experience values her way. If you don't then reconciliation based on reason is impossible in principle (the foundation is experience, not logic).

The foundation is living itself.

Chairman Mao was alive, wasn't he? Anything wrong with the foundation of the morality he followed leading to the death of millions? Or do you have no recourse to supporting your view with logic?

There's no mathematical proof for why life has meaning. We experience meaning, and if someone doesn't see meaning in life, then he doesn't see it.

On that basis you could accept the conclusions of the ID movement, couldn't you?

You spout perfect nonsense, Melanie.

But even that won't prevent him from treating something in his life as being important. People don't sit around and prove these things. They live them, and either they understand it or they don't.

What's to understand if logic has nothing to do with it? Shouldn't I expect morality to be perfectly experiential and subjective? Do you have any logical basis for denying Nietzsche's vision of morality? Or is his vision of morality beyond logical criticism in principle?

Bryan doesn't get that. The person who understands that life's meaning is not the subject of a proof is not the one who is unarmed to discuss these matters.

Oh, joy! Another straw man.

Has Melanie considered that philosophical justification doesn't necessarily consist of a hard proof?

Bryan, whose philosophy is so divorced from reality that he has to resort to arguments about sentient and morally perfect rocks, is the one who is unarmed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Failing to deal with the picture-perfect reductio ad absurdum fashioned with the help of sentient rocks broached for the sake of argument, Melanie completes her pratfall with another straw man melded with the fallacious appeal to ridicule.

If it weren't for folks like Paul, Dingbat, and Strife, you'd be especially pathetic, Melanie.

And, yes, you can console yourself with the notion that you're named in the company of respectable thinkers if you wish--but you won't get any support from the facts on the record.

[Guest Guest]

What it takes, poor Melanie, is the type of detachment from reality you just exhibited.

You're forced to make the claim without any legitimate example.

Gavin failed, and he's not likely to come back because he, unlike you, has some inkling of the difficulty he would have in pressing his claims.

That's an amazingly stupid thing to claim, even for you.

The DoI is not my philosophy.  It sets forth the worldview of the framers of the government of the United States, and that is not an arbitrary determination.

I don't need to explain why it's the foundation for my philosophy, because it isn't.  It is, on the other hand, the basis for rights according to the framers.  Try reading it and you'll see.

Quite right, except that you provided yet another example of ends-based thinking with your suggestion that I don't base my philosophy on philosophical grounds.

Even the broken clock is right twice a day, and that moment just came for you.

You're correct that I don't place much credence in the findings of the Supreme Court except when they interpret the Constitution as it is rather than as the wish it to be.  And why is that?  Because the next Supreme Court could just reverse whatever the present Supreme Court says.  That's where the liberal judicial philosophy leads.  It's absurd.

I haven't claimed to offer a "superbly defined philosophy" and you know it.

I claim that a theistic (philosophical) framework for morality may be constructed that avoids the myriad problems I've pointed out with the system you and Paul blindly laud, and I can back it up.

Why is it that people on your side appear to feel compelled to lie about what I argue, Melanie?

It's not the core of all things, but it does reflect the opinion of the framers with respect to the foundation for rights (and thus morality).  And you don't have any argument against that proposition, since it's as plain as day in the text of the DoI.

Is Paul your dad, or your husband, perchance?

Wow.  That's amazing.

He seems to have trouble finding a way to place the values of one "valuer" over those of another where two disagree, though, doesn't he?

You can make an argument that chimpanzees and other non-human species also have values, and I don't think Paul would disagree, but we have enough on our plate trying to fashion moral, ethical, etc., systems that work for human beings. The grounding in Paul's philosophy, as I understand it, is our human experience of life. That is what we value for ourselves, and because we observe that others also value their lives, we have an objective foundation (in the sense that it is univerally shared) for such systems. That is the philosophical basis for the Golden Rule, and you can't credibly claim to be a Christian if you don't accept it.

Well, you just topped your earlier stupid statement with one that is even dumber.

