Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You didn't say "determine the facts" you said "sway the argument". It's emotion that is more likely to sway an argument in favor of one debater or another.I am not sure what your point is. I was talking about how when debating it is reasoning and logic that will determine the facts.
Ok well theres another example of my grammar. But its silly to now force me to take on a misrepresentation of my arguement because of one word. You and I both know I have consistently talked about reasoning and logic being the key to determining morality.You didn't say "determine the facts" you said "sway the argument". It's emotion that is more likely to sway an argument in favor of one debater or another.
Yes but when it comes to morality we want and need to know what is right and wrong. Thats where logic and reason are important. Most ethicists agree that morality is a rational enterprise.The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is more persuasive than logic and reason. That's why people think morality is objective.
Can this type of relationship be applied in any normative way like morality. Afterall a kidnapper can make his victim do what he wants as well. Your example only works in a closed environment and even it opens the door for immoral acts or exploitation of people under duress.Yes, it did. She is never to turn the radio to the R&B station when I am in the car.
I set a rule for her behavior based on my subjective view that R&B sucks.Can this type of relationship be applied in any normative way like morality.
Moving the goal posts. You claimed we wouldn't enforce our subjective views in a normative way, I demonstrated we do.Afterall a kidnapper can make his victim do what he wants as well. Your example only works in a closed environment and even it opens the door for immoral acts or exploitation of people under duress.
You may say your situation is fine but what about someone else who is using the same logic to control and abuse their partner. Theres no real basis for what OK or not. Morality doesnt work that way. Either something is right or wrong.
your example cannot be applied openly like morality can thus is not a good example of how morality works. Otherwise we would have to say that every situation where people force others or set standards for them to follow which could also include immoral acts are counted.
One word? You changed "sway the argument" to "determine the facts". Only word word stayed the same, "the", and it's the only part of that which isn't integral to your meaning. It's fine if you misspoke. Just say you misspoke and move on.Ok well theres another example of my grammar. But its silly to now force me to take on a misrepresentation of my arguement because of one word.
No its not moving the goal posts. You have to be able to apply your scenario generally because thats how morality works. Your private arrangement with your wife doesnt apply noramtively. Private arrangements could mean anything including immoral acts. The fact it cannot apply normatively shows it is a false analogy.I set a rule for her behavior based on my subjective view that R&B sucks.
Moving the goal posts. You claimed we wouldn't enforce our subjective views in a normative way, I demonstrated we do.
Well yeah in the way you are saying it I have mispoke the word.One word? You changed "sway the argument" to "determine the facts". Only word word stayed the same, "the", and it's the only part of that which isn't integral to your meaning. It's fine if you misspoke. Just say you misspoke and move on.
Another point is that when you say "Sway" somone does sucessfully swaying someone mean that they have also convinced them about the truth/facts of the matter.You didn't say "determine the facts" you said "sway the argument". It's emotion that is more likely to sway an argument in favor of one debater or another.
But you have slipped in some objective basis as part of your premise ie empathy (which is subjecvtive by the way). You also mention consequences. What consequences. That implies objectives because you are deeming that whatever action causes the consequences as wrong.Here's how subjective morality works. I acknowledge that the claim, "I ought to be happy" cannot be true. But at the same time the opposite claim, "I ought not be happy" cannot be true either. So because I want to be happy, I like being happy, and I prefer to be happy, I go ahead and assume "I ought to be happy" as a premise.
From that point I can build a complex morality based on outcomes, and consequences, utilizing empathy to normalize my behavior when interacting with other people and when trying to affect the behavior of others. And all of the moral statements I make in regards to this would be objectively true if "I ought to be happy" is objectively true.
Thats a logical fallacy in that because that it cannot be objectively true when it possibly could. If so the same case can be made for objective morality ie "I acknowledge that torturing a child for fun is morlaly good cannot be true therefore I ought to not torture children.Because it can't be objectively true and the only reason I assume it is true is because I prefer that it be true, morality is subjective. But I'm still going to do all of that stuff because I do in fact want to be happy, not because I actually ought to be happy.
That clearly states what I mean sway to mean. Based on facts to sway people.
Yes, I haven't misrepresented you. You think that facts and logic sway people. You think facts and logic are persuasive. That's what my link refutes. People are swayed by their emotions. You can "sway" people to believe things that are not true, and that's why we named a fallacy after this bit of human intuition: "It would make me feel good if this was true, therefore it is true" -- Appeal to Emotion fallacy.Another point is that when you say "Sway" somone does sucessfully swaying someone mean that they have also convinced them about the truth/facts of the matter.
I did. It applies to every car trip my wife and I take together, not just that specific one. General. Even more general, it doesn't just apply to my wife. Anyone, on any car trip with me is not allowed to tune the station to the R&B station. My wife, her sister, my kid, a hitchhiker... General. I countered your point, admit it so we can move on.No its not moving the goal posts. You have to be able to apply your scenario generally because thats how morality works.
This is a good post to talk about. This is how morality works even though it's subjective. You and I both start with the same premise:It is impossible to use subjective feelings or views to determine morality because there is no objective basis.
First of all, what I said was true. If it was false, which it isn't, it isn't a logical fallacy to make a false statement. That's not what logical fallacies are. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning.Thats a logical fallacy in that because that it cannot be objectively true when it possibly could.
