The Real Life Important Point about Being Moral or Ethical.

[Darryl_P]

This is actually a perfect example of what I said above.

If you take Bush's statements of his values at face value then indeed you have found a contradiction.

But if you assume that since Bush is conservative he values American lives MUCH more than Iraqi lives, the latter being worth next to nothing to him, then the contradiction is no longer there. The missing element is the (almost) zero value he places on Iraqi lives -- something which he may not even admit to himself, but more likely simply can't state publicly for obvious political reasons.

[Chris Alger]

You're partly right but your emphasis on math and "formal logic" is misplaced in all but the most difficult or technical questions. The bigger problem relates to how we define situations we confront, not the conclusions, logical or not, that we draw from our definitions.

People tend to agree about morality of a defined situation (or event) but tend to disagree over how to define situations and, to a lesser extent, how to draw conclusions from those definitions. To put it another way, people tend to agree on the morally correct choice once a hypothetical problem is sufficiently defined (excepting hard cases), but radically differ on how to define typical situations in the real world that they all confront. I would take this further and contend that they also agree on how to define situations where they are so familiar with the facts that the chance of getting them wrong is much lower.

The greatest problem with achieving consensus on issues larger than our own experience is that we tend to be more or less burdened by ingrained facts and assumptions ("metafacts", perhaps) that are so thoroughly ingrained and laden with emotional investment that we can't comprehend what appears to contradict them. Without this, all the logical training in the world won't help.

[FreakDaddy]

What's the point of this post? To tell people they should learn proper deductive reasoning before they toss their opinions and disagreements around like freesbies? You're too funny. Why bother?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
chrisnice --
<font color="white"> ,, </font>
Heres an example. George Bush and most anti stem cell types say that regarless of the good that comes from stem cell research, you are not justified in taking innocent life. George Bush and many of the same anti stem cell research types believe that the innocent life that is lost in Iraq is justified by the wars good ends.

I dont know of any accurate numbers, but it seems reasonable to think that at least a couple dozen of completly innocent Iraqi infants have died in pursuit of Bushs noble cause.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great example to illustrate exactly what I was saying here:

PTB --
"If you take a person's Conclusion A and you claim it logically implies Conclusion B which the person does not want to accept, it may be that you have introduced elements which alter the balancing process or which touch on additional hidden principles which were not active in reaching conclusion A. "



There are a host of additional principles at work in Conclusion B, the War in Iraq, compared to Conclusion A, the treatment of embryos. If you argue that one logically determines the other you just aren't being realistic about the multitude of diverse competing principles that are actually at work in both cases.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]



There are a host of additional principles at work in Conclusion B, the War in Iraq, compared to Conclusion A, the treatment of embryos. If you argue that one logically determines the other you just aren't being realistic about the multitude of diverse competing principles that are actually at work in both cases.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think you are just trying to be difficult. The point is not to say that supporting the war in Iraq means you have to also support stem cell research. The point is that anyone who opposes stem cell research on the grounds that it is allways wrong to kill innocent human life, and who isnt also a pacifist, is not someone to be taken seriously.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
chrisnice --
<font color="white"> ,, </font>
I really think you are just trying to be difficult. The point is not to say that supporting the war in Iraq means you have to also support stem cell research. The point is that anyone who opposes stem cell research on the grounds that it is allways wrong to kill innocent human life, and who isnt also a pacifist, is not someone to be taken seriously.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just maintaining my point which still applies to your words above.

chrisnice --
"The point is that anyone who opposes stem cell research on the grounds that it is allways wrong to kill innocent human life, and who isnt also a pacifist, is not someone to be taken seriously."

My point is that if you insist on boiling down someone's grounds for opposition to stem cell reasearch to the atomic principle, "it is all ways wrong to kill innocent human life" then you are not being realistic about the real sources of the person's opinion. It's also unfair to set up an untenable strawman principle, claim that is the grounds for his opinion, show the principle's problems and then dismiss the person's opinion based on the strawprinciple's problems.

But suppose you actually find someone who gives this as his reason to oppose stem cell research. Going from the principle, "it is all ways wrong to kill innocent human life" to Pacifism once again ignores the reality of competing principles. A person could assert this principle but then say that in the case of war there are other principles which also apply. He might say, yes it is still wrong to kill the innocent child in war but it is also wrong not to fight the war for other compelling reasons. He balances the two principles.

What's really going on when he uses the principle to oppose stem cell research is that there are other principles going into his opinion which he may not be giving. I was taught early on, "There's the reason they give and then there's the Real Reason". You may think it ludicrous that he considers the need to fight a war outweighing the need to keep the "life" principle for grown innocent civilians, while not considering the need to do life saving research outweighing the need to keep the "life" principle for embryos but that's now a matter of opinion - Not Logic.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"What's really going on when he uses the principle to oppose stem cell research is that there are other principles going into his opinion which he may not be giving. I was taught early on, "There's the reason they give and then there's the Real Reason"."

But then he really didn't contradict himself because he was lying to you or himself that it is "always wrong" to kill innocent civilians. And if he finds himself supporting a war he must admit that. That's all I'm saying.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"What's really going on when he uses the principle to oppose stem cell research is that there are other principles going into his opinion which he may not be giving. I was taught early on, "There's the reason they give and then there's the Real Reason"."

But then he really didn't contradict himself because he was lying to you or himself that it is "always wrong" to kill innocent civilians. And if he finds himself supporting a war he must admit that. That's all I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, your Logic isn't Forcing. He can hold to his "always wrong" principle and say that it's even more wrong not to fight the war. A lot of people will say, "War is wrong", yet trump that with the competing principle that "sometimes war is necessary". You can argue that this is not Logical, that if the war is necessary then it must be right. That's where I think you're missing the point with your logic. I think it's perfectly proper to hold the principles, "war is wrong" and "this war is necessary" simultaneously.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I think it's perfectly proper to hold the principles, "war is wrong" and "this war is necessary" simultaneously.

But not war is ALWAYS wrong. As everybody on this forum, including you, realize I meant.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's perfectly proper to hold the principles, "war is wrong" and "this war is necessary" simultaneously.

But not war is ALWAYS wrong. As everybody on this forum, including you, realize I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the difference. "War is Wrong". Why do you need to add the word "always"?

PairTheBoard