Legislate Morality?

[Anonymous]

*indicates his previous post*

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19964

[erolyn]

Hon, I grew up in conservative Texas, born in conservative North Carolina, and have made the trip through that polarized section of the southeast for most of my life. The one constant from these polarize people who would shoot you for being black(or any different aspect, or because you said something that didn't make sense, or because the moon was just right...), is uneducation and disrespect for fellow man. It always seems to come back to education, for respect seems to come with education, and I'm not talking master's or anything, but someone who values education over regional common sense.

The connection between respect and education seems logical...people who aren't educated tend to stick to things like prejudice and hate (and, dare I say, blind nationalism?) because they don't KNOW better. The more educated you are, the more able you are to comprehend forward-thinking ideas. To go back to 1984 (and hoping Stasi will get it), the Party continually reduces the spoken language as a means of control, because, in their manner of thinking, if you don't have the words to DESCRIBE an anarchist thought (or one against the Party, etc, basically anything they don't want you to think), then how can you form it? Whether this is actually plausible I don't know, but it seems to be the same way with education- if you don't know that there are other ways of thinking, how can you move forward in your thinking?

Also, in response to your last sentence...I've always thought common sense came WITH education. But maybe not in some cases.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19991

[Stasi]

The connection between respect and education seems logical...people who aren't educated tend to stick to things like prejudice and hate (and, dare I say, blind nationalism?) because they don't KNOW better. The more educated you are, the more able you are to comprehend forward-thinking ideas. To go back to 1984 (and hoping Stasi will get it), the Party continually reduces the spoken language as a means of control, because, in their manner of thinking, if you don't have the words to DESCRIBE an anarchist thought (or one against the Party, etc, basically anything they don't want you to think), then how can you form it? Whether this is actually plausible I don't know, but it seems to be the same way with education- if you don't know that there are other ways of thinking, how can you move forward in your thinking?

Also, in response to your last sentence...I've always thought common sense came WITH education. But maybe not in some cases.

I'd have to say I think the notion of 'common sense' is what personal beliefs a person has that they think are accepted as fundamental by everyone else. A person's 'common sense' will change with education, but exists in ignorance as well.

I agree that with education comes a higher liklihood that someone will comprehend more forward-thinking ideas and your reference to 1984 is appropriate, erol-oid. If a vocabulary is so reduced to politically neutral lexicon then people will have difficulty articulating undesirable (to the Establishment) ideas. -which goes hand in hand with someone having a limited frame of reference to base their day-to-day behaviors and ethics on.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19997

[MrSelf]

Whether this is actually plausible I don't know, but it seems to be the same way with education- if you don't know that there are other ways of thinking, how can you move forward in your thinking?

Also, in response to your last sentence...I've always thought common sense came WITH education. But maybe not in some cases.

That's true, and in response to your last sentence, that's the real problem with common sense isn't it. Every person has what they call common sense, common sense to the racist is just as logical and powerful in their mind as the common sense that the non-rasist uses that produces the exact opposite, but equally as powerful thought and reaction.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19999

[Bookworm]

The more educated you are, the more able you are to comprehend forward-thinking ideas.

But one person's forward-thinking idea may be someone else's backward-thinking idea. Is it possible to have a completely unbiased education?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20002

[Stasi]

Is it possible to have a completely unbiased education?

No.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20003

[MrSelf]

Is it possible to have a completely unbiased education?

No.

in as much that you cannot have an unbiased reaction to any action.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20005

[Stasi]

Is it possible to have a completely unbiased education?

No.

in as much that you cannot have an unbiased reaction to any action.

Unless you're a cyborg.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20007

[MrSelf]

and even the, the answer is still out...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20009

[shenbaw]

I figured I'd better post again in order to admit that my "majority of Americans" argument was a bit weak, but hey, you don't seem to care for my primary "because God says so" argument either.

Cause neither of them are "arguments," they're beliefs.

You mentioned judges being our modern-day "philosophers," but didn't the Supreme Court justices during slavery times uphold the institution of slavery. Anytime you have humans involved in deciding what is right or wrong, there are going to be mistakes.

I never claimed either to be infallible. Did I?

I personally would much rather follow God's guidelines as declared in the Bible, but before you jump on that statement, notice that I said "personally." Someone stated earlier... ...that I could have all the personal beliefs about right and wrong that I want, but when it comes to making things legally wrong for all Americans, then we cannot just go by one person's opinion of right and wrong. After all, that one person may be even more strict than I am, and I wouldn't like that. I think here in America we do the best that we can to achieve a balance between the majority's opinions and the minority's opinions, and our grandkids are going to be making judgments about our current laws that may be different from the way we view them today.