There is no requirement that a Christian accept the humanist's (pathetic) philosophical foundation for the Golden rule.  None whatsoever.  You're just using weasel-words to try to make the same claim that others have made--that if I don't accept your (pathetic) foundation for the Golden Rule then I don't accept the Golden Rule at all.

That's ridiculous, but that type of thinking is on par for the geniuses on your side of the argument.

And yet you don't accept it, Bryan. You accept the statement from the Declaration of Independence not for the sake of the people for whose benefit it was written, but solely to justify your theology.

If we were to judge you by your arguments, Melanie, we'd have to say that you're an idiot.

I don't use the DoI to justify my theology.  Never have, never will.  The DoI just happens to agree with the theistic framework for morality because (surprise!) it was a theistic framework for morality.

Melanie finally offers up a statement that is true, albeit via irony:

I think not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You people should beg Gavin to come back.  Send him money.  Whatever he asks.

At least he could hold the epee without dropping it on the floor as his first order of business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe, but you're still a monumental ****.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[WilliamK]

The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them. Yeah, these are bad things on their face.

Bryan - what a knucklehead!

Poor Melanie doesn't understand the fallacy of begging the question.

She joins the battle unarmed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One cannot have "begged the question" without having made an argument. Which part of "The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them." is the premise? Which part is the conclusion? Give up? It is merely an assertion, Bryan. Not an argument at all.

It is you, Bryan, who is fighting this battle unarmed. Not only do you not understand fallacies nearly as well as you pretend, but you fail even to distinguish what is or is not an argument.

[WilliamK]

Melanie finally offers up a statement that is true, albeit via irony:

I think not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read that again with the following question in mind, and be honest with yourself. Was that comment intelligent, witty, mature, truthful, considerate, or in any way constructive?

How about these?

If it weren't for folks like Paul, Dingbat, and Strife, you'd be especially pathetic, Melanie.

If we were to judge you by your arguments, Melanie, we'd have to say that you're an idiot.

So, DingoDave (DumboDave would be more apt) ....

Is it work writing to appear that dense, DDave?

And if you don't believe it, Paul will stamp his little foot until you do.

You should send Paul with the away team. See if putting him in the scenario awakens his latent ability to reason.

Strife, about as often as not, puts something outlandishly stupid in his posts.

Uh, DingbatDave, your quotation supports what I said.

You forgot to say how much you respect Dingbat's wonderful arguments. Are you trying to crush his confidence, or what?

Leigh's utter inability to express a cogent argument never ceases to horrify and amaze me.

Paul is a philosophical and logical maladroit pretending to be something else.

AKA sleazy lawyer technique #11

And what would a Paul LaClair post be without a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy?

And one more for the road:

Is it that Paul doesn't see how he is being inconsistent, or is it just that resorting to personal attacks comes naturally to him?

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

Yes, I do reject the "inherent" utility of the Golden Rule, since the Golden Rule itself presupposes a moral framework outside of itself.

A masochist doing unto others as he would have them do unto him would doubtless result in DingoDave's objection, since people generally object to others doing them violence.

You obviously have some reading comprehension problems Bryan.

Either that, or you’re in such a hurry to pump out your apologetic, philosophical hackwork, that you didn’t stop to consider what I actually wrote.

I didn’t write ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. I wrote ‘'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish to be done unto you', which in my opinion is a far better way of expressing the golden rule than the Biblical version.

The golden rule when all is said and done is about people being considerate their neighbours for everybody's long-term benefit.

Can I suggest that all we need in order to explain why it is wrong to rob or murder someone, is something called ‘The Principle of Life Ownership’.

‘The Principle of Life Ownership’ simply states that, “the person living the life owns the life”. It states that we ought not to take or destroy life that belongs to another person - in whole or in part – unless we have the owner’s consent. Most people (provided they’re not mentally ill) value their lives, and this is what gives the principle of life ownership its tremendous power.

