The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

I haven’t been in this thread for days. If you’ll look at the names of the people you’ve been talking to the last few pages, I’m not one of them. I just came in, saw what was going on and thought I could help. I didn’t make any appeal to authority. I’m still very, very cool

my apologies. I get confused talking to two or three people at a time trying to keep their arguments straight. sorry.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

you said it here:
View attachment 252447

So your comments suggest that it is not an appeal to authority to post about your own achievements, but it is not to post about someone elses? And you can't say you weren't making an argument, because once you posted your qualifications all other posts followed that comment. So please answer this before we can go into further debate. Do you think it's ok to post achievements of yourself, but not achievements of other people?

I’m afraid I just don’t have the patience to continue to try and explain what a logical fallacy is, and what an argument is and isn’t.

If you’re stuck on this and not even moving to your actual argument, this is going to take weeks to get anywhere.

I’ll say that if your goal is to convince anyone of your argument, it’s not going to work if your argument is full of logical fallacies. I hope you at least realize that.

I’ll let you have the last word...

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m afraid I just don’t have the patience to continue to try and explain what a logical fallacy is, and what an argument is and isn’t.

If you’re stuck on this and not even moving to your actual argument, this is going to take weeks to get anywhere.

I’ll say that if your goal is to convince anyone of your argument, it’s not going to work if your argument is full of logical fallacies. I hope you at least realize that.

I’ll let you have the last word...

are you sure you don't have the patience? Or is it that you are starting to realize that some of what was posted actually contradicted a bit? But you are correct, I really honestly don't see where you are coming from on this. I truly don't. I do hope that this thread has made you think. As that is why I opened it up. If even for a little while. I appreciated talking to you, and I hope that we talk again sometime.

 

[Moral Orel]

There's many people who have studied human morality extensively and can enlighten us on the moral codes and moral reasoning of many different societies.

That's true, but that isn't an expert on morality; that's an expert on how humans view morality, not on morality itself. Morality would have to be an objective thing in and of itself (what this thread is attempting to prove) for there to be objective facts about it for there to be an expert that knows those facts.

 

[Moral Orel]

Being an “expert” doesn’t make you less likely to lie, or forget, or show bias, or just be mistaken.

Since I’m old, I remember doctors saying that smoking was perfectly safe. My mother, not a doctor, thought they were idiots. If we ignore the Appeal to Authority fallacy, then you would dismiss anything my mother said, and side with the doctors.

When presented with two experts with opposing views, it’s necessary to look further into the statements to get closer to the truth. And that doesn’t change if you remove one of those experts. You still need to look at the statement itself to get closer to the truth.

This is where I disagree. An expert is more likely to make an accurate statement about something in their field of expertise than Average Joe Schmoe Off The Street is. And how do you look into it further anyways? By looking up evidence that was documented by experts? Your approach to this fallacy seems to suggest that we should gather all empirical evidence ourselves or dismiss it.

I wouldn't say we know something is true because an expert claims it, but it is more likely.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is a fallacious appeal to authority when you quote someone who is an authority in subject A giving his thoughts on subject B, in which he is not an authority. For example, it would be fallacious to quote Richard Dawkins as an authority on some matter of astrophysics when Dawkins is a zoologist.

I’m not on anyone’s side on this page but after seeing you all go back and forth without anyone laying down exactly what’s fallacious about an appeal to authority, I had to do it myself.

Yeah... So... I beat you to that.

An appeal to authority is fallacious when you cite an expert that is an expert in a different field, like if a YEC cited a person with a doctorate in astronomy to refute genetic evidence for evolution.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm also going to be first to point out that we were wrong. What we described is it's own fallacy, "Appeal to False Authority". @2PhiloVoid & @zippy2006 you clicked agree on his post, you're in this too.

 

[gaara4158]

Yeah... So... I beat you to that.

My fault there buddy, I should have gone back further. It just seemed as though it still wasn’t understood, so I just assumed... incorrectly. Hopefully now that it’s been repeated and beaten to death some learning has occurred.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm also going to be first to point out that we were wrong. What we described is it's own fallacy, "Appeal to False Authority". @2PhiloVoid & @zippy2006 you clicked agree on his post, you're in this too.

Ok. That's fine if I made an error. But truthfully, I haven't been giving this thread my full attention, so I'm not sure if the issue being brought up is 1) an assertion that an appeal to authority is a fallacy, VS 2) there is such a thing as an appeal to false authority.

How about making an appeal to an authority on these issues? Who we gonna call?

 

[durangodawood]

That's true, but that isn't an expert on morality; that's an expert on how humans view morality, not on morality itself. Morality would have to be an objective thing in and of itself (what this thread is attempting to prove) for there to be objective facts about it for there to be an expert that knows those facts.

No, humans understanding morality, encoding it in cultural artifacts, puzzling over moral decisions... all that IS morality.

There is no "thing" out there thats morality. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Nothing more. It can be studied as such.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This is where I disagree. An expert is more likely to make an accurate statement about something in their field of expertise than Average Joe Schmoe Off The Street is. And how do you look into it further anyways? By looking up evidence that was documented by experts? Your approach to this fallacy seems to suggest that we should gather all empirical evidence ourselves or dismiss it.

I wouldn't say we know something is true because an expert claims it, but it is more likely.

I asked one of my college Philosophy professors, who has had a long and distinguished career, and also has a PhD, about the fallacy. He agreed that it didn’t matter whether the authority had expertise in the subject or not. It was the reliance on credentials rather than the substance of the authority’s statement that defines the fallacy.

Now, there’s a couple of positions you can take regarding the statement above.

You can agree that the authority is correct because he’s an expert, which means that his view on the fallacy is correct. Which seemingly makes your view incorrect.