First, let me just say that I don't believe there is any such thing as "legally wrong." But I know what you mean. To me though and I think to you as well Bookworm, there is legal and illegal, and right and wrong. The two don't necessarily coincide. Second, Is there really no better way to tell the correctness of our laws other than just waiting to see what our grandkids do to them? Or to see how they stand up over time? I guess I would like to think that with our new found values of equality and freedom over the last hundred years or so, that we would have a better understanding of what "fair" is, or what "right" is. Your suggestion is really kind of depressing to me. Essentially, it sounds like your saying all we can really do is legislate for the things we think are right and against the things we think are wrong, and hopefully our kids and grandkids will be able to sort it out later.

I guess this really gets at the core of what this thread is about, Legislating Morality. You think it's a good thing, I don't. Again, they're just beliefs. Beliefs change over time. Reason doesn't.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20043

[MrSelf]

Again, they're just beliefs. Beliefs change over time. Reason doesn't.

There is reason behind all beliefs, it's just a matter of how far forward you think it through. Reason does change in this respect. To the person who only looks at the first level of reason, it makes sense and no further thought process is required. The person who's reasoning brings them to the second level has different reasoning than the first(they asked a question that didn't even occur to the other person), but how do you know when that is enough reasoning? Most seem to trust their common sense, but an intelligent person will tell you that in order to truly use reasoning effectively, you must always be questioning, for there is no other way to know when your reasoning is flawed. Complacency and contentment have no place in reasoning. Just wanted to respond to that, I know Bookworm would have pulled that part.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20052

[shenbaw]

Again, they're just beliefs. Beliefs change over time. Reason doesn't.

There is reason behind all beliefs, it's just a matter of how far forward you think it through. Reason does change in this respect. To the person who only looks at the first level of reason, it makes sense and no further thought process is required. The person who's reasoning brings them to the second level has different reasoning than the first(they asked a question that didn't even occur to the other person), but how do you know when that is enough reasoning? Most seem to trust their common sense, but an intelligent person will tell you that in order to truly use reasoning effectively, you must always be questioning, for there is no other way to know when your reasoning is flawed. Complacency and contentment have no place in reasoning. Just wanted to respond to that, I know Bookworm would have pulled that part.

I guess to me there is a big difference between "Having a reason behind a belief" and "Having reasoning behind a belief." The first doesn't always equate to the second. Sure, reasons change. Sound reasoning does not. If someone has reasoning or logic behind a particular belief that something is "right" or "wrong," they have a firm grasp and a solid understanding of why that particular act is right or wrong. Reasoning or logic are not subjective in my opinion. The requirements of a sound argument do not change from person to person. They are constant. The only thing that changes, is whether or not that person requires the use of a sound argument in order to subscribe to that particular belief.

Or maybe it's just my backround in Logic that is causing me to have a biased opinion? HaHa! "I am of the opinion that opinions have no place in forming sound arguments." Yes, I see the irony.

But as Mrself just eluded to in his post, some people choose to cut their reasoning short, or to limit their questioning to this first and basic level. "It's right/wrong because the majority of Americans think it's right/wrong." Or "It's right/wrong because a certain person or a certain book says it's right/wrong." Or "It's right/wrong because common sense tells us that it's right/wrong." These things are not part of formulating a sound argument. They are not "reasoning," they are "reasons."

Also, in regards to the common sense comments, in case you couldn't tell, I think common sense is a cop-out when used as justification for a belief. "Why did you wear your coat in to work today?" - that's Common Sense. "Why didn't you stab yourself in the leg with a knife this morning?" - again, Common Sense. But "Why do believe something to be inherently right or wrong?" - that has nothing to do with Common Sense. Common Sense does not dictate our morals. If it did, everyone's would be the same.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20073

[MrSelf]

I guess to me there is a big difference between "Having a reason behind a belief" and "Having reasoning behind a belief."

Definately, I didn't explain myself very well, but I think you get the basic idea. Example:

Problem: The government can be easily corruptable if run by a select few.
Reason or logic would then tell us that having people run the government, or a democracy, would allow for less corruption. This is solid reasoning, but not thought out enough. It is logical and based on solid reason. However, democracy is extremely corruptable as well. So you must take it to the next level.
Problem: Democracy is easily corruptable.
Through reason and logic, a Republic is deemed the solution.

So when you have 2 people, one saying a Democracy and one a Republic, they are both formed on logic and reason. You may argue that it is incomplete logic or reasoning, but isn't all reasoning incomplete? Whose to say that with more thought that socialistic republicanism isn't the answer, and so my line about constant reasoning is born. It seems to be a matter of who can think the most long term.

Every one of these is based on reason and logic, yet the outcomes are completely different. Reason is progressive, it has a base, a fundamental idea, and you add on to it, I guess that's my point. Even those who seem to only be going on beliefs usually have reason behind it, even if they cannot personally identify it. The inability to identify that root and to build on it is what causes "flawed" logic.