This one simple principle can guide our conduct through a wide range of human interactions. It helps explain why murder is wrong, why theft is wrong, why lying is mostly wrong, and even why tardiness is wrong. When someone takes away from another person some of the quantity or quality of their life without their consent, then they are taking something that does not belong to them.

Most of us value our lives and our stuff. That is all we need to establish why some actions are just plain wrong.

For more information about this and other reality based ethical principles, you could visit Mike Earl’s website ‘Reason Works’, at http://www.reasonworks.com/

I highly recommend his work.

[Bryan]

You say that as though it's a bad thing (fallaciously begs the question, doesn't it?)!

"Your daughter is a murderous psychopath --- not that there's anything wrong with that."

The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them. Yeah, these are bad things on their face.

Bryan - what a knucklehead!

Poor Melanie doesn't understand the fallacy of begging the question.

She joins the battle unarmed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One cannot have "begged the question" without having made an argument. Which part of "The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them." is the premise? Which part is the conclusion? Give up?

No, I don't give up. It's very easy, especially considering Melanie's previous writings on the subject along with her apparent acceptance of Dingbat's similarly flawed approach.

P1 There is a shared perception of the good

P2 A shared perception of the good allows value judgments

Therefore, these value judgements are correct value judgments (implicit from her earlier argumentation, though in this case she used "on their face."

Her argument hints very strongly at an alternate construction that would include a fallacious appeal to the people.

The question is begged because the "perception of the good" (my phrasing) is assumed to be accurate.

The question, WilliamK, is why you don't see the obvious.

It is merely an assertion, Bryan. Not an argument at all.

Let's say you were correct about this one posting of Melanie's not being an argument (you're completely wrong, but we'll overlook that fact for the sake of argument). Would that erase her earlier arguments on the same subject? Am I to assume that she has abandoned her earlier arguments when she has, if anything, appeared to reassert the same argument in brief?

Does it somehow erase her signing on with Dingbat via her criticism of my reply to Dingbat?

The argument that our common humanity is a sound foundation for ethics, etc., is that we all value the same basic things, such as health and happiness. Once we recognize that in each other, we have a basis for doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. There are people who criticize that idea, but I happen to think it's pretty good, far better than imagining that there is a creator who caused the whole thing to be this way.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=11738&st=60#

My welfare doesn't have to be intrinsically good for you, or vice versa. We cross the is/ought divide by choosing to value the experiences and the welfare of others. You can't have it both ways, Bryan. You're right that getting beyond "is" requires at least one value judgment. We're saying that our humanity provides a framework and a grounding for doing that. You can't take it back to "is/ought" once we put in our value judgment.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=11738&st=80#

It is you, Bryan, who is fighting this battle unarmed. Not only do you not understand fallacies nearly as well as you pretend, but you fail even to distinguish what is or is not an argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

As with Melanie's argument for a firm basis for morality, the insistence of many stupid people that their thinking is correct does not improve the likelihood that they are, in fact, correct.

[Bryan]

Read that again with the following question in mind, and be honest with yourself. Was that comment intelligent, witty, mature, truthful, considerate, or in any way constructive?

That's up to Melanie. Let's see if she starts thinking.

[Bryan]

I am talking about the historicalphilosophical foundation of the Constitution.  At the time it was being ratified there were Christians that said it was un-godly.  Now there are Christians who say it is a godly document founded on the Ten Commandments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would have been shorter for you to just admit you were changing the subject.

It's pretty much always possible to find a division of opinion about anything.

You're just flapping your gums.

[Guest Guest]

"Your daughter is a murderous psychopath --- not that there's anything wrong with that."

The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them. Yeah, these are bad things on their face.

Bryan - what a knucklehead!

Poor Melanie doesn't understand the fallacy of begging the question.

She joins the battle unarmed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One cannot have "begged the question" without having made an argument. Which part of "The point of a shared conception of the good is that it allows to make implicit value judgments without having to engage in a long debate about them." is the premise? Which part is the conclusion? Give up?