Or, you could point out that just because he’s an expert in the field doesn’t mean he’s correct. Which means that the fallacy should be applied to experts in the field as well. Which seemingly makes your view incorrect.

 

[Moral Orel]

My fault there buddy, I should have gone back further. It just seemed as though it still wasn’t understood, so I just assumed... incorrectly. Hopefully now that it’s been repeated and beaten to death some learning has occurred.

No sweat, I wasn't really mad. My post should have come with a wink and a grin, but I try not to use smilies. I was hoping you'd notice this one right after it though too.

I'm also going to be first to point out that we were wrong. What we described is it's own fallacy, "Appeal to False Authority".

 

[Moral Orel]

No, humans understanding morality, encoding it in cultural artifacts, puzzling over moral decisions... all that IS morality.

There is no "thing" out there thats morality. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Nothing more. It can be studied as such.

If the argument in this thread is right, then this post is wrong. Is morality objective? Subjective? Relative? Is there no morality and it's all an illusion? (Nihilism and Subjectivism are kissing cousins, some say they're the same thing). So you could have a moral relativist argue with a moral objectivist, both with PhDs in philosophy, are they both experts on morality itself even if they disagree on what morality is (objective or relative)?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm also going to be first to point out that we were wrong. What we described is it's own fallacy, "Appeal to False Authority". @2PhiloVoid & @zippy2006 you clicked agree on his post, you're in this too.

I do agree with his post. Everything he said in that post is true.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok. That's fine if I made an error. But truthfully, I haven't been giving this thread my full attention, so I'm not sure if the issue being brought up is 1) an assertion that an appeal to authority is a fallacy, VS 2) there is such a thing as an appeal to false authority.

How about making an appeal to an authority on these issues? Who we gonna call?

the person I was debating was saying an appeal to authority is quoting someone with authority. But then changed his view after questioning, to mean an appeal to authority is when you question someone who has an alleged authority but in reality does not. I view the latter. But then he coupled it with a popularity fallacy, like the bandwagon fallacy which proves he really didn't understand appeal to authority. But yes, you can make an appeal to authority when you quote a source that is not authoritative, but claims they are. That, at least is my understanding. Thanks for the comment.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

the person I was debating was saying an appeal to authority is quoting someone with authority. But then changed his view after questioning, to mean an appeal to authority is when you question someone who has an alleged authority but in reality does not. I view the latter. But then he coupled it with a popularity fallacy, like the bandwagon fallacy which proves he really didn't understand appeal to authority. But yes, you can make an appeal to authority when you quote a source that is not authoritative, but claims they are. That, at least is my understanding. Thanks for the comment.

Not that I wanted to jump back into this, but lying about my position isn’t very nice...

 

[Moral Orel]

the person I was debating was saying an appeal to authority is quoting someone with authority. But then changed his view after questioning, to mean an appeal to authority is when you question someone who has an alleged authority but in reality does not. I view the latter.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because there ended up being four or five of us all going to town on that point, so it was understandably confusing. However, @ToddNotTodd did not change his position, and has been arguing against the position you just claimed he changed to. We were in fact wrong about what an appeal to authority is, an appeal to a false authority is a completely separate fallacy.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, humans understanding morality, encoding it in cultural artifacts, puzzling over moral decisions... all that IS morality.

There is no "thing" out there thats morality. Morality is an aspect of human behavior. Nothing more. It can be studied as such.

My other post in response to this was awful. Let me try again, if you'll indulge me an analogy.

Math is a thing. There are experts who can tell you all about the history of how math was developed, what we use math to do, and just how pervasive it is in our lives. They'll be credible sources for facts such as when "zero" was invented, or how binary was used to change computers from analog to digital. However, that wouldn't be an expert on math, more like an expert on history or maybe even sociology to an extent. An expert on math would know algebra, and geometry, and trigonometry, and calculus, etc. They would be able to calculate complex formulas and equations.

 

[Moral Orel]

I do agree with his post. Everything he said in that post is true.

It is factually incorrect. You may disagree that argument from authority is a fallacy, but the definition of the fallacy is not what was stated.

 

[Moral Orel]

I asked one of my college Philosophy professors, who has had a long and distinguished career, and also has a PhD, about the fallacy. He agreed that it didn’t matter whether the authority had expertise in the subject or not. It was the reliance on credentials rather than the substance of the authority’s statement that defines the fallacy.

Now, there’s a couple of positions you can take regarding the statement above.

You can agree that the authority is correct because he’s an expert, which means that his view on the fallacy is correct. Which seemingly makes your view incorrect.

Or, you could point out that just because he’s an expert in the field doesn’t mean he’s correct. Which means that the fallacy should be applied to experts in the field as well. Which seemingly makes your view incorrect.

I'm sure you're sick of all this, but let me say just a couple more things.

First and foremost, you were right and I was wrong about the definition of the fallacy. Argument from false authority is a completely separate fallacy and I confused them.

However, you've taken such an all-or-nothing stance by saying that being an expert has no bearing on whether we can trust the accuracy of their statements, that it's hard not to be wrong with that. Logically Fallacious warned that you can take this fallacy too far and go from "healthy skepticism to full blown denialism". If we're talking about simple facts, like the capitol of Norway, or whether "hypertronic" is what the 'H' in HTML stands for, you should simply trust an expert to be correct. Even in your example in this post, your expert is simply stating the definition of the argument from authority fallacy. If it isn't important, it's fine to trust experts because they are generally more correct than average Joe Schmoe.

I think it's only a fallacy when someone insists that credentials behind a quote are the only evidence necessary. Let's say I cite some facts about death rates in some country from the CDC. It's fine to point out that the CDC is my source, but if you ask me to show the methodology behind collecting the data and I respond, "It's the CDC! Of course it's accurate!" that's when the fallacy kicks in.