Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 74225797" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>If the danger is commonly held (between the two parties in dialogue) then it functions as the premise of an argument, thus constituting an attempt at persuasion rather than manipulation.</p><p></p><p>If you read Pascal you will see that both he and his interlocutor believe that eternal damnation is a strong possible consequence of unbelief. Pascal therefore makes use of this <em>premise</em> in his <em>argument</em>.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps you disagree with Pascal's premise. In that case you should say, "Pascal, your argument is unsound due to a false premise regarding eternal damnation." What you should not say is, "Pascal you are engaging in emotional manipulation." It is abundantly clear that Pascal is not engaging in emotional manipulation. An easy way to see this is to observe the fact that Pascal himself believes his argument to be sound. It applies not just to others, but to himself as well, and no one manipulates themselves.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You haven't even defined emotional manipulation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 74225797, member: 342410"] If the danger is commonly held (between the two parties in dialogue) then it functions as the premise of an argument, thus constituting an attempt at persuasion rather than manipulation. If you read Pascal you will see that both he and his interlocutor believe that eternal damnation is a strong possible consequence of unbelief. Pascal therefore makes use of this [I]premise[/I] in his [I]argument[/I]. Perhaps you disagree with Pascal's premise. In that case you should say, "Pascal, your argument is unsound due to a false premise regarding eternal damnation." What you should not say is, "Pascal you are engaging in emotional manipulation." It is abundantly clear that Pascal is not engaging in emotional manipulation. An easy way to see this is to observe the fact that Pascal himself believes his argument to be sound. It applies not just to others, but to himself as well, and no one manipulates themselves. You haven't even defined emotional manipulation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
Top
Bottom