No, I don't give up. It's very easy, especially considering Melanie's previous writings on the subject along with her apparent acceptance of Dingbat's similarly flawed approach.

P1 There is a shared perception of the good

P2 A shared perception of the good allows value judgments

Therefore, these value judgements are correct value judgments (implicit from her earlier argumentation, though in this case she used "on their face."

Her argument hints very strongly at an alternate construction that would include a fallacious appeal to the people.

The question is begged because the "perception of the good" (my phrasing) is assumed to be accurate.

The question, WilliamK, is why you don't see the obvious.

Let's say you were correct about this one posting of Melanie's not being an argument (you're completely wrong, but we'll overlook that fact for the sake of argument). Would that erase her earlier arguments on the same subject? Am I to assume that she has abandoned her earlier arguments when she has, if anything, appeared to reassert the same argument in brief?

Does it somehow erase her signing on with Dingbat via her criticism of my reply to Dingbat?

The argument that our common humanity is a sound foundation for ethics, etc., is that we all value the same basic things, such as health and happiness. Once we recognize that in each other, we have a basis for doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. There are people who criticize that idea, but I happen to think it's pretty good, far better than imagining that there is a creator who caused the whole thing to be this way.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=11738&st=60#

My welfare doesn't have to be intrinsically good for you, or vice versa. We cross the is/ought divide by choosing to value the experiences and the welfare of others. You can't have it both ways, Bryan. You're right that getting beyond "is" requires at least one value judgment. We're saying that our humanity provides a framework and a grounding for doing that. You can't take it back to "is/ought" once we put in our value judgment.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=11738&st=80#

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

As with Melanie's argument for a firm basis for morality, the insistence of many stupid people that their thinking is correct does not improve the likelihood that they are, in fact, correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said:

"the insistence of many stupid people that their thinking is correct does not improve the likelihood that they are, in fact, correct."

Dude, that sounds like every post you've ever made. Well done. Well done indeed.

[Guest Tom]

No, I don't give up.  It's very easy, especially considering Melanie's previous writings on the subject along with her apparent acceptance of Dingbat's similarly flawed approach.

P1  There is a shared perception of the good

P2  A shared perception of the good allows value judgments

Therefore, these value judgements are correct value judgments (implicit from her earlier argumentation, though in this case she used "on their face."

Her argument hints very strongly at an alternate construction that would include a fallacious appeal to the people.

The question is begged because the "perception of the good" (my phrasing) is assumed to be accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dingo Dave is right and Bryan is being ridiculous.

Logic can't tell anyone what is good. That comes from living. When we see a child smile or see a beautiful, we don't go through an elaborate logical proof to say "that's good." It's good to our experience, and that is what is meant by it. So of course the idea of what is good is a function of popular belief. It's based on common experience. Bryan never addresses this point. He can't.

Dave's approach is flawed only in the sense that it doesn't automatically resolve every human conflict, but what is more flawed is to assume that a perfect moral system is obtainable. If a perfect moral system was obtainable, these issues wouldn't be as difficult as they are.

Meanwhile, Bryan completely overlooks the far deeper flaws in his belief system. He would have us accept his conception of God without any foundation whatsoever. Gavin hit the nail squarely on the head comparing Bryan to the Terrible Trivium from "The Phantom Tollbooth."

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

You obviously have some reading comprehension problems Bryan.

Either that, or you’re in such a hurry to pump out your apologetic, philosophical hackwork, that you didn’t stop to consider what I actually wrote.

I didn’t write ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. I wrote ‘'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish to be done unto you', which in my opinion is a far better way of expressing the golden rule than the Biblical version.

The version you're talking about is commonly known as the Silver Rule.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/ph...5/55.3huang.pdf

So you can't really get out of this one. You invoked the Golden Rule regardless of how you wish to backpedal out of it.

The golden rule when all is said and done is about people being considerate their neighbours for everybody's long-term benefit.

Yep, that's the Golden Rule. The Silver Rule, when all is said and done, is about refraining from harm--not actively seeking to benefit your neighbor.

