• 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.

The Moral Argument (revamped)

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,641
3,846
✟300,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It's factually incorrect that what gaara presented was the definition of an appeal to authority.

He never claimed it was. Those are just three words ("appeal to authority"), not a proper noun. He explained that when someone appeals to an authority outside of their field of expertise the appeal is fallacious. That's correct. Trying to claim that it is incorrect is just playing word games.

Fallacies, just like words, have definitions.

No, not really. The lexicon is nowhere near as universally agreed-upon, and the populations that make frequent use of stock fallacies are basically amateur philosophers and internet forum-goers. They are more often mis-used than used.


Some people use words without knowing what they mean. Lots of people use "fallacies" without knowing what they mean. Gaara gave the substance, demonstrating he understands the actual meaning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
actually I questioned someone on the appeal to authority, because he said that quoting a pHd or quoting a peer review was an appeal to authority, then the user corrected his definition to include only those who are unqualified. (it is a fallacy of changing the bars, when you correct your definitions mid debate). But he never went back and addressed what I quoted was authoritative. So I don't think he fully understood what an appeal to authority was, at first. Then after correction started using the term correctly. At least that is how I remember it going. But yeah it is a fallacy to change your argument mid debate.

Changing the bars- Removing the bars is not changing the bars. For example if I have a burden of proof where the burden is too great and I decide to strike it from the record. It’s not changing the bars. But if someone asks for evidence or questions a certain fact of a view, and they then modify the view to avoid the specific criticism, and not address it. This is changing the Bars.


“”If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.”

—Unknown

“”Everything is a boomerang if you throw it upwards.”

—Unknown

“Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic). Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly."

above quote from:

Moving the goalposts - RationalWiki
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your memory is as faulty as your ability to understand anything I was saying apparently...
If you continue to harass me, you will be permanently blocked. I have asked you a number of times to use logical debate, quotes, etc for your arguments, not flaming or abusive ad hominems.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
If you continue to harass me, you will be permanently blocked. I have asked you a number of times to use logical debate, quotes, etc for your arguments, not flaming or abusive ad hominems.
You’re the one who insists on bringing this up over and over, and then misrepresenting what I’ve said. I’m the one who keeps saying to drop it.

And I haven’t committed any ad hominem attacks, because I’m not refuting an argument.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But it’s not really our debate if the arguments aren’t actually ours, is it? We really would be better off reading a philosophy book at that point.
 
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Feel'n the Burn of Philosophy!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,916
11,663
Space Mountain!
✟1,376,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Oh, you said that right!

...and when they do this kind of exchange...............neither persons are likely reading what their interlocutor has presented. So, it all just deflates into oblivion on both sides.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't think I misrepresented those statements all all. If you wish to debate this, the next step is to go back and actually read what was posted. Until you do that, I am certain I have recollected these events accurately. I have a pretty good memory for errors in debates, I may not have a good memory in general but most who know me know that there are certain things that I remember very well.

but the point is to be nice. Showing evidence of a fallacy is not being rude, but belittling others and mocking them is both rude and against the rules.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But it’s not really our debate if the arguments aren’t actually ours, is it? We really would be better off reading a philosophy book at that point.
I quoted one. So then the next step is to quote another one that refutes it. Unless you can't or won't. At that point, your argument self destructs.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Misrepresentation isn’t nice.

Now let’s just drop it, shall we?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Misrepresentation isn’t nice.

Now let’s just drop it, shall we?

So your original comments regarding appeal to authority on page 14 were mistaken. If you post someone with a degree it's not an appeal to authority unless that person is really not an authority on the subject. For example asking a police office about a fire. Or asking a firefighter about an armed robbery. They are not real authorities in the matter. So that would be an appeal to authority. So those several comments were simply mistaken.

then gaara4158 gave the true example of appeal to authority here:
The Moral Argument (revamped)

so again I got you two confused, I confused gaara's later comment and your initial comments as changing the bars. But they were different people.
sorry about that.
again I wish I could be better at telling you guys apart but it's actually quite hard from my side of things. And by mistaken above, I mean that that sort of appeal to authority is actually not fallacious. At least according to rational kiki:

Argument from authority - RationalWiki
An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments:

· A non-fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, insofar as the authorities in question are, indeed, experts on the issue in question, their opinion provides strong inductive support for the conclusion: It makes the conclusion likely to be true, not necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

· A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I quoted one. So then the next step is to quote another one that refutes it. Unless you can't or won't. At that point, your argument self destructs.
I’m not making an argument. I’m protesting the entire practice of simply pasting arguments in response to each other, as though the one with the best google skills wins in the end. I don’t think we’re here to test our ability to discover web pages with arguments on them, we’re here to enrich our understanding of philosophy and apologetics. That’s done by actively engaging arguments, not passively pasting them.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
well I did my homework, it's up to you guys to do your homework. I believe in citing sources, but if you can't or won't, just try commenting on a section of the part I quoted. To get things rolling, even if to use rational logic as your only source, you definitely can take that route, without citing sources. I have used ration logic to support an argument in this thread. It's perfectly acceptable. For example if the logic has an error to it, it is not that hard to spot it and reveal it. But I cannot do that for you.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I find nearly everything about Lewis’s moral argument quite objectionable, but I’ll respond to this section as it’s most relevant to my preferred explanation of morality. Can you demonstrate that in humans, the stronger impulse does not always win? How can you demonstrate that all decisions are not merely a battle of conflicting impulses with the stronger one always winning? How does it follow that if moral intuitions are instinctive, then all instincts must necessarily be right?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
lewis answers this in the next sentence: "We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. " So no the stronger herd instinct does not always win.
How can you demonstrate that all decisions are not merely a battle of conflicting impulses with the stronger one always winning?
I believe this is answered too by the quote

How does it follow that if moral intuitions are instinctive, then all instincts must necessarily be right?

he answers this as well in this quote:
"If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. "[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It does not follow that because the moral instinct does not always win, the moral impulse is not instinctive. It could be that different instincts are stronger in different situations. You would have to demonstrate that this is never the case.

Lewis does not explain how all instincts would be right if morals were instinctive. He merely declares it.

I’m worried that because you were only able to quote the argument back at me without explaining it, you haven’t really understood it. That’s my gripe about pasting things back and forth.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Lewis does not explain how all instincts would be right if morals were instinctive. He merely declares it.

His moral argument depends on declaring a lot of things without explanation. Because it’s an inherently terrible argument. I would venture to guess that the audience for Mere Christianity would have taken all his premises without questioning them at all.
 
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
His arguments rely on logic itself, as I have shown before, he answers alot of misconceptions or errors about it as well.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married


perhaps some more explanation by lewis is warranted:

"Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?" Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger.

You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the

sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."

-CS Lewis, Mere Christianity

Lewis was a former atheist, turned Christian-
"CS Lewis's credentials: Lewis began his academic career as an undergraduate student at Oxford University, where he won a triple first, the highest honours in three areas of study. He was then elected a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, where he worked for nearly thirty years, from 1925 to 1954. In 1954, he was awarded the newly founded chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, and was elected a fellow of Magdalene College." - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0