The Companions In Guilt Argument

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by Frank Quasar »

I've recently come across an argument known as "The Companions In Guilt", which I found to be rather interesting. I learned more about it from this YouTube video (skip to 5:06 for the argument, but I suggest you watch the full thing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVEsHLHAK9k

Apparently, it's one of the best knock-down arguments against anti-moral realist positions, and I'm curious as to what others on this forum think about it. Do you guys think it's useful and a good argument to deploy as a means to show the anti-realist why their position is incoherent? If you think there are some weaknesses to this argument, what are they? Or if you can highlight some common confusions about the argument to me that people tend to make the mistake of committing, I would like to read it.

Here's the syllogistic rendition of the argument:

P1: According to the anti-realist about morality, there are no categorical normative reasons.

P2: If there are no categorical normative reasons, then there are no epistemic reasons for belief

P3: But there are epistemic reasons for belief

P4: So there are categorical reasons (from 2,3)

P5: So the moral anti-realist theory is false (from 1,4)

A common objection as Rem talks about in his video is P3, but that epistemic error theory view can be addressed as Rem goes on to explain in his video. Another retort that people have to the argument is that they do not understand how the jump in P2 is made, they don't quite see how that is the case. If someone could shed light on this I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by Frank Quasar »

I already mentioned this in another comment, but I think it'd be better as a separate topic for discussion here. Here's a screenshot that addresses the P3 objection for those who are curious.

Image
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Unfortunately this version of the argument is no good.

See the second premise:
"P2: If there are no categorical normative reasons, then there are no epistemic reasons for belief"

There's a jump from categorical reasons to simply reasons. That doesn't work. This does, but it's a weak argument:

"P2: If there are no categorical normative reasons, then there are no categorical epistemic reasons for belief"

That is, there is no reason you categorically should believe science/math/logic. But there may be other reasons: like you want to believe what is true.

Even rejecting categorical reasons, you can hold "IF you want to believe what is true, you should believe science/logic/etc."

So, science and logic are not companions in guilt; they aren't thrown out, since they can be held still with conditional qualifications.

Now you could go with what I was saying in the other thread, closer to:
"P2: If there are no normative reasons, then there are no epistemic reasons for belief"

So, of course if you reject any and every should, categorical or not, then you reject the "you should believe X" too.

Most people aren't going to reject "If you want to believe what is true, then you should accept science etc." and so you can compel acceptance of normative statements conditional on desire to be moral "if you want to be a good person, you should do X".

But it seems Rem is advocating more of a hard-line robust form of Kantian realism. I don't think he'll make it very far with the non-realists with that, and for good reason; Kantian argument are nonsense, and his arguments rely entirely on them.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by Frank Quasar »

Yeah, I like your formulation a lot more than the original, and it makes more sense. I'll make note of that in the syllogism, for sure.

How's the exchange going with Rem? Saw you in his server, and it seems like the people there enjoy your presence. Are you two talking about moral realism and deontology? Trying to get him off of that?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:55 am How's the exchange going with Rem? Saw you in his server, and it seems like the people there enjoy your presence. Are you two talking about moral realism and deontology? Trying to get him off of that?
Not well. He's very deep in to Kantian arguments, makes assertions about them (e.g. the arguments that supposedly support his P2 above), denies minimal realism as "anti-relist"... but worst of all, he won't defend them and claims to be agnostic after having made all of the claims (thus dodging the burden of defending them).
Says he doesn't understand Kantian arguments well enough to defend them... then WHY DOES HE BELIEVE AND ADVOCATE THEM?!
It's very much like a Christian who will talk the talk and then tell you to read the Bible as the definitive source and that he or she can't actually address any arguments against it because he/she isn't God. (Analogy disclaimer: Obviously not all Christians, some will honestly engage with the apologetics and explain their reasoning, although in my experience they don't stay Christian long when they do that because of the holes in the logic)

It all strikes me as a very culty and religious mindset, just sub in the word of Kant for scripture. It's incomprehensible nonsense, but somehow it's good enough to use to back up his assertions even though he won't or can't defend it.

Rem is actually more wrong than Isaac on almost everything, and I was very surprised by that.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by Frank Quasar »

That's pretty crazy, and yeah, I agree. When I found out that he was deep into the whole Kantian thing it took me by surprise, and upon further examination of his CIG argument I can see why people would reject his position. Hopefully you get through to him, though.

@brimstoneSalad Also, I was thinking about possibly creating a list/compilation of many common objections to minimal moral realism. I could probably write something up and make it into a thread, and the thread can be used as a future resource for any new people that may wish to learn about common misconceptions, or are in fact committing such errors against the position.

So far I've compiled around 7 common objections that I've come to understand/see people commit, and I've given a general description on why these are flawed and work against with what the minimal moral realist intends to argue. I'll try to do a revision of it and when it's good to go I'll make a new topic that's dedicated to it, and if you see some errors/things that can be polished then feel free to correct them. If I've missed anything feel free to add.

It'd probably be much easier to have a working thread that we can essentially link to people and one that provides basic explanations on common objections.

[UPDATE: I've finished making the full draft of it, but I'll get back to finishing the piece because I think I could add in a little bit more. I might re-read some threads around here to make sure I've covered a lot of the basics in detail. This'll be done soon, probably by tomorrow or the day after.]
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:54 am That's pretty crazy, and yeah, I agree. When I found out that he was deep into the whole Kantian thing it took me by surprise, and upon further examination of his CIG argument I can see why people would reject his position. Hopefully you get through to him, though.
I could do it Socratically by challenging his claims, but he won't defend his position so... no, I don't think he's reachable, at least not unless he changes his tune with respect to willingness to engage in the arguments rather than trying to shift the burden of proof away from himself by (I think quite intellectually dishonestly) pretending he's not making claims.

It's the same with any Christian who won't engage in the arguments about why he or she thinks his or her god exists; when you close yourself off and won't engage with the issue, there's no real possibility to be swayed on the topic.
Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:54 amAlso, I was thinking about possibly creating a list/compilation of many common objections to minimal moral realism. I could probably write something up and make it into a thread, and the thread can be used as a future resource for any new people that may wish to learn about common misconceptions, or are in fact committing such errors against the position.
That would be great!
A thread is good to start, but are you on the Wiki? That would be a good place to post it.

wiki/

If you can sign up and let me know your username I can give you editing permissions.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by Frank Quasar »

@brimstoneSalad My username is: Frank Quasar

And yeah, I'll just copy and paste the points into a thread.

If it looks good enough we can create the wiki for it, and any further editing that needs to be done can be implemented on the wiki.

[UPDATE: I've finished making it, the new thread is up. It's going to be a basic starting template, if you can make corrections to it then feel free to do so, but if it looks good enough to use and communicates the general idea of minimal moral realism then we can make the wiki for it]
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Companions In Guilt Argument

Post by brimstoneSalad »

@Frank Quasar Thanks, you should have Wiki editing permissions now.
I'll check out the thread.
Post Reply