Hopefully you'll be less likely to confuse the two from here on out.

Can I suggest that all we need in order to explain why it is wrong to rob or murder someone, is something called ‘The Principle of Life Ownership’.

Figured somebody will adopt a Randian (Objectivist) view at some point. Suggest away, o master of incompetence!

‘The Principle of Life Ownership’ simply states that, “the person living the life owns the life”. It states that we ought not to take or destroy life that belongs to another person - in whole or in part – unless we have the owner’s consent. Most people (provided they’re not mentally ill) value their lives, and this is what gives the principle of life ownership its tremendous power.

Why did "The Principle of Life Ownership" arbitrarily exclude cougars and cabbages?

This one simple principle can guide our conduct through a wide range of human interactions. It helps explain why murder is wrong, why theft is wrong, why lying is mostly wrong, and even why tardiness is wrong. When someone takes away from another person some of the quantity or quality of their life without their consent, then they are taking something that does not belong to them.

Most of us value our lives and our stuff. That is all we need to establish why some actions are just plain wrong.

No, that's not all you need in terms of a philosophical justification. It's all you need for an ad hoc justification, I'll grant you. But ad hoc justifications aren't worth diddly.

All you've done is justify one moral proposition (it is right that each human own his or her life) with a statement of simple preference (most humans want to preserve their own lives).

If that were the way to establish morality, then I might well be able to establish that eating cinnamon toast is morally right because most people have a positive desire to eat cinnamon toast.

For more information about this and other reality based ethical principles, you could visit Mike Earl’s website ‘Reason Works’, at http://www.reasonworks.com/

I highly recommend his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your recommendation tends to discredit Mr. Earl.

You will now be ignored, other than three attempts I'll give you to rehabilitate various moronic positions you've already blurted out.

[Guest DingoDave]

I wrote:

The golden rule when all is said and done is about people being considerate their neighbours for everybody's long-term benefit.

Bryan responded:

Yep, that's the Golden Rule. The Silver Rule, when all is said and done, is about refraining from harm--not actively seeking to benefit your neighbour.

Hopefully you'll be less likely to confuse the two from here on out.

Once again, you simply couldn’t resist spewing forth more of your pedantic, hair splitting bullshit could you Bryan? Call it the silver rule if it makes you happy.

It is commonly acknowledged that the golden rule can, and has be expressed in several ways.

The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways,

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the lord." — Torah Leviticus 19:18

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (c. 5 B.C. - A.D. 32 ) in the Gospels, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31, Luke 10:27

"This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you." — Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.)

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.)

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 B.C. - A.D. 10)

"None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." — Muhammad (c. A.D. 571 - 632), Hadith 13 of al-Nawawi's Forty Hadith.

Not a "rule" in specifics.

If one were to apply the Golden Rule as a mandate to force one's eccentricities on another, many unethical consequences would result. For example:

a masochist would be charged with harming all others, since a masochist enjoys having pain inflicted on him/her-self.

the perfectionist would be charged with critiquing everyone else's behavior.

a dieter would be charged with harassing others about their caloric intake.

The ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule of ethics is not a "rule" that should be applied to specific personal preferences or eccentricities. It must always be applied first to the overarching desires that all people share, especially the desire to lead one's life without interruption by others.

The Principle of Tolerance

Ethical teaching interprets the Golden Rule as mutual respect for one's neighbour (rather than as a deontological or consequentialist rule.) Most of us know that different people have different faiths or ideological beliefs, different preferences concerning sex or other matters, and may belong to a different cultural heritage. George Bernard Shaw once said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules". Shaw also criticized the golden rule, "Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." (Maxims for Revolutionists).

A key element of the ethic of reciprocity is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done by." Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2)

(Known as the Platinum Rule)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

I wrote:

‘The Principle of Life Ownership’ simply states that, “the person living the life owns the life”. It states that we ought not to take or destroy life that belongs to another person - in whole or in part – unless we have the owner’s consent. Most people (provided they’re not mentally ill) value their lives, and this is what gives the principle of life ownership its tremendous power.