One more point, and this is in reference to Reasoning or logic are not subjective in my opinion. In 3d, it is not subjective. But once you add in time, it does become subjective. If you ask what is best for person A, you can come to a logical conclussion(sp) based on reason. However, doing that may be worse overall 50 years from now. Likewise doing what is right for person A 50 years from now may be bad for them now. If you are considering reasoning to encompass the overall picture everytime, then you basic view is flawed, for you must account for the unknowns(much like science does with outliers, the extremes of the bell curve). This maybe the difference in how we are thinking. I don't know how well that came off but that's the best I can do right now.

Always enjoy speaking on this level with you, it seems hard to find people who want to discuss things on this level.

I think I figured it out. The requirements of a sound argument
Logic/reason and sound arguement are 2 different catagories that I think you may be putting in one. Logic and reason are part of a sound arguement, but sound arguement is not necissarily part of logic and reason. (A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square) When I say reason is progressive, it is in reference to the overall idea, as I think you call making a sound arguement. Each part of a sound arguement contains reason and logic, they are the parts of sound arguement.

edit: condense post and emphasis important parts.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20084

[shenbaw]

I think another of the reasons we're having trouble connecting here is that you are taking a problematic approach, in which case lots of different thoughts can be "logical." Whereas I am taking a strictly argumenative approach, where you must use basic or not so basic premises to arrive at a sound and desired conclusion. (Also I tend to get easily confused when combining two issues like politics and ethics or morals, but I'll do my best.)

Problem: The government can be easily corruptable if run by a select few.
Reason or logic would then tell us that having people run the government, or a democracy, would allow for less corruption. This is solid reasoning, but not thought out enough. It is logical and based on solid reason.

For example, here, if your desired conclusion is,
C: Therefore, we would have an uncorruptable government.

And your only premise is,
P1: If we have people run the government or democracy, there would be less corruption because there would be more accountability in the government by the people.

Your argument would go,
P1: If we have people run the government or democracy, there would be less corruption because there would be more accountability in the government by the people.
C: Therefore, we would have an uncorruptable government.

Is is not solid reasoning, nor is it logical in the least. However, if your desired conclusion is C: We would have a less easily corruptable government. Then yes, the argument would be logically sound.

Problem: Democracy is easily corruptable.
Through reason and logic, a Republic is deemed the solution.

Here again. If you are looking to solve a problem through logic, yes there are many different logical paths one could take and often "constant reasoning" is required. However, if you are making an argument for or against a desired conclusion (like an uncorruptable government or a government incapable of corruption), there are no variables. It's either a sound argument, or it's not a sound argument.

So when you have 2 people, one saying a Democracy and one a Republic, they are both formed on logic and reason. You may argue that it is incomplete logic or reasoning, but isn't all reasoning incomplete? Whose to say that with more thought that socialistic republicanism isn't the answer, and so my line about constant reasoning is born. It seems to be a matter of who can think the most long term.

Again, in terms of problem solving, yes, most reasoning is incomplete and needs to constantly be built upon. But in terms of forming an argument with a finite number of premises to come to an ultimate and absolute conclusion, there is always a point of completion or finality, whether it be positive or negative. (Sound argument/Unsound argument)

Even those who seem to only be going on beliefs usually have reason behind it, even if they cannot personally identify it. The inability to identify that root and to build on it is what causes "flawed" logic.

Here again it seems like you are confusing "having reasons for a belief" with "using sound reasoning skills to support a belief." Just because a person has reasons for a particular belief, doesn't mean they've used sound reasoning to arrive at that belief. I could have many reasons why I believe democracy to be a good thing, but not all of those reasons will provide me with a sound argument in support of democracy.

One more point, and this is in reference to Reasoning or logic are not subjective in my opinion. In 3d, it is not subjective. But once you add in time, it does become subjective. If you ask what is best for person A, you can come to a logical conclussion(sp) based on reason. However, doing that may be worse overall 50 years from now. Likewise doing what is right for person A 50 years from now may be bad for them now. If you are considering reasoning to encompass the overall picture everytime, then you basic view is flawed, for you must account for the unknowns(much like science does with outliers, the extremes of the bell curve). This maybe the difference in how we are thinking. I don't know how well that came off but that's the best I can do right now.

Yes, I think you've pretty much said what I was going to say here...

I think I figured it out. The requirements of a sound argument
Logic/reason and sound arguement are 2 different catagories that I think you may be putting in one. Logic and reason are part of a sound arguement, but sound arguement is not necissarily part of logic and reason. (A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square) When I say reason is progressive, it is in reference to the overall idea, as I think you call making a sound arguement. Each part of a sound arguement contains reason and logic, they are the parts of sound arguement.

