Fuzzy thinking in ethics...

[GrowingSmaller]

Fuzzy rules in ethics...
For example "theft is wrong" may not be absolute, but context dependent, or have exceptions. And therefore be partially both true AND false.

OR "Stealing is wrong" would translate as " prohibitingstealing increases socially produced well being, probably, ( maybe stochastically to borrow a sciencey term)".

SO, if true, because the rules are fuzzy, we have to make up for them with compensatoty acton, like this:

1: Private property is good.

2: Stealing is wrong.

but, 3: We have a duty to help the destitute.



<B>

Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic derived from fuzzy set theory to deal with uncertainty in subjective belief. In contrast with “crisp logic”, where binary sets have two-valued logic, fuzzy logic variables can have a value that ranges between 0 and 1. Furthermore, when linguistic variables are used, these unit-interval numerical values may be described by specific functions.

What is Fuzzy Logic | IGI Global

​

</B>

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are no factually true or false moral statements. They are opinions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are factually true or false moral statements, if you are willing to supply the necessary context.

However, that doesn't relate to fuzzy logic, IMO. Whatever fuzziness there may be in a moral statement is due only to laziness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Fuzzy rules in ethics...
For example "theft is wrong" may not be absolute, but context dependent, or have exceptions. And therefore be partially both true AND false.

That is fine in human applications. But in theology, "both true and false" means false. So fuzzy logic does not apply to theology.
To emphasize: In theology, "99.99% true and 0.01% false" IS false.

 

[True Scotsman]

Fuzzy rules in ethics...
For example "theft is wrong" may not be absolute, but context dependent, or have exceptions. And therefore be partially both true AND false.

OR "Stealing is wrong" would translate as " prohibitingstealing increases socially produced well being, probably, ( maybe stochastically to borrow a sciencey term)".

SO, if true, because the rules are fuzzy, we have to make up for them with compensatoty acton, like this:

1: Private property is good.

2: Stealing is wrong.

but, 3: We have a duty to help the destitute.



<B>

​

</B>

Stealing is wrong. Period.

Stealing is wrong until someone needs to steal is the logic of looters.

There is no moral duty to help the destitute. One may help the destitute if one wants with his own money, voluntarily. Anything else is the policy of criminals.

 

[durangodawood]

That is fine in human applications. But in theology, "both true and false" means false. So fuzzy logic does not apply to theology.
To emphasize: In theology, "99.99% true and 0.01% false" IS false.

Can you use an example to explain?

 

[juvenissun]

Can you use an example to explain?

White lie is a lie, no matter how justified it could be.
A theological issue on this topic is the sensitivity to sin.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

lying is wrong but in certain situations when the lie is a benefit to a person or group in danger it'd be okay

 

[durangodawood]

Basically this thread is about someone realizing that in real life, legitimate values sometime conflict, and you have to commit the lesser offense to uphold the greater value.

 

[juvenissun]

Basically this thread is about someone realizing that in real life, legitimate values sometime conflict, and you have to commit the lesser offense to uphold the greater value.

I said that in human system, it is fine, but in theology, it will not work.

 

[durangodawood]

I said that in human system, it is fine, but in theology, it will not work.

The classic case of God "letting people have free-will" is an example where you are wrong.

The bad: God allowing suffering when he could stop it, is trumped by the good: God allowing freedom.

 

[BobCubb]

Is it Ethical to extort money from people to get the flashing ads off their screen? What ever happened to donations, tithing in good nature. Borderline sinful? Oh well just say a couple hail mary's and it's all better.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There are no factually true or false moral statements. They are opinions.

All beliefs are opinions or attitudes, like 2+2=4, or "the sky is blue". That does not make them vacuous, so why shoulfd it be different in ethics?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There are factually true or false moral statements, if you are willing to supply the necessary context.

However, that doesn't relate to fuzzy logic, IMO. Whatever fuzziness there may be in a moral statement is due only to laziness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

OK I see, so "lying is wrong 90% of the time" is not fuzzy, its just context dependent. In 90% of contexts, lying is wrong, for example?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That is fine in human applications. But in theology, "both true and false" means false. So fuzzy logic does not apply to theology.
To emphasize: In theology, "99.99% true and 0.01% false" IS false.

THOU SHALT NOTS are 100% then? Moral absolutism.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Stealing is wrong. Period.

Stealing is wrong until someone needs to steal is the logic of looters.

There is no moral duty to help the destitute. One may help the destitute if one wants with his own money, voluntarily. Anything else is the policy of criminals.

Why prioritise property relations above genral human welfare? Arent political rules meant to be for the human good?


Thats the way I see it, rules are fallible attempts to create a benign society, so we need compensatory measures to make up for their weaknesses.

Even at school we were taught that white lies are socialy acceptable, and even proper in due context.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All beliefs are opinions or attitudes, like 2+2=4, or "the sky is blue". That does not make them vacuous, so why shoulfd it be different in ethics?

2+2=4 isn't an opinion...it's a fact.

 

[Eudaimonist]

OK I see, so "lying is wrong 90% of the time" is not fuzzy, its just context dependent. In 90% of contexts, lying is wrong, for example?

Bingo!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

2+2=4 isn't an opinion...it's a fact.

In some contexts, but not in others. First one has to buy into the whole notion of 2. If I have one apple and another apple is placed next to it do I have 2 apples or do I have an individual apple placed next to another individual apple? If the context is mathematics, one might be inclined to say 2 apples, but if the context is reality, who can say with any firm conviction that these are not individual apples placed next to each other but rather a collective thing called 2 apples? The former idea seems to be very hard to accept for those that have been told in school that mathematics is somehow a factual representation of reality rather than the flawed and non inclusive abstraction that it is . Much like the poster that stated that white lies must be a good thing because someone(s) in a formal educational setting said it was so.

 

[juvenissun]

The classic case of God "letting people have free-will" is an example where you are wrong.

The bad: God allowing suffering when he could stop it, is trumped by the good: God allowing freedom.

God is good. No fuzzy interpretation.

Human is fuzzy all the time. What you said is an example.

The reason of difference? God creates human and loves human. (reminder: animals are not fuzzy either)