Bryan responded:

Why did "The Principle of Life Ownership" arbitrarily exclude cougars and cabbages?

It certainly can be applied with respect to preserving biodiversity and other environmental issues. But in this context I was discussing the human-to-human application of the principle, as you are well aware.

I wrote:

When someone takes away from another person some of the quantity or quality of their life without their consent, then they are taking something that does not belong to them. Most of us value our lives and our stuff. That is all we need to establish why some actions are just plain wrong.

Bryan responded:

No, that's not all you need in terms of a philosophical justification. It's all you need for an ad hoc justification, I'll grant you. But ad hoc justifications aren't worth diddly. All you've done is justify one moral proposition (it is right that each human own his or her life) with a statement of simple preference (most humans want to preserve their own lives). If that were the way to establish morality, then I might well be able to establish that eating cinnamon toast is morally right because most people have a positive desire to eat cinnamon toast.

The value I hold for my own life and property, as well as the welfare of my loved ones, is not just an ad hoc justification for considering some actions wrong, unless you are asserting that the value I place on these things is just an illusion, or that I am lying when I say that these things are of real value to me. These things mean far more than ‘diddly’ to me. How dare you try to question what may or may not be of value to me personally, you self centred egomaniac.

If I spend a portion of my life working, in order to earn the money I need to provide for myself or my family, and then some dirt bag comes along and steals my stuff, then the thief has, in a real and tangible sense, just has stolen a portion of my life without my consent.

If you came up to me and attempted to physically assault me or murder me, I would be quite justified in defending myself under the principle of life ownership, because you would be attempting to take something from me which I value (my life and health), without my consent. How much simpler or clearer does it have to get, before you will concede that this might just be a sound principle to live by?

Bryan wrote:

You will now be ignored, other than three attempts I'll give you to rehabilitate various moronic positions you've already blurted out.

What makes you think that I have any desire to pander to your ego by somehow rehabilitating myself to you? Some people would see it as a badge of honour to be ignored by you.

You are a narcissistic, anally retentive pedant, who seems to be almost entirely self absorbed and virtually incapable of displaying any meaningful empathy or understanding towards anyone, or any opinion, other than your own.

I’ll bet that every time you look in the mirror, you unconsciously sing the words of that old Hank Williams song; “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble, when you’re perfect in every way”.

The difference between you and Hank Williams is that when Hank Williams wrote those lyrics, he was joking.

[Guest Melanie]

The version you're talking about is commonly known as the Silver Rule.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/ph...5/55.3huang.pdf

So you can't really get out of this one.  You invoked the Golden Rule regardless of how you wish to backpedal out of it.

Yep, that's the Golden Rule.  The Silver Rule, when all is said and done, is about refraining from harm--not actively seeking to benefit your neighbor.

Hopefully you'll be less likely to confuse the two from here on out.

Figured somebody will adopt a Randian (Objectivist) view at some point.  Suggest away, o master of incompetence!

Why did "The Principle of Life Ownership" arbitrarily exclude cougars and cabbages?

No, that's not all you need in terms of a philosophical justification.  It's all you need for an ad hoc justification, I'll grant you.  But ad hoc justifications aren't worth diddly.

All you've done is justify one moral proposition (it is right that each human own his or her life) with a statement of simple preference (most humans want to preserve their own lives).

If that were the way to establish morality, then I might well be able to establish that eating cinnamon toast is morally right because most people have a positive desire to eat cinnamon toast.

Your recommendation tends to discredit Mr. Earl.

You will now be ignored, other than three attempts I'll give you to rehabilitate various moronic positions you've already blurted out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The so-called Ten Commandments are all of the silver rule variety, and they don't come close to covering the broad spectrum of human relations. On what basis does any society offer them as THE bedrock for morality?