No, not really. I could tell you how it works, but you'll probably just argue with me as though I don't know what I'm talking about, so I won't bother.If so the same case can be made for objective morality ie "I acknowledge that torturing a child for fun is morlaly good cannot be true therefore I ought to not torture children.
But now that I have clarified that I did not mean sway as in feelings but to support something with facts your example is no longer relevant.Yes, I haven't misrepresented you. You think that facts and logic sway people. You think facts and logic are persuasive. That's what my link refutes.
So your admitting that your use of a logical fallacy to explain morality is wrong.People are swayed by their emotions. You can "sway" people to believe things that are not true, and that's why we named a fallacy after this bit of human intuition: "It would make me feel good if this was true, therefore it is true" -- Appeal to Emotion fallacy.
Sigh... I know.But now that I have clarified that I did not mean sway as in feelings but to support something with facts
Let me stop you right there. It isn't vital for us to know if something is wrong truthfully because nothing is right or wrong truthfully. So your "then" to follow that "if" is irrelevant.If its vital for us to know if something is right or wrong truthfully
No we don't. I don't base it on a subjective idea. As I have stated life having intrinisic value is something that is true regardless of human opinion. Its an inalienable truth and a natural born truth. Happiness can be subjective. What makes you happy may be different to someone else. You can certain believe it for yourself but thats where it stops. It cannot be a basis for morality.This is a good post to talk about. This is how morality works even though it's subjective. You and I both start with the same premise:
I ought to be happy.
Then that isnt a basis for morality as then under your logic everyone can assume different things to be true. That makes the basis for right and wrong arbitray. Doesnt work for morality which needs to be normative.You claim that it is objectively true but you can't prove it. I accept that I am assuming it is true based on a logical fallacy, i.e. Appeal to Emotion. It isn't true, but I'll assume it's true and I won't care that it can't be proved.
Except your reasons/assumptions are arbitrary and cannot be relied upon for a moral system.So you think it's true, and I assume it's true, and we both act in the exact same manner as a result. We both build the exact same morality based on reasons we can prove.
NO we can't as they are subjective also. Empathy and feelings are subjective so we cannot built any moral system which needs to be based on objectives outside peoples feelings and opinions. Otherwise it doesnt work.For example. Because I have empathy, I feel bad when I'm surrounded by people that feel bad. So if I act in a way that causes people around me to feel bad, then I will be unhappy. We can state these things objectively. They aren't moral statements yet. I'm just describing things that happen.
No Its not sound. You have misprepresented my arguemnet.It becomes a moral statement when we say "Therefore you ought to not cause people around you to feel bad". Our argument will look the same:
P1 I ought to be happy
P2 Causing others to be unhappy will cause me to be unhappy
C I ought to not cause others to be unhappy
Totally valid argument. You claim it is sound,
Except your arguemnet is invalid.I claim it is not sound because P1 is not true. But I assume it is true, and therefore act in the exact same manner as you.
Yes but we can make assumptions based on some facts which allow us to act.For instance, consider this statement:
If I leave the house tomorrow, I will be hit by a bus.
No one knows if it is true or false. If I knew it was true, then I wouldn't leave the house. But I'm going to assume it is false, and I'm going to act in a manner in exact accordance with it being false because I am going to leave the house.
Whether the moral statement "I ought to be happy" is true or false doesn't matter when I assume it's true.
And you have made an error in reasoning. You cannot make subjective ideas the basis for morality.First of all, what I said was true. If it was false, which it isn't, it isn't a logical fallacy to make a false statement. That's not what logical fallacies are. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning.
Try me, I am open to undersdtanding.No, not really. I could tell you how it works, but you'll probably just argue with me as though I don't know what I'm talking about, so I won't bother.
But your carrying on a strawman. I am not saying facts and logic sway people anymore remember I clarified that is not what I meant.Sigh... I know.
Steve: Facts and logic sway people.
Orel: No, emotion sways people. Facts and logic are unlikely to sway anyone.
But thats your opinion "that nothing is right or wrong truthfully". We have to make morality objective because thats how it works. It cannot work any other way and be coherent.Let me stop you right there. It isn't vital for us to know if something is wrong truthfully because nothing is right or wrong truthfully. So your "then" to follow that "if" is irrelevant.
So you don't believe that "One ought to be happy" is objectively true? Quality of life has no objective basis for you?No we don't.
What's the difference between us having a natural right to happiness, and "One ought to be happy"?That includes certain natural rights like the Right to life, happiness ect.
Okay, so lemme ask you point blank. Which is more likely to change someone's mind: salesmanship or a sound logical argument?But your carrying on a strawman.
It depends on what you are talking about. When convincing someone to buy teatowels facts are not going to do it. You have to sell a dream or create a feeling of need. I use to be in sale and believe me I quit because I didnt like that we were trying to convince people about something that they didnt really need or was as good as made out.Okay, so lemme ask you point blank. Which is more likely to change someone's mind: salesmanship or a sound logical argument?
AS I mentioned all ethical theories make some things intrinsic and a common one is human life. So human life itself is valuable. The qualities that make life livable like happiness is a by product.So you don't believe that "One ought to be happy" is objectively true? Quality of life has no objective basis for you?
How do you reason that anything that doesn't kill someone is immoral, then?
Having a natural right to happiness stems from life being intrinsically valuable. Because happiness is necessary for life to exist we out to be happy as that helps human life exist.What's the difference between us having a natural right to happiness, and "One ought to be happy"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?