Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by DrSinger »

I'd also recommend including, if you can, a natural deduction proof of the validity of your corrected version / the validity of things that you say are valid. I know that I steered you in the direction of truth trees, but when the trees are long (as they are in the case of your corrected version) they can fail to provide clear insight into why the argument is valid - and they certainly fail to do this quickly.
Do you think this would be very easy to do? Perhaps it would be too complex to show analytically?

I started a new page for the correction, I plan on working through it there, so if you have any other good tools or suggestions, it would be good if you could leave a comment there

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait_Correction
Finally when you're linking to resources on logic (e.g. on how to prove things), why not just link to the relevant chapters from the Teller book (or some similar resource)? As I see it there's no need to reinvent the wheel here and have the phil vegan wiki have its own pages on things like this that are very general and not specifically relevant only to veganism in particular.
I agree, I'll do this at some stage
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10272
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DrSinger wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:29 amBased on subsequent comments by AY it's obvious that 'us/ourselves' is supposed to be the thing referred to in P1 i.e. humans, which is how I had always interpreted it, and everyone else seems to. This way the argument can also be more easily compared to the correction as well
Agreed, I think Isaac has made that clear enough and wouldn't object to that.

I'd love to get the "deeming" vs being sorted out for good (his recent comments seem to lean to being and ignore the deeming aspect). That would seem like an easy one, as if we could get Isaac to admit to any mistake in wording.
Gregor Samsa
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by Gregor Samsa »

DrSinger wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:05 pm
Gregor Samsa wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:06 pm http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Correction´

Is there a reason why it needs to be both a sufficient and necessary condition? There could be several sufficient traits / sets of traits for moral value; as vegans we're only concerned that animals have at least one of them (sentience). No?

P1) There exists a trait or a set of traits T, such that, if an individual is a human then the individual has R if they possess T

(P2) If humans have R if they possess T, then all beings have R if they possess T.

(P3) If an individual is a sentient nonhuman animal, then there is no trait absent in the individual, which if absent in a human, would cause the human to not have R.

Therefore (C) Sentient nonhuman animals have R

Might be missing something. Please explain :)

(perhaps you'd need to rephrase p3 to something like: "If an individual is a sentient nonhuman animal, then there is no trait or set of traits absent in that individual, which if absent in a human, would cause the human to not have T and therefore not have R". But I'm not sure if that's necessary).
The reason having the trait has to be a sufficient and necessary condition is so that in P3 if a human loses the trait, then they are guaranteed to lose R, otherwise P3 wouldnt do what it's supposed to do. It does make the first premise slightly more difficult to defend I guess.

You can test it out in the proof generator, if you change the biconditionals to a conditional, it takes a while but it comes out invalid


https://www.umsu.de/logik/trees/

\existst ( Tt \land \forallx (Hx \to (Pxt\to Rx ) ) ) \land \forallt ( Tt \land ( \forallx (Hx \to ( Pxt \to Rx)) \to \forallx (Pxt\toRx))) \land \forallx (Ax \to \neg \existst (Tt \land \negPxt \land (\forally (Hy \to ( \negPyt \to \negRy))))) \to \forallx ( Ax \to Rx )
Ah yeah that makes sense. Thanks. I wonder if there's a way of making the weaker claim and preserve something of the original ntt. Or perhaps the iff condition is not a problem? Can you change "iff trait" to "iff trait or set of traits" and preserve validity?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10272
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DrSinger already covered this pretty well.
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm Well IF Bob's ONLY excuse is an arbitrary one and he cannot name any other excuses, then YES Bob is contradicting himself if he states that it is both OK and not OK to use this excuse for justification in the same situation at the same time.
He's not saying it's OK and not OK for exactly the same situation; one context involves him, one involves somebody else.

Everything has to be the same for it to be a true contradiction.