[Guest Melanie]

And as Melanie denies that logic provides the foundation, it follows that she has no argument in principle to support her claim.  It is up to you to experience values her way.  If you don't then reconciliation based on reason is impossible in principle (the foundation is experience, not logic).

Chairman Mao was alive, wasn't he?  Anything wrong with the foundation of the morality he followed leading to the death of millions?  Or do you have no recourse to supporting your view with logic?

On that basis you could accept the conclusions of the ID movement, couldn't you?

You spout perfect nonsense, Melanie. 

What's to understand if logic has nothing to do with it?  Shouldn't I expect morality to be perfectly experiential and subjective?  Do you have any logical basis for denying Nietzsche's vision of morality?  Or is his vision of morality beyond logical criticism in principle?

Oh, joy!  Another straw man.

Has Melanie considered that philosophical justification doesn't necessarily consist of a hard proof?

Failing to deal with the picture-perfect reductio ad absurdum fashioned with the help of sentient rocks broached for the sake of argument, Melanie completes her pratfall with another straw man melded with the fallacious appeal to ridicule.

If it weren't for folks like Paul, Dingbat, and Strife, you'd be especially pathetic, Melanie.

And, yes, you can console yourself with the notion that you're named in the company of respectable thinkers if you wish--but you won't get any support from the facts on the record.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chairman Mao did not live according to a principle of universal human worth. Merely experiencing life doesn't mean that one will accord respect to others.

Logic has its place. Once we identify what matters to us, we can make value judgments, and once we have done that we can apply logic and reason to express those value judgments in the best way we can. A universal ethics/morality is possible when we recognize that life is what we all have in common, and in particular human life and human Being. The fact of our universal humanity is a product not of logic, but of experience. Hoewever, application of the fact, and the ethical/moral systems we fashion out of our reality, does involve logic. Bryan is not making difficult arguments, as is obvious from how easily they are dismissed.

[Guest Melanie]

No, I don't give up.  It's very easy, especially considering Melanie's previous writings on the subject along with her apparent acceptance of Dingbat's similarly flawed approach.

P1  There is a shared perception of the good

P2  A shared perception of the good allows value judgments

Therefore, these value judgements are correct value judgments (implicit from her earlier argumentation, though in this case she used "on their face."

Her argument hints very strongly at an alternate construction that would include a fallacious appeal to the people.

The question is begged because the "perception of the good" (my phrasing) is assumed to be accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The above is incorrectly stated. There is a shared experience of the good. This is not a mere perception, but a direct experience. The value judgments that follow from it are "correct" only if they respect that shared human experience as completely and as broadly as possible.

[Bryan]

The above is incorrectly stated. There is a shared experience of the good. This is not a mere perception, but a direct experience. The value judgments that follow from it are "correct" only if they respect that shared human experience as completely and as broadly as possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't have a "direct experience" of something the way Melanie appears to mean it without perceiving it.

2. to recognize, discern, envision, or understand

And, in any case, if we use the phrasing she prefers we still end up with an argument (leaving egg on the face of one WillamK.

[Bryan]

Dingo Dave is right and Bryan is being ridiculous.

Logic can't tell anyone what is good. That comes from living. When we see a child smile or see a beautiful, we don't go through an elaborate logical proof to say "that's good." It's good to our experience, and that is what is meant by it. So of course the idea of what is good is a function of popular belief. It's based on common experience. Bryan never addresses this point. He can't.

Virtually nothing could be easier than addressing the belief that morality stems from popular belief. The notion is vulnerable to every criticism of moral relativism, and as I've pointed out numerous times (not that Tom noticed, apparently), relativism makes it extraordinarily difficult--if it is at all possible--to say what is right and what is wrong.

In a recent post, in fact, I wrote that if our morality were inherent and we supposed that a wavelength of light caused a mutation that, after a few generations, produced a humanity that popularly believed that it was right to rape and murder, then rape and murder would be morally good activities.

It's your side that can't deal with the issue, Tom. Primarily because the ones taking up the issue on your side haven't really begun to think about their positions, and secondarily because it's an extraordinarily difficult argument to make even if you had some clue what you're talking about.

