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="variant" data-source="post: 74226328" data-attributes="member: 114463"><p>Well I don't, but it's more on the level of You don't seem to think the premise needs any real justification.</p><p></p><p>You seem to think that it's enough that the two people agree to it and their justifications don't matter.</p><p></p><p>So like all arguments, garbage in garbage out. Not like all arguments though, this one would like to take any (even a remote and unfounded) belief in that one premise and magnify it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think so. That's not really the structure of the argument. The end result of the wager seems to be true even if we know very little about it's premises being true, as you just said.</p><p></p><p>It is an attempt to weight <u>any fear</u> we might have (no matter how remote) of that one premise being true more heavily than we actually know (as you just pointed out), not a usual rational deduction where we actually know the premises more than the conclusion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>An easy audience doesn't make for a better argument. In this case I think it makes the argument worse given that the premise contains the dubious emotional appeal to a fear of the unknown.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well in this case I've said the religion contains a problematic emotional manipulation that Pascal has designed an argument to spread. That is hardly likely to be his actual motivation even if true.</p><p></p><p>People can obviously buy into and make arguments for problematic emotional manipulation without being cognisant of that being what they are doing.</p><p></p><p>Which is why I might chose this line of argument instead of a different one, not because I'm "taking pot shots" but rather because I see the the idea in that premise differently than the people using it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="variant, post: 74226328, member: 114463"] Well I don't, but it's more on the level of You don't seem to think the premise needs any real justification. You seem to think that it's enough that the two people agree to it and their justifications don't matter. So like all arguments, garbage in garbage out. Not like all arguments though, this one would like to take any (even a remote and unfounded) belief in that one premise and magnify it. I don't think so. That's not really the structure of the argument. The end result of the wager seems to be true even if we know very little about it's premises being true, as you just said. It is an attempt to weight [U]any fear[/U] we might have (no matter how remote) of that one premise being true more heavily than we actually know (as you just pointed out), not a usual rational deduction where we actually know the premises more than the conclusion. An easy audience doesn't make for a better argument. In this case I think it makes the argument worse given that the premise contains the dubious emotional appeal to a fear of the unknown. Well in this case I've said the religion contains a problematic emotional manipulation that Pascal has designed an argument to spread. That is hardly likely to be his actual motivation even if true. People can obviously buy into and make arguments for problematic emotional manipulation without being cognisant of that being what they are doing. Which is why I might chose this line of argument instead of a different one, not because I'm "taking pot shots" but rather because I see the the idea in that premise differently than the people using it. [/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