One is Bob, one is somebody else who is not Bob: that's a difference adequate to relieve contradiction.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm P2. People who rely SOLELY on arbitrary excuses are contradicting themselves if they both accept and reject this as an excuse at the same time.
That would be redefining contradiction, and changing the rules of logic.
It would have to be at the same time, in the exact same context including involving the exact same parties as subjects, with the same person doing the action, etc.
Everything has to be exactly the same except one perfect negation to be a true contradiction.

If you don't understand/agree with that, then you don't understand/agree with the definition of contradiction in philosophy and its use in formal logic, which means you literally don't understand/agree with the first thing in logic.

You said you had some study in this? It was inadequate. If you're still in school now, please take this to your professor and ask him or her about it. If you don't believe us, maybe you'll believe him or her.



Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm I understand the definition of validity.
Correctly understanding the definition of validity requires correctly understanding the definition of a contradiction in logic, and you don't. So... no, you don't. But the problem is your misunderstanding of contradiction.

If you will not read the links to discussions/definitions of what contradictions are that I give you, and you won't believe any of us when we tell you that you are mistaken on this, then you need to go ask your professors.

If you do not understand this point, you can not possibly get any further.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm I understand that a double standard isn't always a logical contradiction however sometimes they are depending on the details.
The only details under consideration in a formal argument are those outlined in the premises. If those do not forbid double standards, then they are allowed and do not create contradictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Outside_formal_logic
Colloquial usage can label actions or statements as contradicting each other when due (or perceived as due) to presuppositions which are contradictory in the logical sense.
This is what you're trying to do. You're using the colloquial usage. This is not acceptable in formal arguments.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm If someone believes arbitrary justifications are OK for a specific treatment of another person (say Bob) however not ok as a justification for that same treatment of themselves or their family/friends etc (say Lucy) then for that specific treatment/circumstance they are contradicting themselves.
No they are not, they're just employing yet another double standard, which is not a contradiction.

They have a double standard about double standards.

And you could also have a double standard about having double standards about having double standards.
Turtles all the way down. It never becomes a contradiction no matter how many levels of regression you try to apply to it.

The only way you can turn it into a contradiction is by adding a premise which forbids double standards, in which case it would contradict the acceptance of that premise.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm It's ok for me to enslave Bob and make him work for me against his will because he has brown eyes, however it is not ok for you to enslave Lucy because she has brown eyes (because she is my sister and I don't care about Bob).
Not a contradiction, just another arbitrary rule and double standard.

If you said "It is always OK to enslave somebody with brown eyes, and true for everybody with no exceptions for all time" then you would be contradicting that by providing an exception or a case where it is not OK.

Either it is or is not always OK. People who hold double standards and make these case by case declarations are doing so arbitrarily and on the spot, and not declaring perpetual and universal laws. Because they are not asserting it is always true and for everyone for all time without exception, they are not contradicting themselves.
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm In here lies a contradiction if the only justification is the arbitrary one of eye colour. If it is ok as justification and it isn't ok as justification at the same time, this is a contradiction. Do you understand this?
I understand what you are trying to say, and that you do not understand what a contradiction is. You are improperly generalizing the claim.
Something can be OK and not OK as a justification at the same time, as long as some aspect of the context is different (like the person doing it).
It only becomes a contradiction if it's claimed that it's always OK and for everyone for all time with no exceptions. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary statement, and a different context, different person/victim/perpetrator or different instance of the same could have a completely different standard.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm Yes and if they wouldn't accept that as an excuse for treating themselves or their loved ones in the same way then they are contradicting themselves by deploying it as an excuse for the treatment of others. It is an ok justification and at the same time not an ok justification. Contradiction.
Incorrect. Not a contradiction. A double standard, and there's nothing in the premises forbidding this.
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm P1 - it is OK to enslave Bob because he has brown eyes
P2 - it is NOT OK to enslave Lucy because she has brown eyes

P1 and P2 contradict each other if there are no other factors distinguishing Bob and Lucy apart from eye colour and eye colour is used as the excuse for enslavement.
Incorrect. One is Bob and one is Lucy. One is also he and one is she, but we'll ignore that for the time being. You already distinguished them by labeling them differently. By definition in this argument they are assumed to be different beings (or at least could be regarded as such).

