|
Author
|
Topic: Formal and Informal Logic
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 107 of 191 (330718)
07-11-2006 6:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by ramoss
07-10-2006 7:40 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
Except, of course, from the viewpoint of enlightened self interest. I don't see how enlightened self-interest has any grounds either.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by ramoss, posted 07-10-2006 7:40 PM | | ramoss has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 109 by ramoss, posted 07-11-2006 8:47 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 116 of 191 (330823)
07-11-2006 1:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
07-11-2006 10:29 AM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
If a moral rule is based on the cummulative experience of a society, why would it be groundless? It's subjective. There's no logical ground for it. It doesn't matter if there's a "cumulative experience" or not. "Society" is an abstraction. Individuals make moral choices, not society.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 10:29 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 1:39 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 118 of 191 (330837)
07-11-2006 1:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
07-11-2006 1:39 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
Why? If it is based on cummulative experience is that not a logical reason? No. There's no logical reason why someone shouldn't reject any moral rule whatsoever, since there is no logical reason for pronouncing any action either good or bad. All you can do is think up another moral principle to "prove" the original one, and that moral principle is as ungrounded as the first one was.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 1:39 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 1:56 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 123 of 191 (330888)
07-11-2006 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
07-11-2006 1:56 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
What does cumulative experience tell us about the following scenario?
I'm just an ordinary guy who is certain he can murder a particular person and get away with it and profit by it. Why shouldn't I do it? Let's suppose I CAN get away with it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 1:56 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 124 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 5:01 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 1:44 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 126 of 191 (331065)
07-12-2006 8:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
07-11-2006 5:01 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
The third is that the person might actually get away with it. Let's assume he can get away with it. Why shouldn't he do it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by jar, posted 07-11-2006 5:01 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 8:17 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 128 of 191 (331070)
07-12-2006 8:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
07-12-2006 8:17 AM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
Number 1. What does this mean? I said let's ASSUME he can get away with it (people do, you know).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 8:17 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 8:47 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 130 of 191 (331077)
07-12-2006 8:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
07-12-2006 8:47 AM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
the moral answer is to not murder somebody. Why not, if it profits me?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 8:47 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 9:02 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 133 of 191 (331158)
07-12-2006 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
07-12-2006 9:02 AM
|
|
Because the learned experience of society is that in the long run such behavior is counter productive. If people simply murder others because it is in their personal interest and they believe they can get away with it, the society, clan, group, town, city or whatever quickly becomes a place of fear Why should I care about society? Maybe I just care about me. If I can do it, get away with it, and prosper from it, I don't see why I shouldn't do it. Suppose I don't care about the long run; maybe I just care about the short run.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 9:02 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 140 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 2:47 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 139 of 191 (331173)
07-12-2006 2:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
07-12-2006 1:44 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
But there is, oddly enough, an inbuilt moral restraint that most of us feel to one degree or another, wouldn't you agree? Most definitely. There's just no logical moral grounds for it. There's no such thing as a "logical moral ground." A moral ground, for example, would not be, "I might get caught." That's not a moral ground. This keeps some people from murdering other people, but it's no more moral that my thinking I should not go out in the storm because I might get electrocuted.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 1:44 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 8:43 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 141 of 191 (331201)
07-12-2006 4:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
07-12-2006 2:47 PM
|
|
you could be psychopathic To call such an attitude psychopathic is to beg the question. According to your scheme, "psychopathic" is just another word for "evil" since what constitutes evil is to do that which is disruptive for society in the long run. So what you're saying is that the reason I should not murder for profit is that it's evil to do so. Your argument has not been advanced any. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 2:47 PM | | jar has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 143 of 191 (331210)
07-12-2006 4:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
07-12-2006 4:29 PM
|
|
And I suppose you can show where I said that? Here:
Because the learned experience of society is that in the long run such behavior is counter productive. If people simply murder others because it is in their personal interest and they believe they can get away with it, the society, clan, group, town, city or whatever quickly becomes a place of fear.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 4:29 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 145 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 4:55 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: No not evil, Anti-social!
Morals don't come into it. What do you mean? We are talking about Jar's moral scheme. If you are going to have a moral scheme, some actions have to be good and others bad.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 149 of 191 (331219)
07-12-2006 5:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by deerbreh
07-12-2006 4:58 PM
|
|
To me there really is no such thing as informal logic. Logic is logic. There are rules that are formally spelled out but even if one could not say what those rules are they can still make a logical argument and use correct logic. If I say, "that is not logical" it means that I think one of the "rules" has not been followed. I may not know what rule has been broken, I just know it doesn't seem logical. I agree completely.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by deerbreh, posted 07-12-2006 4:58 PM | | deerbreh has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 150 of 191 (331220)
07-12-2006 5:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by jar
07-12-2006 4:59 PM
|
|
Re: No not evil, Anti-social!
Anti-social is an apt term. So being anti-social is not evil? What's evil according to your scheme?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 4:59 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 151 by jar, posted 07-12-2006 5:11 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 155 of 191 (331317)
07-12-2006 8:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
07-12-2006 8:43 PM
|
|
Re: Logic of morals
I certainly agree with this last point, but what I don't get is why, if something is built into us, there are no logical moral grounds for it any more than if there were a God who gave a moral code, which you have said would have logical moral grounds. Beats me. Morality is a mystery.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 8:43 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by Faith, posted 07-12-2006 9:30 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2