Formal and Informal Logic

That may be true, but is there any indication that there is any "desire for morals" beyond either a desire to learn, a desire to conform or a desire to maximize return while mininmizing effort?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe not.. but if you don't learn them, you tend not to be able to survive as an individual in the society.

What does cumulative experience tell us about the following scenario?

robin brings up his classic example: and then asks the question:

quote:

---

What does cumulative experience tell us about the following scenario?

---

The incident that you outline, when examined using cummulative experience, says that there are several possibilities.First, based on the fact that most murders do get solved, that the person is simply mistaken, will get caught and will end up suffering.The second possibility is that the person is delusional, crazy.The third is that the person might actually get away with it.Of the three, the most likely is that he is just crazy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

but if it groundless AND at the same time supported by formal logical argument where does these leave logic as a tool , does it not highlight the problem that logic is no more that a academic set of rules to play a game that has little relevence the real human experience ... are not the rules of logic arbitrary in that the are a produce of humans and have no foundation beyond the agreement to use them . it seems to me modern man is rapidly detacting its self from any herd , we now live isolated in our homes with only the closest of family member , if that , i know in the UK the number of one person homes is rapidly rising , we are becoming lone humans and we mark our territory very hard , what is moral is a inward question , not a society one these days ,

Let's assume he can get away with it. Why shouldn't he do it?

Number 1.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What does this mean? I said let's ASSUME he can get away with it (people do, you know).

Yes they do make that assumption. And in almsot all cases they are wrong.That is what it means.You are asking another really silly question it seems to me. You want to know what a phychopath should do. What should some nutcase that wants to kill somebody and is convinced he can get away with murder do? More importantly, what should the rest of us do about someone who wants to kill somebody and believes that he can get away with it?If you want to try to bring morals into your pathetic example, then the moral answer is to not murder somebody.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why not, if it profits me?

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. Society as a whole has decided that such behavior should not be tolerated and therefore, such behavior will be considered immoral.In addition, as said several times before, the cummulative experience of the society says that the person will not get away with it.Like I said, it is a pathetic example.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Where on earth did you get this idea?
I never claimed that morals (on a personal level) were logical. They certainly cannot be supported by "formal" logic using any reasonable premises.What I proposed is that society, in general learned that cooperation and enforcement of rules that ensure the survival of the society. Over many years of what is effectively selective breeding, most anti-social traits were bread out of the human race. This left an underlying feeling that what is best for society is what counts rather than what is best for the individual.
That is as far as logic can take you. An average consensus that leads toward cooperation and rejects law breakers of any type.
Beyond that, "morals" tend to be in line with whatever trends are dictated by whichever group is currently in control of the society. In the middle ages it was "morally" right to burn witches. later it was "morally" right to keep slaves.
Morals can and do change with time and place but the underlying feeling that society, as a whole is the most important thing never changes. That is possibly true. But how many people would prefer to live in a world of Anarchy?
Even your loner wants the protection that a well maintained society can give him.

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.

The argument that morality comes from social standards or cumulative experience doesn't cut it. The best you can say about it is that it may act as a restraint in some cases. But murders are committed all the time, and in fact it's scary how many are never solved, so that it is very definitely possible to get away with it. And if you've watched crime documentaries you may be struck by how apparently normal and sane the murderers may be when finally identified, even in some of the most brutal and bizarre cases. Just like you and me.There IS no absolute reason not to murder if there is no absolute moral standard, which is what you seem to be getting at. And there is no absolute moral standard if there is no God, and even if there is a God there might not be an absolute moral standard depending on the kind of God we have.But there is, oddly enough, an inbuilt moral restraint that most of us feel to one degree or another, wouldn't you agree? What do you think, could evolution have brought that about or is that evidence that there is a God who made us? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I do not agree with you at all. The inbuilt moral restraint is not evidence of a "God that made us" at all, because having a moral restraint is a surivival characteristic in social animals, and can be selected for by evolution.Your proclaimation that experiance is 'not a reason for moral restraint' does not cut it, mainly because there is 'no absolute moral
value because there is no god' is irrelavent. The fact there is a consequence for murder (i.e. the punishment of society, jail) is reason enough.