If they are literally one in the same being - who goes by two names - then we might be talking about a contradiction.
Is your claim here that Bob and Lucy are in fact the same person? If not, it's not a contradiction. If so, that needs to be established clearly in the premises because that is not necessarily true otherwise.

You need:
P3 - Bob IS Lucy
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pmIt cannot be both OK to enslave based on brown eyes and not OK to enslave based on brown eyes at the same time.
Oh but it can, as long as it's not ALWAYS and for ALL TIME with NO EXCEPTIONS OK to enslave based on brown eyes, and not OK to enslave based on brown eyes.
As long as it's a different entity, it can be arbitrarily given an exception without any contradiction occurring. You can only stop that by forbidding arbitrary exceptions, or requiring a justification that is universally true without exception. Nothing in #NTT does that. It's not HARD to add such a premise. I don't know why you won't consider it.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by DrSinger »

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'd love to get the "deeming" vs being sorted out for good (his recent comments seem to lean to being and ignore the deeming aspect). That would seem like an easy one, as if we could get Isaac to admit to any mistake in wording.
I think he'd agree that it needs to be worded more precisely with the first premise requiring human moral value to be based on a trait, among a few other things. But I doubt he'd agree that it needs the additional premise to reject double standards
Gregor Samsa wrote: Ah yeah that makes sense. Thanks. I wonder if there's a way of making the weaker claim and preserve something of the original ntt. Or perhaps the iff condition is not a problem? Can you change "iff trait" to "iff trait or set of traits" and preserve validity?
There's no obvious way to avoid the iff as far as I can tell. imo it'd only be a meaningful change if you made it, iff x has at least one trait from a set of traits, otherwise you could just lump all the traits together when defending the premise. I don't really think it's an issue since most vegans would argue a being has moral value iff it is sentient
Margaret Hayek
Junior Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:45 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by Margaret Hayek »

DrSinger wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:29 am I removed the notion of the counterpart from the article (up to the alternate version). I think it is confusing and is not actually a steelman, since it removes any link between the first and second premises, so if the argument was valid it would have to be question begging by default. Based on subsequent comments by AY it's obvious that 'us/ourselves' is supposed to be the thing referred to in P1 i.e. humans, which is how I had always interpreted it, and everyone else seems to. This way the argument can also be more easily compared to the correction as well
That's fine. If for some reason it becomes important to distinguish humans as they actually are from humans as they might be, we could just introduce an actuality predicate, e.g. let @(x) read 'x is actual / x is as x actually is'. Then you could state premise 1 as e.g.:

(P1) ∀x ( (Hx ∧ @(x) )⇒ Mx )
(P2) ∀x ( Ax ⇒ ¬∃t ( Tt ∧ ¬Pxt ∧ ∀y ( Hy ⇒ ( ¬Pyt ⇒ ¬My ) ) ) )

so premise 1 is only saying that sentient humans as they actually are have moral value, and premise 2 is further saying that sentient humans as they might be wouldn't lose their moral value if they don't / didn't the traits absent in sentient non-human animals.

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's a way to prevent an old issue you were worried about concerning premise 1 ruling out the possibility that humans could ever lose their moral value, which I think isn't a problem with the English statement of the argument that uses modal language (about what would happen if we were to lose traits) and seems clearly to be talking about humans as they actually are in P1 and humans as they might be in P2. By using an actuality predicate the FOL is by default talking about humans & sentient non-human animals as they are and as they might be, and when it's important to talk only about sentient humans or animals as they actually are, we just talk about the ones that are actual.


That said, I think that you should explain what is going on when you do introduce counterparts in the alternate version, prior to formalizing it with counterparts.
Daz
Newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:04 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by Daz »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:34 pm DrSinger already covered this pretty well.
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm Well IF Bob's ONLY excuse is an arbitrary one and he cannot name any other excuses, then YES Bob is contradicting himself if he states that it is both OK and not OK to use this excuse for justification in the same situation at the same time.
He's not saying it's OK and not OK for exactly the same situation; one context involves him, one involves somebody else.

