The Moral Argument (revamped)

Nicholas Deka said:

I'm sure you're sick of all this, but let me say just a couple more things.

First and foremost, you were right and I was wrong about the definition of the fallacy. Argument from false authority is a completely separate fallacy and I confused them.

However, you've taken such an all-or-nothing stance by saying that being an expert has no bearing on whether we can trust the accuracy of their statements, that it's hard not to be wrong with that. Logically Fallacious warned that you can take this fallacy too far and go from "healthy skepticism to full blown denialism". If we're talking about simple facts, like the capitol of Norway, or whether "hypertronic" is what the 'H' in HTML stands for, you should simply trust an expert to be correct. Even in your example in this post, your expert is simply stating the definition of the argument from authority fallacy. If it isn't important, it's fine to trust experts because they are generally more correct than average Joe Schmoe.

I think it's only a fallacy when someone insists that credentials behind a quote are the only evidence necessary. Let's say I cite some facts about death rates in some country from the CDC. It's fine to point out that the CDC is my source, but if you ask me to show the methodology behind collecting the data and I respond, "It's the CDC! Of course it's accurate!" that's when the fallacy kicks in.

Click to expand...

The thing I’m really sick of is this lazy reliance on the internet whereby someone finds the first thing that they think even remotely supports their opinion and regurgitates it in a post, with the added “it’s a scientist” or “they’ve got a PhD” as evidence that what’s posted is true.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the internet, it’s that for any cockamamie theory, there’s someone with a PhD that believes it. Now, these people used to be unknown to the general population. But now, any fool can have an online presence, and we’re losing the ability to discern what information is credible.

And yes, I know that sometimes someone will come forward with an idea that’s initially seen as crazy by other experts, but turns out to be true. But seriously, that’s rare compared to all the other times where ideas come forth that are actually just... crazy...

ToddNotTodd said:

The thing I’m really sick of is this lazy reliance on the internet whereby someone finds the first thing that they think even remotely supports their opinion and regurgitates it in a post, with the added “it’s a scientist” or “they’ve got a PhD” as evidence that what’s posted is true.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the internet, it’s that for any cockamamie theory, there’s someone with a PhD that believes it. Now, these people used to be unknown to the general population. But now, any fool can have an online presence, and we’re losing the ability to discern what information is credible.

And yes, I know that sometimes someone will come forward with an idea that’s initially seen as crazy by other experts, but turns out to be true. But seriously, that’s rare compared to all the other times where ideas come forth that are actually just... crazy...

Click to expand...

I have a crazy idea that, with or without a conglomerate of PhD mouths to buttress the experiment, will probably make waves. Let's go around to each individual that we can find, whether in the family, on the street, at the local bar, or here on CF, and ask him or her the following not quite moral question: Would you like to be punched in the face repeatedly until you die?

And unless the persons asked are having some emotional issues, I'm confident we'll get nearly a 99% response rate of "heck no!" Then we can take that empirically gained info, deliberate over it, and decide if the human mind, on the whole, has any objective objections to being beaten silly. Might this be a place to start to decide if 'morality' has any objective value for our individual, subjective notions to evaluate what might be wrong or right within the realm of human ethics?

2PhiloVoid said:

I have a crazy idea that, with or without a conglomerate of PhD mouths to buttress the experiment, will probably make waves. Let's go around to each individual that we can find, whether in the family, on the street, at the local bar, or here on CF, and ask him or her the following not quite moral question: Would you like to be punched in the face repeatedly until you die?

Click to expand...

That reminds me of a joke! This thread could use a little levity...

A man is walking down the beach and trips over an old oil lamp. While brushing the sand off to see the detailed inscriptions in the metal, a genie pops out! The genie tells the man, "I'll grant you three wishes, but you must know, that whatever you receive, your ex-wife will receive two-fold".

"Alright" says the man, "I'd like a Porsche". And with a flash a brand new Porsche appears before him!

"I have sent two Porsches to your wife" says the genie.

"Alright" says the man, "I'd like a giant mansion". And with a flash his entire block is transformed into a sprawling mansion!

"I have sent two mansions to your wife" says the genie.

"Alright" says the man, "I'd like you to beat me half to death".

2PhiloVoid said:

I have a crazy idea that, with or without a conglomerate of PhD mouths to buttress the experiment, will probably make waves. Let's go around to each individual that we can find, whether in the family, on the street, at the local bar, or here on CF, and ask him or her the following not quite moral question: Would you like to be punched in the face repeatedly until you die?