I guess I don't really feel like I'm putting them in one category. Like I said, I'm just taking an argumenative approach, which if logic is used in argumentation, it will unquestionably tell you whether it is a sound argument or not. I feel this approach is necessary when dealing with Legislating Morality, since I feel we should not prohibit things unless we can provide a convincing or sound argument that it is indeed wrong. A sound argument is a finite, limited, and isolated thing. It is true no matter what happens external of it. Something can be rational decision, and in the future, things might change and therefore what is rational might change as well. But if you have a sound rational argument to take a certain action or believe a certain belief at that time, that argument will always be true as long as the premises stay the same. Another illustration of this would be,

P1: Everyone is created equal and consequently deserves an equal right and opportunity to live their life. - True, it is a known fact that there is no fundamental difference between me and the next person as far as our humanity goes. We are all equal and deserve equal treatment as people.
P2: Murder deprives a person of this equal right and opportunity to live their life. - True, murder is the act of killing or taking someone's life away from them, thus depriving them of their opportunity to live.
C: Therefore, murder is wrong.

This would be a sound argument in any circumstance unless one the premises was proven false. As long as it is known that 1. all people are created equal and deserve and equal opportunity to live and 2. that murder deprives someone of this opportunity, then murder will indeed be wrong. However, the argument,

P1: In the book I am currently reading it says that murder is violent. - True, your book may indeed say that.
P2: Acts of violence are wrong. - False, if I break the pencil I bought earlier today, that is an act of violence, but it's not necessarily wrong.
C: Therefore, murder is wrong.

Is not a sound argument, since one of the premises is not absolutely true. If a premise of an argument is false, the conclusion it leads to is also false. Similarly, the argument

P1: In the book I am currently reading it says that murder is wrong. - True, your book may indeed say that murder is wrong.
C: Therefore, murder is wrong.

Is also not a sound argument, since the premise evidences nothing about whether or not murder is indeed wrong. Only that the book your reading says it's wrong. If the conclusion that is arrived at is not proven through the truth of the premises provided, then the conclusion is also false in respect to the argument. A simpler example of this is

P1: All bears have teeth. - True, for illustration purposes let's just suppose all bears do in fact have teeth.
P2: The animal in my yard has teeth. - True, the animal in my yard does indeed have teeth.
C: Therefore, the animal in my yard is a bear.

This argument is not a sound argument, since the conclusion is not proven through the truth of the premises. The animal in my yard could be a dog, a cat, or a mouse for that matter. Just because all bears have teeth doesn't mean that bears are the only animals that have teeth. If they were, the the argument would be sound.

P1: Bears are the only animals that have teeth. - True, for illustration purposes let's just suppose that bears are the only animals that have teeth.
P2: The animal in my yard has teeth. - True, the animal in my yard does indeed have teeth.
C: Therefore, the animal in my yard is a bear.

Okay, I'm getting a little carried away now. I'll stop.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20121

[MrSelf]

Holy crap, I'll read that at some point... You know, this would take like 3 less years if this was done in person.... My examples do have backing, but I didn't think I would need to explain it all. Let me think about how to approach this next before continuing. One thing I will address is this: A sound argument is a finite, limited, and isolated thing. I will very much disagree, it is relative to information known. For example, a sound arguement for Plato, would be considered unsound today, due to the knowledge we have gained. As we continue to gain knowledge as a society, logic and reasoning is changed. All it take is one piece of information to turn sound reasoning for object A into flawed reasoning. Look at the information on alcohol, it's good for you, it's bad for you, it's good for you... blah blah blah..... so much of reality is like that, and if you don't realize that so much is unknown, then it cause premature reason. Ok, I had better stop.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20155

[shenbaw]

One thing I will address is this: A sound argument is a finite, limited, and isolated thing. I will very much disagree, it is relative to information known. For example, a sound arguement for Plato, would be considered unsound today, due to the knowledge we have gained.

I honestly don't see how you can say that. For Plato, if he made the argument,

P1: All zebras are black and white. - And if all zebras were indeed black and white so that this statement were absolutely true and,
P2: The object in my back yard is a zebra. - And this were also indeed true.
C: Therefore the object in my back yard is black and white.

This would be just as sound an argument today as it was for him hundreds of years ago if the value of the premises had not changed. So if 1. All zebras are black and white, and 2. the object in my back yard is a zebra, then C. Plato and I must both conclude that the object in my back yard is in fact black and white. There are no variables in two arguments whose premises are the same and the same values are assigned to those premises. However, if in fact, all zebra are not black and white, then we have a completely different argument we are dealing with. For example, if today we've uncovered new information on zebras and have found that not all zebras are black and white. The argument itself must be changed if we want the first premise to maintain the same value of truth. So then P1. must be, Some or most zebras are black and white rather than All zebras are black and white, if we want P1 to remain true. Do you see what I'm saying? If the information changes, then the argument itself must also change in order for the premises to keep the same truth value. But if the information stays the same, so that the premises and the value assigned to those premises can also stay the same. A sound argument will always remain a sound argument.

