The Real Life Important Point about Being Moral or Ethical.

[Kripke]

[ QUOTE ]
If you assume we have similar morals, deduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, deduction is simply a method of testing validity of arguments. Deduction is not a specific kind of logic. You might argue that a certain argument is valid because you can deduce the conclusion from the premises in modal logic. But someone who rejects the whole foundation of modal logic will not accept this argument, because he will argue that modal logic is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
If you assume we don't, induction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I even understand your suggestion here.

- Kripke

[David Sklansky]

"Deduction is not a specific kind of logic. You might argue that a certain argument is valid because you can deduce the conclusion from the premises in modal logic. But someone who rejects the whole foundation of modal logic will not accept this argument, because he will argue that modal logic is flawed"

What kind of logic did Euclid use? Do some people argue it was flawed?

[Kripke]

Euclid didn't use logic to do geometry. I'm not sure whether people doing geometry today are using set theory or similar, but I doubt it. Logic is logic - Geometry is a branch of mathematics.

I don't think anyone today argues that Euclidean geometry is flawed, although some might. I think the general view is that both Euclidean and Non-euclidean geometries are consistent mathematical theories and that deciding which one is the right theory is a futile project.

But this should also make it quite clear to you why the analogy between geometry and ethics is flawed. It goes against most peoples' understanding of ethics and morality that there could exist a multitude of different moral systems which are all correct and consistent yet inconsistent with each other. A great deal of people believe that what is morally correct is universally correct. For instance, all moral realists will claim that something cannot be morally correct for one person and yet morally incorrect for another person were they in the exact same situation. But if your analogy is correct, then one person accepting one moral system may be morally justified in doing x, while another person holding a different moral system is unjustified in doing x. This kind of moral relativism, although supported by some, is by many philosophers and almost everyone else construed as ridicolous.

- Kripke

[PairTheBoard]

See David, it should be clear to you, in fact it should be quite clear to you that you are being ridiculous.

That's all I've been saying from day 1.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Euclid didn't use logic to do geometry"

What is that supposed to mean?

"But if your analogy is correct, then one person accepting one moral system may be morally justified in doing x, while another person holding a different moral system is unjustified in doing x. This kind of moral relativism, although supported by some, is by many philosophers and almost everyone else construed as ridicolous."

- Kripke

You are completely missing my point. I never said I agree with what you call moral relativism. My point wasn't even relly ABOUT morals. I was simply saying that many people disagree about things because at least one of them has screwed up (often by making a faulty analagy or screwing up a syllogism-call that what you want) in reaching a conclusion even though they have all the same precepts relative to the discussion at hand. We could just as easily be talking about whether Mickey Mantle is better than Willie Mays or whether we should experiment on mice to get nicer perfumes.

[ QUOTE ]
But if your analogy is correct, then one person accepting one moral system may be morally justified in doing x, while another person holding a different moral system is unjustified in doing x. This kind of moral relativism, although supported by some, is by many philosophers and almost everyone else construed as ridicolous.

- Kripke

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone supports this kind of moral relativism. Societies like ours are founded on principles of respecting different moral systems. The Jew in allowed to run a kosher shop while the Christian is allowed to sell all the pork he wants.

Both the Jew and the Christian are being consistent in applying their moral foundations. Who is right? Wouldnt the moral realist have to say that one is certainly correct while the other is wrong? This is nonsense and when talking about pork I think everyone sees the ridiculousness of absolute morality.

Heres where I think most people get hung up. Using the same reasoning as above there are no lines on which to draw moral distinctions between Hitler and Churchill. But who cares? Ill still shoot Hitler between the eyes because his moral foundation is stupid and bad for allmost every member of humanity. It serves no one well to pretend that some how Hitler was evil incarnate and thats why he had to be stopped. Accepting this type of moral relativity doesnt mean that you have to tolerate others stupid moral beliefs.

[doubleplus]

You're not accounting for the fact that some people don't recognize logic as the supreme arbiter for all differences and appeals. Your faith in logic, while strong, is still just faith. Yes, it's been the basis of almost every "advance" mankind has made, it can explain the advances that it didn't facilitate, it explains the workings of the natural world down to the level of the smallest bits of matter, and it's made you a wealthy man. But logic and science only remain the most *likely* paradigms that the universe operates in, that serve as the ultimate arbiters of truth and falsehood. You yourself admit in another post that it's unlikely but not impossible that God exists. Assume that your 5% probability is correct, but God hit his 2-outer and exists. You might say that science is a way of discovering the laws that he made for the universe, a deistic view that's soundly rejected by the majority of the 98%+ of the world's population who happen to believe in a God. But if God exisits, it's just as likely that he's independently determining the outcome of each worldly event in a way that logic just happens to account for so far. Since each event is an arbitrary act of God, deductive reasoning, while useful, is no longer infallible as an explanatory or predictive tool. Look at the recent phenomenon of "intelligent design," which I abhor, for an example of this. A similar outcome to the above is arrived at in Hume's discussion of causality btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%2C...m_of_causation

You have a "diametrically opposed" world-view from people who see the world this way, and those people account for a large percentage of the world's, and even America's, population. They don't have a set of guidelines that lead them to the answer for any question, unless you consider appealing to and directly recieving the voice and guiding hand of God a guideline. While this isn't necessarily my approach, I don't reject it out of hand, either. Not being "weak at math" is something that I'd value in someone who is telling me how to play a hand or get to the moon without exploding. But there are a treasure of other valuable truths held by the mystics and artists of the world that will forever remain out of reach for those who place all their faith in science. And, to be honest, I'm more likely to listen to them when it comes to questions of right and wrong.