And unless the persons asked are having some emotional issues, I'm confident we'll get nearly a 99% response rate of "heck no!" Then we can take that empirically gained info, deliberate over it, and decide if the human mind, on the whole, has any objective objections to being beaten silly. Might this be a place to start to decide if 'morality' has any objective value for our individual, subjective notions to evaluate what might be wrong or right within the realm of human ethics?

Click to expand...

The takeaway from this is obviously that the highest moral goal would be to saw the hands off everyone you encounter...

Nicholas Deka said:

That reminds me of a joke! This thread could use a little levity...

A man is walking down the beach and trips over an old oil lamp. While brushing the sand off to see the detailed inscriptions in the metal, a genie pops out! The genie tells the man, "I'll grant you three wishes, but you must know, that whatever you receive, your ex-wife will receive two-fold".

"Alright" says the man, "I'd like a Porsche". And with a flash a brand new Porsche appears before him!

"I have sent two Porsches to your wife" says the genie.

"Alright" says the man, "I'd like a giant mansion". And with a flash his entire block is transformed into a sprawling mansion!

"I have sent two mansions to your wife" says the genie.

"Alright" says the man, "I'd like you to beat me half to death".

Click to expand...

.......I'd laugh, but I'm afraid if I did, I'd be run out of this here town, Nick!

ToddNotTodd said:

The takeaway from this is obviously that the highest moral goal would be to saw the hands off everyone you encounter...

Click to expand...

.....well, as it so happens, I was just saying to Nick that with his joke, and with the laughter that may come about on my part, there remains the possibility of my being run out of town.

Now, you're adding to that possibility!

ToddNotTodd said:

The takeaway from this is obviously that the highest moral goal would be to saw the hands off everyone you encounter...

Click to expand...

Oh my!

Might there be a difference, though, between "asking for a sawing" and "actually sawing"? I mean, I could be wrong, and maybe the ERB got it wrong when I was studying how to qualify my attempts at objectivity, but I was kind of under the impression that for an information gathering process to qualify as experimentally valid, there was also something about 'consent' being a required part of our attempt to gain this strange thing called 'objectivity.'

In any case, how about we take your hypothesis and empirically start ... with you!

2PhiloVoid said:

Oh my!

Might there be a difference, though, between "asking for a sawing" and "actually sawing"? I mean, I could be wrong, and maybe the ERB got it wrong when I was studying how to qualify my attempts at objectivity, but I was kind of under the impression that for an information gathering process to qualify as experimentally valid, there was also something about 'consent' being a required part of our attempt to gain this strange thing called 'objectivity.'

In any case, how about we take your hypothesis and empirically start ... with you!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but in my definition of morality, there’s a list of importance, with me near the top. So it would actually be immoral to saw my hands off in lieu of doing it to almost everyone else.

ToddNotTodd said:

Sorry, but in my definition of morality, there’s a list of importance, with me near the top. So it would actually be immoral to saw my hands off in lieu of doing it to almost everyone else.

Click to expand...

I can chuckle at that, too, but on a more serious note, axiologically speaking (i.e. both aesthetically and ethically), I'm at pains to see how my hypothetical experiment doesn't impute at least some tinsy-winsy bit of objectivity to human morality. Sure, it doesn't show [nor need, really] the God-hypothesis, but I think I can go with some level of common sense (like that of G.E. Moore) and deem that the results would impute some objective reaction among most human beings that we could then count as a beginning point for basic human moral consideration.

See, the truth is, we don't have to actually cut your hands off. I can merely ask you if you'd like that kind of thing: And if you can't answer honestly, then … then we can relegate you to the class of 1%. Because, let's face it, whether one is Christian or one is Atheist, or one is Nihilistic or Relativistic, or whatever supposed ethical sensibility one may attempt to believe and adhere to, most more or less healthy, reasonably sensible human beings, and probably even a number of those who seem to 'think' they enjoy pain as pleasure (God forbid!), will not want any potentially inflicted pain which could be administered to them to lead to their early demise. It's one thing to endure the 40 lashes minus one; it's another thing to be placed on the executioner's rack. So, I'm expecting "Oh, Heck NO!!" to be expressed nearly 99% across the board.

Of course, there'll always be a Polycarp here or there who, for whatever reason, seems to feign that all that sort of thing will "be a-ok." But I think that some of that talk, such as was supposed in his case, is more or less apocryphal in nature. Nay, I'm sure if we were there, we would have heard him empirically wince and whine just a bit when the fires were set to the stake on which he was tied.

For those denying the premise that moral values exist objectively, in what way do you defend Slavery, Hitler's Final Solution, Mao, Stalin, child sex trafficking, etc.?