As we continue to gain knowledge as a society, logic and reasoning is changed. All it take is one piece of information to turn sound reasoning for object A into flawed reasoning. Look at the information on alcohol, it's good for you, it's bad for you, it's good for you... blah blah blah..... so much of reality is like that, and if you don't realize that so much is unknown, then it cause premature reason.

If you could point out one or two examples of where this has taken place, I would be more that willing to discuss them with you. Seriously, it's fun and difficult to understand at times. But untill then I must maintain that it is not the logic or reasoning that is changed over time or when we uncover new information, but rather it is the things that we apply our logic and reasoning to that are changed. It is not our logic or reasoning towards alcohol that is changed when we discover new information about it, just what we know about alcohol. The logic stays the same, it's just applied to different information.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20173

[MrSelf]

Yeah, like I said, let me think about it, you are on an entirely different plane than I, as is evident by your examples. When you are dealing with simple things, such as color, then it rasy to do as you have. Very few of societies issues are this black and white and often involve what is best. This does make it subjective. If you can break down every issue into root that are based in absolutes, then I will agree with you, however, that is impossible, IMO.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20176

[shenbaw]

Sorry, like I said, I have a tendancy to get a little carried away. Just rered my post and it all makes perfect sense to me, but jesus do I ramble when I think I'm explaining something. IMO

Anyway...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20187

[MrSelf]

Adam Smith proposed the theory in economics which states that competition is good for everyone. Through logic, he dictated how this works. It is based in reason and logic. If you want, I can go over what steps were taken to get to this conclusion, but I think you should trust the basis of economics. It wasn't until John Nash publish his paper on "Non-Cooperative Games" that the conclusion was changed. Was is flawed logic that Adam Smith proposed? I don't believe so, but there was another step. There will be another paper that changes that, but economics is still based in logic and reason.

I think this is the issue. When you break something down to it's smallest division, then it works as you have said. Your examples don't involve problems, but statements and possible contradiction. Anytime you deal with complex logic or reason, dealing on more than one level, then logic and reason can only bring you as far as your knowledge. In this instance, only ultimate knowledge can lead to true and complete reason and logic.

Just rered my post and it all makes perfect sense to me
Your post makes sense to me as well, it just doesn't address the point I brought up. I see what you are saying, but we are not connecting somewhere. I feel you are dealing with too small issues... statements, not issues. I'm going to find a passage that describes what I'm talking about, anything in the Republic will probably do. If you take those issues he addresses, they were based in logic for his time. However, by todays standards, his conclusions are lacking. Logic and Reasoning are based on Knowledge and Understanding. Plato exausted his knowledge and understanding, but he still followed logic and reasoning, even if his conclusions were ultimately lacking. Using the extent of our logical and reasoning processes can only take us so far with any given issue. As time progresses, knowledge progresses, so do the conclusions of logic and reasoning.

I think book I of the Republic is a good example of this. His reasoning, using reason and logic, would not be considered correct reasoning and logic today, as much of what we take as logic as reasoning, even by the best minds of the day, will be deemed tomorrow.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20195

[Anonymous]

Re-post:



QUOTE(shenbaw @ Dec 28 2004, 05:27 PM)
That's absolutely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So I shoudn't be able to walk down the street with my niece or nephew without them being exposed to "bad naughty" things? Simply because these little kids and I are in a public space does not mean that we are fair game to be verbally or physically assaulted. Even in the public rhelm, individuals still have rights. One of these basic rights is the right to enjoy public space. If you want to be vulgar or offensive, that's fine, but do it privately. (Note: I said "privately," not "in private." There's a difference. A private conversation can still take place in a public space, but doing something "publicly" means that it is intended for the public to witness and is in effect directed at the public.) When you are "publicly" vulgar or offensive it effects and often offends other people and consequently diminishes their ability to enjoy the public space, which is their right just as much as it is yours.
*



You just admitted what I am saying is right. I never said you should beat up a little kid whilst screaming profanity in his face, but if you strike your foot against something and scream "FLICKING HELL" you have the right to do so.

Secondly, I DON'T think you should get in a booth and scream FSCK YOU over and over at people. I think you should do this at a street corner.

