So addressing your point about logical contradiction above, what about if someone accepts an arbitrary distinction for their context however when someone else applies an arbitrary distinction to their context that effects them negatively, they don't accept it. Is that a contradiction?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:39 pmSome people would accept it, or claim they would.
Otherwise, I 100% agree with this, and as a pragmatic argument it's excellent. If we allow arbitrary moral rules, then morality is useless (this is the root of the argument against moral relativism/subjectivism). We must insist on an objective non-arbitrary moral basis if it's to have any real meaning.
But in terms of pure logic (ignoring outcome) it's not a logical contradiction... it's kind of like suicide isn't necessarily a logical contradiction either despite how self destructive it is, or smoking, etc.
We can call these things irrational in some sense, in that they don't serve long term interests, but they're not true contradictions.
This is why I've argued for the importance of including a premise that requires a non-arbitrary basis for morality (which forces it to be a non-arbitrary trait). It's a very obvious premise and one that it's easy to get people to agree with, but without it the logic doesn't follow.
Your own context is not logically identical to another context.
This is a double standard, not a contradiction. A contradiction only applies to the exact same context.
Logical contradiction:
I accept arbitrary for my context
I do not accept arbitrary for my context
Not a logical contradiction (this IS a double standard):
I accept arbitrary for my context
I do not accept arbitrary for another context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
That's possibly compatible with the colloquial usage which makes certain assumptions, but that's not a logical contradiction.
YES, a double standard is exposed. A double standard is not by definition a logical contradiction. These terms don't mean the same thing.
It's like calling somebody gay when the person is a transvestite. He may or may not also be gay, but it's incorrect to equate the two.
It's possible, and maybe even likely, that somebody who expresses double standards DOES believe in a logical contradiction on some level, but this is not known or proven by the double standard alone. You could be perfectly logical and hold a double standard, and just be an asshole who likes making egotistical assertions (My arbitrary rules are law because I'm right, and your arbitrary rules are wrong because you're not me).
1. We can't live in a world where we commit suicide either. Is this a contradiction? No, of course not. It's just not very rational.
2. These different frameworks create conflict by contradicting each other (note that this is NOT internal contradiction), and this is very harmful, but even if it kills us all by starting world war 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. until we're all gone, it's still not necessarily a logical contradiction. It's just very stupid and short sighted.
Some of the things you're saying are correct, but in other cases you're using the wrong terms.
100% the argument can expose a double standard. Totally true.
Invalidity and unsoundness of the ethical framework? Not necessarily. Although such an argument can be made given a few premises (that's another conversation).
NTT in itself doesn't even make an argument that such frameworks are irrational (that's an easy argument to make), it's an important point to make by adding such a premise regarding arbitrary justifications.
It's not hard to add a premise requiring a non-arbitrary basis to morality (in the form of a relevant trait, for instance). It makes it a much stronger argument, and IF you add a premise or premises kind of like that, THEN you can call it a logical contradiction, because any other conclusion using an arbitrary basis would contradict that premise.
Does that help?
In regard to your response to me saying we can't live in a world with infinite arbitrary moral distinctions, I meant from a pragmatic sense, but from a strict logical sense one cannot both commit suicide AND live in the world. Of course this would be a logical contradiction. Point is that if one is willing to accept random arbitrary distinctions as rationale for moral and ethical actions against some, then they cannot argue with people using the same rationale when applying arbitrary distinctions to them that may effect them negatively. Otherwise they create a double standard. And I would say a logical contradiction within their own justification of their ethical and moral framework. Ie it's ok to use arbitrary distinctions in my context when applied to them, but not when they are applying it to me in my context.
On your last point, yes, as I understand it NTT in itself isn't an argument against such frameworks but it is designed to expose logical inconsistencies and double standards in one's own ethical framework. Isn't that the point? If someone isn't willing to actually name the trait and engage in the process, how can it expose anything? If someone just refuses to name the trait, and merely say that there is no trait and that they rest their entire ethical and moral system on arbitrary distinctions, then this can be argued against without even using NTT. And I would say if you had got someone to that stage of admitting that, NTT has done it's job and it will not be difficult to show them how ridiculous that position actually is. Does that make sense?