Dave's approach is flawed only in the sense that it doesn't automatically resolve every human conflict, but what is more flawed is to assume that a perfect moral system is obtainable. If a perfect moral system was obtainable, these issues wouldn't be as difficult as they are.

Correction: Dave's approach is flawed because it is logically absurd.

Meanwhile, Bryan completely overlooks the far deeper flaws in his belief system. He would have us accept his conception of God without any foundation whatsoever.

Really? Where have I done that?

Quote me, please.

I think we'll find that Tom is engaged in hypocrisy, in that he is asking us to accept the notion that I would have him accept my conception of God "without any foundation whatsoever" without any foundation whatsoever.

Gavin hit the nail squarely on the head comparing Bryan to the Terrible Trivium from "The Phantom Tollbooth."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... and Tom can prove it.

[Bryan]

<snip Dingbat's long-winded attempt to justify using "the golden rule" imprecisely by appealing to less-precise uses of the term>

It certainly can be applied with respect to preserving biodiversity and other environmental issues. But in this context I was discussing the human-to-human application of the principle, as you are well aware.

Indeed I was aware, as I called it "arbitrary"--and after noting my question you have ignored its substance. Figures. The implicit answer is "I arbitrarily excluded cougars and cabbages because I wanted to."

The value I hold for my own life and property, as well as the welfare of my loved ones, is not just an ad hoc justification for considering some actions wrong, unless you are asserting that the value I place on these things is just an illusion, or that I am lying when I say that these things are of real value to me. These things mean far more than ‘diddly’ to me. How dare you try to question what may or may not be of value to me personally, you self centred egomaniac.

You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally.

Stalin may well have thought he was doing absolutely the right thing by killing millions of Ukrainians. If sincerity of thought is good enough for Dingbat, then why isn't it good enough for Stalin? Or why isn't it good enough for a God who condemns people to hell for eternity, when it comes to that?

Dingbat's argument serves no useful purpose in actually determining what is right versus what is wrong--that is why it is worth diddly. If it's worth anything at all, then Dingbat has provided an overwhelming proof that hell is perfectly just: all we need is a God who sincerely values hell in its particulars.

If I spend a portion of my life working, in order to earn the money I need to provide for myself or my family, and then some dirt bag comes along and steals my stuff, then the thief has, in a real and tangible sense, just has stolen a portion of my life without my consent.

Well, yeah, but the guy worked and spent part of his life obtaining "your" stuff, and I'm sure that it was of value to him. But I guess he's stuck with your arbitrary set of rules, isn't he?

If you came up to me and attempted to physically assault me or murder me, I would be quite justified in defending myself under the principle of life ownership, because you would be attempting to take something from me which I value (my life and health), without my consent. How much simpler or clearer does it have to get, before you will concede that this might just be a sound principle to live by?

It would, in a loose sense, be a sound principle to live by, in that it could influence you to coincidentally observe truly moral patterns of behavior.

But in terms of providing a philosophical foundation for morality, it's little better than nothing. When you excluded cougars and cabbages arbitrarily you exposed the philosophical emptiness of your position.

What makes you think that I have any desire to pander to your ego by somehow rehabilitating myself to you? Some people would see it as a badge of honour to be ignored by you.

Go for it, then.

You are a narcissistic, anally retentive pedant, who seems to be almost entirely self absorbed and virtually incapable of displaying any meaningful empathy or understanding towards anyone, or any opinion, other than your own.

You resemble that remark.

I’ll bet that every time you look in the mirror, you unconsciously sing the words of that old Hank Williams song; “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble, when you’re perfect in every way”.

The difference between you and Hank Williams is that when Hank Williams wrote those lyrics, he was joking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's one out of the three.

Dingbat tries to pass off using the principle of life ownership as a guide that might result in morally correct action in place of what has been requested, that is, a self-consistent philosophical framework absent a god or gods.

In a word, bzzt.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Bryan