The entailments of ad hoc evolutionary genetic fallacious arguments for subjective moral values being a function of evolution giving us false beliefs requires it seems to say that calling anything on that list above "wrong" is a false belief as well.

Nothing could be wrong with child sex trafficking, objectively that is. One could only say to the child sex trafficker, "You would be wise to live in a society that approves of sex trafficking and therefore you wouldn't be morally wrong."

Apply equally to torturing children for the fun of it. As long as it confers a survival advantage why not. For those supporting any defeater of objective moral values for any reason, please articulate the entailments in terms of the above list of actions.

Uber Genius said:

For those denying the premise that moral values exist objectively, in what way do you defend Slavery, Hitler's Final Solution, Mao, Stalin, child sex trafficking, etc.?

The entailments of ad hoc evolutionary genetic fallacious arguments for subjective moral values being a function of evolution giving us false beliefs requires it seems to say that calling anything on that list above "wrong" is a false belief as well.

Nothing could be wrong with child sex trafficking, objectively that is. One could only say to the child sex trafficker, "You would be wise to live in a society that approves of sex trafficking and therefore you wouldn't be morally wrong."

Apply equally to torturing children for the fun of it. As long as it confers a survival advantage why not. For those supporting any defeater of objective moral values for any reason, please articulate the entailments in terms of the above list of actions.

Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion.

ToddNotTodd said:

The thing I’m really sick of is this lazy reliance on the internet whereby someone finds the first thing that they think even remotely supports their opinion and regurgitates it in a post, with the added “it’s a scientist” or “they’ve got a PhD” as evidence that what’s posted is true.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the internet, it’s that for any cockamamie theory, there’s someone with a PhD that believes it. Now, these people used to be unknown to the general population. But now, any fool can have an online presence, and we’re losing the ability to discern what information is credible.

And yes, I know that sometimes someone will come forward with an idea that’s initially seen as crazy by other experts, but turns out to be true. But seriously, that’s rare compared to all the other times where ideas come forth that are actually just... crazy...

Click to expand...

So, wait... You're saying that registering for a YouTube account isn't equivalent to a Master's Degree? Nonsense.

Nicholas Deka said:

It is factually incorrect. You may disagree that argument from authority is a fallacy, but the definition of the fallacy is not what was stated.

Click to expand...

What is factually incorrect? He just gave a bit of reasoning, not obscure appeals to authority. Some here love to throw around so-called "Fallacies" as an attempt to short-circuit argument. Indeed your own appeal to a particular definition of a stock fallacy is itself (ironically) an argument from authority. There is no need to enter into obscure debates about whose definition of some special fallacy is correct. One should just explain their position or explain why their opponent's position is false. We should just avoid all this referring to so-called stock fallacies. That's what gaara did. Good for him.

gradyll said:

I fully believe what I said, I could be wrong. But that would not be the same as lying. I could call you a liar at this point, but I am above that. I believe you fully believe I was lying, (and thus not a liar) but I believe you are mistaken about it. So I would also like the same respect from others as well, as that is only fair.

Click to expand...

Respect would have been you not continuing a dead conversation by misrepresenting everything I’ve said in this thread, prompting me to respond.

gradyll said:

this is coming from someone whom made the statement that he has a degree in philosophy, so if we are to believe what you said, "lazy reliance on the internet" is a problem, then reading your posts and believing them as factual would also be lazy. Agreed? As this is still the internet. You can use whatever rule you wish, but you are not exempt from them.

Click to expand...

Have I ever said that anyone should believe everything I say just because I have a mere Bachelors in Philosophy? No, I have not.

I’m not sure you’re paying attention to anything I’m saying, so perhaps it would be better if we cease conversing at all...

gradyll said:

most people do not debate honestly. I admit, in the past I would get angry and lash out using fallacy or ad hominem attack. But that is not having faith in God, that he will work in situation, and also it is not the right way of doing debate. Debate should not be hot headed. People should point out errors in statements, not accuse people of having a lack of intelligence or other ad hominem. Mocking people for example is a type of ad hominem. Ad hominems are technically against the rules for this forum. Subtle jabs at people, these are all reportable instances. "here are the forum rules:

• Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

but even if the rules do not state that flaming is wrong. It's not morally right to mock someone as unintelligent, or naive or whatever for the purpose of making you look more intelligent. That is a logical error (a fallacy).
But however it is usually nicer simply to point out the fallacy and ask people to be nice, than to report them behind their back. Thats the loving thing to do, and what I recommend doing.

Click to expand...

..................do you think there should also be a rule against presenting an over-exorbitant amount of data or info all at the same time in singular mega-posts? I do.