And whilst we are talking about individual rights, I had best put up a list of things that I am pushing for:

-Right to Freedom of Speech, but not to the extent of Disturbing the Peace
-Right to Criticize the Government
-Right to Gay Marriage
-Right to Freedom of Sexuality(so that right wing extremists cannot argue with above right)

And one last thing:

I wish to lower the drinking age in the Colonies equal to the one in Britain, which is 4(with parental consent , you can drink freely at 18.) Yeah, I drink. I'm healthy as a horse. I can bench press 100 pounds now, since I've started exercising. And I'm still smart enough to argue with "eddyookayted" folk like you, Mr. Shenbaw

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:20212

[shenbaw]

Adam Smith proposed the theory in economics which states that competition is good for everyone. Through logic, he dictated how this works. It is based in reason and logic. If you want, I can go over what steps were taken to get to this conclusion, but I think you should trust the basis of economics. It wasn't until John Nash publish his paper on "Non-Cooperative Games" that the conclusion was changed. Was is flawed logic that Adam Smith proposed? I don't believe so, but there was another step. There will be another paper that changes that, but economics is still based in logic and reason.

Well Mrself, in these kind of vague terms it is difficult to get into the "logic" of what Mr. Smith proposed, but I have no doubt that his conclusions were based on logic. I also have no doubt that Mr. Nash's conclusions were also based on principles of "logic." Now, just because Mr. Smith and Mr. Nash came up with different conclusions or solutions, does that mean that the "logic" that the two men used was fundamentally different??? No. The logic, or the principles that these two men applied to their data to arrive at their conclusions was the same. It was the information or the data that the logic was applied to which changed and consequently altered their outcome. Again, without specifics of what these men were talking about or their conclusions, it's hard to explain, and as you've said, things tend to get more complicated when you're dealing with more complex issues. But basically, Adam Smith had to have come to a conclusion, C: "Competition is good for everyone." He had to form an argument for that conclusion, which I'm sure he did through his research and by siting endless amounts of data to establish facts as premises. Years later John Nash came up with a compelling counter-argument that took issue with and basically disproved Mr. Smith's argument. Does this mean that the logic that both men had used had changed over the course of time from Mr. Smith's research to Mr. Nash's research??? No. Again, I don't know the details, but if I had to guess, I'd say that rather than the logic or the principles of reason changing from one economist to the next, perhaps it was the information or the data that these two men had knowledge of that had changed? Maybe it was research they had done themselves, or maybe it was research that someone else had done during this time that changed the facts or the premises that the logic was being applied to. Like in my zebra example. It's not the logic that is changed, it's what the logic is applied to that is changed.

Your post makes sense to me as well, it just doesn't address the point I brought up. I see what you are saying, but we are not connecting somewhere. I feel you are dealing with too small issues... statements, not issues. I'm going to find a passage that describes what I'm talking about, anything in the Republic will probably do.

Doing this might help, thanks. Again, dealing with examples is much more productive and will make it easier to understand what I'm talking about.

If you take those issues he addresses, they were based in logic for his time. However, by todays standards, his conclusions are lacking. Logic and Reasoning are based on Knowledge and Understanding. Plato exausted his knowledge and understanding, but he still followed logic and reasoning, even if his conclusions were ultimately lacking. Using the extent of our logical and reasoning processes can only take us so far with any given issue. As time progresses, knowledge progresses, so do the conclusions of logic and reasoning.

I'm sorry, but again, just because the conclusions reached through logic change, doesn't mean that logic itself has changed. Most likely, it is the information of the premises involved in an argument that has changed, not the principles of argumentation, or the principles that determine the relationship between statements. I think perhaps you are getting confused between Logic, which is what I am talking about, and logical thinking or as they call it, "the psychology of reasoning." Maybe not. If so, there is a difference, that link explains the difference a little bit.

I think book I of the Republic is a good example of this. His reasoning, using reason and logic, would not be considered correct reasoning and logic today, as much of what we take as logic as reasoning, even by the best minds of the day, will be deemed tomorrow.

You lost me. But I am fairly familiar with The Republic, so any example of his flawed logic you're talking about would be interesting. Formal Logic however, wasn't really devoloped until more around Aristotle's time, but the principles can still be applied to much of what Plato and Socrates talked about. It does kind of seem like we're not talking about the same things though.

Or perhaps we need to refocus the discussion? I just forgot what we were talking about. Legislating What Now???



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21045

[Bookworm]

P1: Everyone is created equal and consequently deserves an equal right and opportunity to live their life. - True, it is a known fact that there is no fundamental difference between me and the next person as far as our humanity goes. We are all equal and deserve equal treatment as people.
P2: Murder deprives a person of this equal right and opportunity to live their life. - True, murder is the act of killing or taking someone's life away from them, thus depriving them of their opportunity to live.
C: Therefore, murder is wrong.

