A Little More On Logic and Morals

[David Sklansky]

I perhaps did not make myself perfectly clear about how logic mistakes are often the culprit when two people with the same principles differ about a moral issue.

By that I mean that one or both have come to a conclusion that flat out contradicts one of THEIR OWN AXIOMS or a conclusion based on those axioms. And I don't mean fuzzy axioms like The Pair Andy The Board Fox ones of make yourself happy and make others happy, that could compete with each other. I mean precise axioms like: If one of two unknown people must be chosen to die and you have no information except their age, choose the older one.

It is not clear how many moral arguments boil down to differences (precise or vague) in initial axioms and how many boil down to least one of the particpants not realizing they have contradicted themselves because it was a several step chain of reasoning that they screwed up. But the point is this: Whether you are talking about ethics, morals, or how to bake a potato; it doesn't matter how much you know or believe about the subject, if when asked to come to a new conclusion that you didn't already know, based on things you already know or believe, you start asserting the consequece or denying the antecedent.

If you commit those or other similar sins in your thinking your previous knowledge or belief is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS as far as getting your new answer is concerned.

[SheetWise]

The trick is to see and then expose or exploit the fatal flaw in your opponents reasoning.

[andyfox]

I thought your point was clear before. My point is that moral issues may not be as clearcut as you seem to think they often are and that in the real world there are competing parameters, and thus the apparently logical way from point A to B is sometimes not clear (and sometime not really logical). Some who claim to be "scientists" (e.g., social scientists, political scientists, economists) sometimes plug their mathematical formulas into the real world and make a mess. Deciding about how to proceed is sometimes very different from baking a potato.

This is one reason I'm drawn toward A.J. Ayer's theory of morals in Language, Truth and Logic: arguments about values are not arguments about values but arguments about facts. If two people disagree about a particular moral problem, either one of two things are happening:

1) both agree about ascribing to a particular value (i.e.: liberty) and are disagreeing about a fact in the world, in which case this moral argument is resolvable

2) both disagree about ascribing to a particular value, in which case it's irrelevant if they match up on facts because the argument is irresolvable

Disagreements about value are not resolvable because both persons in a moral argument can agree to exactly the same facts and still disagree about whether a particular thing or action is moral or immoral. Thus, moral arguments are not founded on empirical truths but rather on opinion.

[ QUOTE ]


Disagreements about value are not resolvable because both persons in a moral argument can agree to exactly the same facts and still disagree about whether a particular thing or action is moral or immoral. Thus, moral arguments are not founded on empirical truths but rather on opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im confused, isnt Sklansky saying the exact opposite. ie.... My buddy George and I agree on the facts(axiom) that if 2 people are drowning and you can save only one it is correct to save the younger one. Walkin in the woods the other day we come upon this situation. A 5 yearold girl is drowning and so is a hot piece of ass 30 year old. I want to save the 30 year old while my friend wants to save the child. We both contend that our action is the correct or moral one. This argument is not irresolvable because I am demonstrably wrong by the shared accepted facts, and when shown that my conclusion does not follow from my axioms, I will then save the 5 year old.

[ QUOTE ]
Im confused, isnt Sklansky saying the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I agreed with him. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
My buddy George and I agree on the facts(axiom) that if 2 people are drowning and you can save only one it is correct to save the younger one.

[/ QUOTE ]

An axiom is not a fact. If you both agree on a moral principle as an axiom, then you both have a common moral ground. Your both agreeing on matters of fact, though, will be moot if one believes "Age is a salient factor in these types of situation" and the other denies it.

[ QUOTE ]

An axiom is not a fact. If you both agree on a moral principle as an axiom, then you both have a common moral ground. Your both agreeing on matters of fact, though, will be moot if one believes "Age is a salient factor in these types of situation" and the other denies it.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.......but you said that disagreements over conclusions between people with shared axioms (opinion or fact it doesnt matter as long as the people share the belief) are irresolvable. This is not true. When the party that is arriving at a conclusion that doesnt follow from the shared axiom is shown the error in his logic, he can either change his conclusion or then start denying the shared axiom (or hold the 2 contradictory belief at once). But as long as the axioms are shared then any argument over conclusions is resolvable.

[ QUOTE ]
you said that disagreements over conclusions between people with shared axioms (opinion or fact it doesnt matter as long as the people share the belief) are irresolvable. This is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem is: two people that differ concerning fact can resolve their arguments with logic and empirical analysis, while two people that differ concerning value cannot. It is possible that two people agree on the facts (facts as in 'value-free propositions' [to the extent that is possible], like "John is drowning, Jane is drowning, John is older than Jane," etc.) and both use the same style of logic and yet differ in their moral conclusions if the values they both hold as axiomatic are different. If I hold "Age is a sailent factor in this situation while gender is not" and you hold "Gender is a salient factor in this situation while age is not", then it's possible that we will both agree about what is happening in the external world and both use the Principle of Non-Contradiction and such and yet come to two very different conclusions about what to do.

The larger point I want to make is: how do you convince someone to agree with your values? If I hold "Innocent life should never be taken" and you hold the opposite, how do we enter into a dialouge? Logical contradictions only seem to play a part in what follows from a given value-axiom, not in what value-axiom I should choose in the first place. For someone to deny this, they would have to hold the proposition that "there is only one set of values in which the set's logical derivatives are consistent with themselves and all the facts of the external world." That, safe to say, is an unproven assumption.