Everything has to be the same for it to be a true contradiction.

One is Bob, one is somebody else who is not Bob: that's a difference adequate to relieve contradiction.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm P2. People who rely SOLELY on arbitrary excuses are contradicting themselves if they both accept and reject this as an excuse at the same time.
That would be redefining contradiction, and changing the rules of logic.
It would have to be at the same time, in the exact same context including involving the exact same parties as subjects, with the same person doing the action, etc.
Everything has to be exactly the same except one perfect negation to be a true contradiction.

If you don't understand/agree with that, then you don't understand/agree with the definition of contradiction in philosophy and its use in formal logic, which means you literally don't understand/agree with the first thing in logic.

You said you had some study in this? It was inadequate. If you're still in school now, please take this to your professor and ask him or her about it. If you don't believe us, maybe you'll believe him or her.



Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm I understand the definition of validity.
Correctly understanding the definition of validity requires correctly understanding the definition of a contradiction in logic, and you don't. So... no, you don't. But the problem is your misunderstanding of contradiction.

If you will not read the links to discussions/definitions of what contradictions are that I give you, and you won't believe any of us when we tell you that you are mistaken on this, then you need to go ask your professors.

If you do not understand this point, you can not possibly get any further.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm I understand that a double standard isn't always a logical contradiction however sometimes they are depending on the details.
The only details under consideration in a formal argument are those outlined in the premises. If those do not forbid double standards, then they are allowed and do not create contradictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Outside_formal_logic
Colloquial usage can label actions or statements as contradicting each other when due (or perceived as due) to presuppositions which are contradictory in the logical sense.
This is what you're trying to do. You're using the colloquial usage. This is not acceptable in formal arguments.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm If someone believes arbitrary justifications are OK for a specific treatment of another person (say Bob) however not ok as a justification for that same treatment of themselves or their family/friends etc (say Lucy) then for that specific treatment/circumstance they are contradicting themselves.
No they are not, they're just employing yet another double standard, which is not a contradiction.

They have a double standard about double standards.

And you could also have a double standard about having double standards about having double standards.
Turtles all the way down. It never becomes a contradiction no matter how many levels of regression you try to apply to it.

The only way you can turn it into a contradiction is by adding a premise which forbids double standards, in which case it would contradict the acceptance of that premise.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm It's ok for me to enslave Bob and make him work for me against his will because he has brown eyes, however it is not ok for you to enslave Lucy because she has brown eyes (because she is my sister and I don't care about Bob).
Not a contradiction, just another arbitrary rule and double standard.

If you said "It is always OK to enslave somebody with brown eyes, and true for everybody with no exceptions for all time" then you would be contradicting that by providing an exception or a case where it is not OK.

Either it is or is not always OK. People who hold double standards and make these case by case declarations are doing so arbitrarily and on the spot, and not declaring perpetual and universal laws. Because they are not asserting it is always true and for everyone for all time without exception, they are not contradicting themselves.
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm In here lies a contradiction if the only justification is the arbitrary one of eye colour. If it is ok as justification and it isn't ok as justification at the same time, this is a contradiction. Do you understand this?
I understand what you are trying to say, and that you do not understand what a contradiction is. You are improperly generalizing the claim.
Something can be OK and not OK as a justification at the same time, as long as some aspect of the context is different (like the person doing it).
It only becomes a contradiction if it's claimed that it's always OK and for everyone for all time with no exceptions. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary statement, and a different context, different person/victim/perpetrator or different instance of the same could have a completely different standard.

Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm Yes and if they wouldn't accept that as an excuse for treating themselves or their loved ones in the same way then they are contradicting themselves by deploying it as an excuse for the treatment of others. It is an ok justification and at the same time not an ok justification. Contradiction.
Incorrect. Not a contradiction. A double standard, and there's nothing in the premises forbidding this.
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pm P1 - it is OK to enslave Bob because he has brown eyes
P2 - it is NOT OK to enslave Lucy because she has brown eyes

P1 and P2 contradict each other if there are no other factors distinguishing Bob and Lucy apart from eye colour and eye colour is used as the excuse for enslavement.
Incorrect. One is Bob and one is Lucy. One is also he and one is she, but we'll ignore that for the time being. You already distinguished them by labeling them differently. By definition in this argument they are assumed to be different beings (or at least could be regarded as such).

If they are literally one in the same being - who goes by two names - then we might be talking about a contradiction.
Is your claim here that Bob and Lucy are in fact the same person? If not, it's not a contradiction. If so, that needs to be established clearly in the premises because that is not necessarily true otherwise.

You need:
P3 - Bob IS Lucy
Daz wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:30 pmIt cannot be both OK to enslave based on brown eyes and not OK to enslave based on brown eyes at the same time.
Oh but it can, as long as it's not ALWAYS and for ALL TIME with NO EXCEPTIONS OK to enslave based on brown eyes, and not OK to enslave based on brown eyes.
As long as it's a different entity, it can be arbitrarily given an exception without any contradiction occurring. You can only stop that by forbidding arbitrary exceptions, or requiring a justification that is universally true without exception. Nothing in #NTT does that. It's not HARD to add such a premise. I don't know why you won't consider it.
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, but 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. For noone would want to live in a world like that. If 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. So 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...
Also, according to your train of thinking, is it possible for a person to have contradictory beliefs within their own moral framework? Or 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?
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by DrSinger »

That's fine. If for some reason it becomes important to distinguish humans as they actually are from humans as they might be, we could just introduce an actuality predicate, e.g. let @(x) read 'x is actual / x is as x actually is'. Then you could state premise 1 as e.g.:

(P1) ∀x ( (Hx ∧ @(x) )⇒ Mx )
(P2) ∀x ( Ax ⇒ ¬∃t ( Tt ∧ ¬Pxt ∧ ∀y ( Hy ⇒ ( ¬Pyt ⇒ ¬My ) ) ) )

so premise 1 is only saying that sentient humans as they actually are have moral value, and premise 2 is further saying that sentient humans as they might be wouldn't lose their moral value if they don't / didn't the traits absent in sentient non-human animals.

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's a way to prevent an old issue you were worried about concerning premise 1 ruling out the possibility that humans could ever lose their moral value, which I think isn't a problem with the English statement of the argument that uses modal language (about what would happen if we were to lose traits) and seems clearly to be talking about humans as they actually are in P1 and humans as they might be in P2. By using an actuality predicate the FOL is by default talking about humans & sentient non-human animals as they are and as they might be, and when it's important to talk only about sentient humans or animals as they actually are, we just talk about the ones that are actual.


That said, I think that you should explain what is going on when you do introduce counterparts in the alternate version, prior to formalizing it with counterparts.

In either case the beings you refer to in P1 are not required to be the same as those in P2, so I don't think it makes much difference. I'll explain counterparts thing better at some stage.

Can you check over this?

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php?title=NameTheTrait_Correction#Natural_Deduction

I had a go at proving the correction using natural deduction, the lines I'm not sure about are mainly:

line 13 because line 5 has a biconditional whereas line 12 has a conditional

line 16 what do I call that?
Nightcell001
Junior Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by Nightcell001 »

DrSinger wrote:line 13 because line 5 has a biconditional whereas line 12 has a conditional
No problem, decompose the equivalence with two conditionals. (actually more work is to be done to verify if the elimination is valid)
DrSinger wrote:line 16 what do I call that?
Implication elimination(Modus ponens) + implication elimination + implication introduction.( granted you transform the equivalence to implication )
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10272
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Great comments on new #namethetrait video

Post by brimstoneSalad »

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.
Post Reply