This would be a sound argument in any circumstance unless one the premises was proven false. As long as it is known that 1. all people are created equal and deserve and equal opportunity to live and 2. that murder deprives someone of this opportunity, then murder will indeed be wrong.

Higher logic is all well and good as a tool to get to truth, but its usefulness is limited when discussing ethical situations in which one's assumptions and beliefs play a role in the discussion. To automatically dismiss any argument that contains a belief would really limit the things we can discuss. Even the example you gave above as a legitimate argument has beliefs inherent in the premises. Premise one says that we are all created. Do you really believe that? Perhaps you could say I am just pulling one word out instead of considering the whole thought, but if one part of a premise can be possibly untrue, doesn't that mean the whole premise is possibly untrue? You said that our lack of difference in our humanity gives us an equal right to live, but then you expained that premise to mean that we deserve equal treatment as people. What is this "treatment"? Is it more than the right to exist? How much more? You don't say, yet you expect me to consider your premise as a "known fact."
Your second premise is that murder deprives someone of the opportunity to live. In this case it looks like you are using the word "live" to mean "to exist," but in the first premise it also had the idea of equal "treatment," whatever that was. Shouldn't the second premise refer to an idea in exactly the same way as the first premise? Does the opportunity to "live" also include the gestation period before birth? I believe that life begins at conception, so abortion would deprive someone of the opportunity to live, and thus be murder. Without a shared concept of when life begins, and that concept would involve belief because there is no medical consensus, we could legitimately have two different perceptions of your second premise. Therefore it too cannot be called a fact.

I look forward to you breaking apart my thoughts, since it has been twenty years since my college logic class.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21081

[shenbaw]

I look forward to you breaking apart my thoughts, since it has been twenty years since my college logic class.

I'll do my best.

P1: Everyone is created equal and consequently deserves an equal right and opportunity to live their life. - True, it is a known fact that there is no fundamental difference between me and the next person as far as our humanity goes. We are all equal and deserve equal treatment as people.
P2: Murder deprives a person of this equal right and opportunity to live their life. - True, murder is the act of killing or taking someone's life away from them, thus depriving them of their opportunity to live.
C: Therefore, murder is wrong.
This would be a sound argument in any circumstance unless one the premises was proven false. As long as it is known that 1. all people are created equal and deserve and equal opportunity to live and 2. that murder deprives someone of this opportunity, then murder will indeed be wrong.

Premise one says that we are all created. Do you really believe that? Perhaps you could say I am just pulling one word out instead of considering the whole thought, but if one part of a premise can be possibly untrue, doesn't that mean the whole premise is possibly untrue? You said that our lack of difference in our humanity gives us an equal right to live, but then you expained that premise to mean that we deserve equal treatment as people. What is this "treatment"? Is it more than the right to exist? How much more? You don't say, yet you expect me to consider your premise as a "known fact."

Which part of the premise is possibly untrue? The part about "all people are created equal?" Is this really what you want to take issue with? All that I meant in that premise, and perhaps I didn't explain it correctly?, was that all people are equal and deserve to be afforded the same basic rights as human beings. One of those basic rights is the right to live. The word "treatment," I guess was a poor choice of words since the treatment of people often includes more than what is afforded to them as basic human rights. All that was meant by the premise is that people, in general, are equal and equal people deserve equal rights. If you believe that people are in fact not equal and consequently do not deserve equal basic rights, then we shoud have a discussion about that because it does effect the outcome of the argument.

Your second premise is that murder deprives someone of the opportunity to live. In this case it looks like you are using the word "live" to mean "to exist," but in the first premise it also had the idea of equal "treatment," whatever that was. Shouldn't the second premise refer to an idea in exactly the same way as the first premise? Does the opportunity to "live" also include the gestation period before birth? I believe that life begins at conception, so abortion would deprive someone of the opportunity to live, and thus be murder. Without a shared concept of when life begins, and that concept would involve belief because there is no medical consensus, we could legitimately have two different perceptions of your second premise. Therefore it too cannot be called a fact.

Again, apparently the use of the word "treatment," was a bad choice of words in my explanation since it does possibly include more than a person's basic rights. As a basic right, all I was talking about was a person's opportunity to exist. Abortion, is a completely different issue and one that should be discussed, but let's just stick to the argument at hand, shall we?
There are some things missing from my earlier argument though. These are the premises,
P2: One of our basic human rights is the right to live, or the right to exist.
and
P3: It is wrong to deprive someone of something they have a right to.
Also, as I mentioned before, changing someone's belief on the first premise would indeed change the conclusion of the argument, so perhaps it should be set up starting with an "If/then" statement also.
So the argument would go...
P1: If everyone is created equal, then they consequently deserve the same basic human rights. - True, if there is no fundamental difference between me and the next person as far as our humanity goes, the we are all equal and consequently have the same basic rights.
P2: One of our basic human rights is the right to live, or the right to exist. - True. One of the most fundamental rights we have as humans, is the right to be alive.
P3: It is wrong to deprive someone of something they have a right to. - True, if it can be said that someone has a right to something, it is wrong for someone else to deny them the thing that they have a right to.
P4: Murder deprives a person of their life and essentially denies them their right to live. - True, murder is the act of killing or taking someone's life away from them, thus depriving them of their opportunity to live.
C: Therefore, if everyone is equal, then murder is wrong.

