Morality of argument forms.

[lawtonfogle]

While I think we can agree that it is a logical fallacy to say one's own claims need to be disproved, and that others claims need to be proven, is this immoral.

For example...

Person A: Homosexuals love infecting people with AIDs.

Person B: Source? No homosexuals I know want to do that to anyone.

Person A: NO, you do your own homework. If that is a lie disprove it. Also, I want to see some evidence that you know some homosexuals, because otherwise you can just be making that up.

Person B:

The reason I ask is that this seems to be a inherently dishonest debate form, but is it immoral?

 

[DeathMagus]

If you are informed of the intellectually dishonesty of one of your debate tactics, and continue to use it, you are behaving immorally.

 

[FlamingFemme]

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." --Unknown

Once someone ceases to be honest in an argument or debate, they have crossed the line from unethical to immoral, IMHO.

 

[levi501]

I agree it is immoral.

I'd like to add that a lot of people (on this forum they tend to be fundimentalists) lack the skill or mental capacity to understand logical arguments. They've simply parotted what they've been told their entire life and have been discouraged or lack the desire to explore the truth for themselves and would rather have it handed to them by someone else.

 

[FlamingFemme]

I agree it is immoral.

I'd like to add that a lot of people (on this forum they tend to be fundimentalists) lack the skill or mental capacity to understand logical arguments. They've simply parotted what they've been told their entire life and have been discouraged or lack the desire to explore the truth for themselves and would rather have it handed to them by someone else.

This.
It also appears that some individuals would prefer to remain ignorant than hear the actual facts of the matter. It's the virtual equivalent to putting their hands over their ears and shouting, "LALALALA!!! I can't hear you!!".

 

[levi501]

This.
It also appears that some individuals would prefer to remain ignorant than hear the actual facts of the matter. It's the virtual equivalent to putting their hands over their ears and shouting, "LALALALA!!! I can't hear you!!".

Like a petulant child with their fingers in their ears...

When they start exploring/thinking for themselves, they'll start grasping for tools to evaluate and understand the many propositions they'll be bombared with. When they do this they'll turn to an organized consistent non-contradicting method to derive truth. Of course for many this will shake the bedrock of their values and perceptions of this world so it's far easier to avoid this exploration and stick with what they've been told.

 

[roflcopter101]

I would very much like having a guide to arguing well stickied to this forum.

 

[DeathMagus]

I would very much like having a guide to arguing well stickied to this forum.

Then let's make one.

 

[Sojourner1]

I agree it is immoral.

I'd like to add that a lot of people (on this forum they tend to be fundimentalists) lack the skill or mental capacity to understand logical arguments. They've simply parotted what they've been told their entire life and have been discouraged or lack the desire to explore the truth for themselves and would rather have it handed to them by someone else.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there.

I don't think it is immoral to be dishonest in a debate, but it would be unethical to be dishonest in a debate.

 

[DeathMagus]

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there.

I don't think it is immoral to be dishonest in a debate, but it would be unethical to be dishonest in a debate.

You don't think it's immoral to be dishonest? How does that work?

 

[Sojourner1]

You don't think it's immoral to be dishonest? How does that work?

I suppose it would actually be both unethical and immoral. I think that most people in a debate really do believe the arguments they present and they aren't inherently being dishonest.

 

[levi501]

I suppose it would actually be both unethical and immoral. I think that most people in a debate really do believe the arguments they present and they aren't inherently being dishonest.

When they've had their conclusions proven falacious, contradicting and false yet continue to repeat them, they're being intellectually dishonest and thus immoral. They may play mind games with themselves, like ignoring the arguments or misrepresenting them but their actions are none the less dishonest.