Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 am
Look, I'm not sure that someone having an arbitrary moral justification for harming someone that this said person believes is OK, and then that same moral justification not OK at the same time depending on the person it is being inflicted upon (or if it is used on themselves), is not a contradiction within someones OWN MORAL JUSTIFICATION BELIEFS,
It's only a contradiction if they have a universal belief (that applies to everybody in every situation for all time with no exceptions) that double standards are unacceptable. In which case, it contradicts with that belief.
You may be assuming that all people hold such a belief, and some people do, but in practice many people do not.
You can only establish which people hold it and which don't by adding another premise about that.
Premises are how you establish the pre-existing beliefs and assumptions up for discussion.
Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 ambut lets say for arguments sake in the absolute strictest sense it isn't... Someone taking that position would have to honestly admit that sometimes moral codes apply based on rules, and sometimes they don't based on the same rules depending on who it is and where they are and how that person is feeling at the time, whether they want a sensory pleasure indulged in or not etc. This is laughable and not something any sane person would honestly believe is OK, and if they would bite the bullet on this I would say they have completely lost the argument anyway.
I did not say that it is a good or sensible belief to hold. FriendEd seems to believe something like this, and it's absurd.
But they would have objectively won the argument, because #NameTheTrait is logically invalid.
And because YOU didn't make that a premise, it's very difficult for you to reveal this absurd belief. If you only added a premise, the opponent would have to publicly disagree with that premise, and then you could focus on it and ridicule him or her. But instead, for any intelligent audience, YOU are the one who will be ridiculed because you presented an invalid argument.
All YOU have to do to win the argument is to add a premise, a very easily acceptable one, that double standards/arbitrary assertions of moral value are not acceptable: whatever is selected has to be universifiable. Something like:
P3 - Moral value must be justified by a non-arbitrary/universifiable natural trait, and can not be based on double standards/mere identity.
If you added that premise, people like FriendEd would have to argue against that premise, and you'd have a much easier and more coherent debate on your hands.
Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 amFor noone would want to live in a world like that.
Some people don't seem to care much, BUT if you can reveal that to the audience, you will win 99% of them.
Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 amIf you stop and think about the position someone would need to take and stand by to justify what you are labelling "double standards" as opposed to contradiction in subjective moral justifications, then the absolute ludicrousness of that position is immediately apparent.
Unfortunately, since you didn't make it a premise, the opponent can defeat your argument very easily by showing it's unsound, and doesn't even have to argue this. He or she can just point at you and laugh about how you don't understand basic logic.
IF you made it a premise, then your opponent would be in real trouble because he or she would have to address it as part of the debate.
Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 amSo I would accept that in the strict logical sense it is possible that another (obvious) premises may need to be inserted (like double standards based on arbitrary assignments randomly applied are not acceptable, or double standards within ones own moral framework are not acceptable), however in terms of reality in the world it isn't necessary and seems cumbersome because these extra premises are ones that no sane person would deny anyway...
IF no sane person would deny them, then you lose nothing by inserting them.
In fact, you have a lot to gain, because people like FriendEd would be forced to challenge those premises in debate, and in so doing would sew the seeds of their own defeat.
Instead, you bring an invalid argument that just causes confusion and makes you look like a dunce.
You think #NameTheTrait isn't already cumbersome with all of the confusing double negations and "deeming"? P2 is an absolute mess, and so is the conclusion. And the first premise needs to be generalized.
And the second half is even worse: you can just drop that whole thing.
Use only the first half, add a premise, and fix the wording of P2, and generalize P1. And clean up the conclusion. MUCH less cumbersome.
Something like this maybe (this may have some errors, DrSinger or Margaret might be able to offer correction):
P1 - Thing X(you, humans, etc.) is of moral value
P2 - Thing Y(sentient animals, etc.) doesn't have/lack any trait(s) that would cause thing X to lose moral value if present/lacking in it.
P3 - Moral value must be justified by presence/absence of universalized natural trait(s), not arbitrarily or by identity/double standard.
C - Thing Y is of some moral value.
Much cleaner, and it could probably be simplified more if you want.
Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 amAlso, according to your train of thinking, is it possible for a person to have contradictory beliefs within their own moral framework?
When people do and you point them out, they usually experience cognitive dissonance. But not all people believe contradictions are a problem.
There are these people called theists, who make up the majority of the world's population, and when you show them contradictions with the definition and qualities of God they tend to say "That's OK he's God, he invented logic he can break it if he wants to".
There are a significant number of secular theorists who see no issue with contradiction in ethical systems either. I agree that's completely absurd, but you can't always win by demonstrating contradiction because not everybody is reasonable.
Daz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:40 amOr are you actually saying that the only way one can contradict oneself is if it is relevant to moral actions toward one individual person at the exact same time? Are you saying it has to be that specific to even speak of contradictions within an individuals moral framework and ethical system?
It has to be specific to
prove the contradiction. Otherwise there may or may not be an internal contradiction, and you proved nothing, so your argument has no logical force.
I said in earlier posts that there may be a contradiction there, but #NTT does not prove it, and that's what makes it invalid as an argument.
If you bring an invalid argument, your debate opponent - if at all intelligent and educated - can just attack your argument form and easily win the debate.
Bring a valid argument, and they'll have to attack the premises, which is where you can demolish them.