Kind of like...
P1: If A then B
P2: B = C
P3: It is wrong to deny B, if A.
P4: Murder denies C. Since B = C, Murder also denies B.
C: Since Murder denies B, and denying B is wrong, if A, our conclusion would be, If everyone is fundamentally equal, then murder is wrong. Or If A, then Murder is wrong.

Like I said, if you don't believe everyone is equal, then murder would not necessarily be wrong according to this argument since everyone would not deserve the same basic things, but I think a full exploration of whether or not people are actually fundamentally equal, would reveal that people are indeed equal at their core. In other words, I think this argument could indeed be proven true, if we took an in-depth look at the truth of each premise. Which cannot be said for arguments that contain or depend on pure beliefs.

For example, it is your belief that "life" begins at conception, perhaps it is someone else's belief that "life" begins at the time when a phetus can live independant of it's mother, neither of which can be proven, since an in-depth look at the word "life" does not give us any proof or evidence of when "life" actually begins and ends, only that it does. The same could be said for keeping people on life support for extended periods of time. Are they alive even though all they're doing is simply living with the support of this machine? Another example, IMO, would be that it is your belief that homosexuality is "wrong," which cannot be proven, since an in-depth look at homosexuality does not evidence anything in the act or the practice that can be shown to be "wrong," since the people it impacts, namely the homosexuals, are not the ones who are supposedly harmed or offended by it.

In addition, any argument that draws support from something like the Bible or religion, would have to be prefaced or started with the If statement of "If one believes that the Bible is the ultimate truth and word of God," or "If one believes in Christianity," in which case, you are already excluding over 2/3 of the world so your argument would only apply to 1 out of every 3 people on average. These kind of arguments do not hold true for many people in world because they require one to have a particular belief or religion. They essentially are what might be called "a self-justification," one that can only be used to justify ones own beliefs and cannot realistically be used to persuade others since religion is also one of our basic freedoms. If all people in the world or in the country were required to be of a particular religion, then arguments such as this would be sound, since one would also truthfully say, "All people are Christians." or "Muslims" or whatever.

This is not the case with an argument that starts out with the premise "If all people are equal..." since this is an acknowledged fact that can be proven through an in-depth analysis of what we as humans are. Just because I was born in the U.S.A. does not make me any better or worse than someone born in Vietnam or Sri Lanka. The hundreds of thousands lost in Southern Asia are each just as priceless as losing hundreds of thousands of Americans or Canadians. People are People.

Sorry for the confusion with the murder example, it was just kind of something I threw out there thinking the truth would be apparent, but it was done pretty sloppily now that I look back at it. I'm sure this attempt wasn't perfect either, but hopefully I did a little better job and you can better see what I'm trying to get at.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21131

[erolyn]

Is it possible to have a completely unbiased education?

No.

Stasi's probably right on that one, but it seems to me that the best way to ATTEMPT to give someone an unbiased education is simply to give a person (child, whoever) all the facts and all the different points of view on a subject. Example: atheists get mad about the idea of teaching kids Creationism in school, and Christians get mad about schools teaching Darwinism. I go to a Catholic high school and learned about both simlutaneously my freshman year, and was given the opporutnity to simply believe whatever I wanted to, without being told either one was absolutely right or wrong. Yeah, the views might still be slightly biased, and yeah, those probably aren't ALL the facts, because to give someone every bit of information and every viewpoint is impossible...but you guys get what I'm saying, right?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21365

[Stasi]

Is it possible to have a completely unbiased education?

No.

Stasi's probably right on that one, but it seems to me that the best way to ATTEMPT to give someone an unbiased education is simply to give a person (child, whoever) all the facts and all the different points of view on a subject. Example: atheists get mad about the idea of teaching kids Creationism in school, and Christians get mad about schools teaching Darwinism. I go to a Catholic high school and learned about both simlutaneously my freshman year, and was given the opporutnity to simply believe whatever I wanted to, without being told either one was absolutely right or wrong. Yeah, the views might still be slightly biased, and yeah, those probably aren't ALL the facts, because to give someone every bit of information and every viewpoint is impossible...but you guys get what I'm saying, right?

Yes. Though it's impossible to receive a totally unbiased education about something, that doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:21366