Difference between revisions of "Developing the Alternate version in FOL"
(→Proposed FOL formulation) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
There does not exist a thing t such that t is a trait and for all x if x is a sentient non-human animal then x does not have t, and '''for all''' y such that '''if''' y is a counterpart of a sentient human and y does not have t '''then''' y does not have moral value | There does not exist a thing t such that t is a trait and for all x if x is a sentient non-human animal then x does not have t, and '''for all''' y such that '''if''' y is a counterpart of a sentient human and y does not have t '''then''' y does not have moral value | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| Line 31: | Line 28: | ||
[Margaret: If it is easy to correct (and I'm still not sure what the point of this 'even if did establish..' thing is), then why quibble about it? Why not just move it to / leave it in the 'getting to the most charitable version' section? Given the extreme danger of this all just coming across as pointless, butt-hurt nit-picking, I would think that nothing like this should be included unless it has some important relevance to actual, important confusions people have about the argument when interpreted in as charitable a way as possible...] | [Margaret: If it is easy to correct (and I'm still not sure what the point of this 'even if did establish..' thing is), then why quibble about it? Why not just move it to / leave it in the 'getting to the most charitable version' section? Given the extreme danger of this all just coming across as pointless, butt-hurt nit-picking, I would think that nothing like this should be included unless it has some important relevance to actual, important confusions people have about the argument when interpreted in as charitable a way as possible...] | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Proposed FOL formulation= | ||
Revision as of 08:43, 3 December 2017
Comments
[Margaret's new comment: I actually think that I am encountering this issue in dealing with the alternate version of NTT. Isn't the way we can correct this (and remember, WE'RE the ones putting it into FOL, so it's OUR job to do this in a way that corrects things so as to be as charitable as possible to the English gist of the argument) just to paraphrase P2 in essence as saying (roughly, as I may be proposing a more fine-grained LF now):
(P2) ¬∃t ( T(t) ∧ ∀x ( A(x) ⇒ ¬P(x,t) ) ∧ ∃y ( ( CP(y) ∧ ¬P(y,t) ) ∧ ¬ M(y) ) )
or
There does not exist a thing t such that t is a trait and for all x if x is a sentient non-human animal then x does not have t, and there exists a y such that y is a counterpart of a sentient human and y does not have t and y does not have moral value
Instead of the old way we had it which was
(P2) ¬∃t ( T(t) ∧ ∀x ( A(x) ⇒ ¬P(x,t) ) ∧ ∀y ( ( CP(y) ∧ ¬P(y,t) ) ⇒ ¬ M(y) ) )
or
There does not exist a thing t such that t is a trait and for all x if x is a sentient non-human animal then x does not have t, and for all y such that if y is a counterpart of a sentient human and y does not have t then y does not have moral value
[Margaret: this looks pretty nit-pickey / uncharitable to me. The brute-force way to fill in the missing premise is just to say that if P1 and P2 are true, then C has to be true, i.e.:
(P3) ( ∀x ( H(x) ⇒ M(x) ) ∧ (¬∃t ( T(t) ∧ ∀x ( A(x) ⇒ ¬P(x,t) ) ∧ ∀y ( ( CP(y) ∧ ¬P(y,t) ) ⇒ ¬ M(y) ) ) ⇒ ∀x ( A(x) ⇒ M(x) )
So if adding something like that (or maybe trying to pretend that it's a fact about logical form that doesn't need to be added?) is how we imagine the argument succeeding in showing that the conclusion follows from the premises simply in virtue of logical form, I just don't see the point in imagining that it first establishes "there is no moral value giving trait absent in all animals" and then fails to entail "all animals have the moral value giving trait"]
[DrSinger: I think it's important and often overlooked/dismissed, I'll post on the forum about it]
[Margaret: If it is easy to correct (and I'm still not sure what the point of this 'even if did establish..' thing is), then why quibble about it? Why not just move it to / leave it in the 'getting to the most charitable version' section? Given the extreme danger of this all just coming across as pointless, butt-hurt nit-picking, I would think that nothing like this should be included unless it has some important relevance to actual, important confusions people have about the argument when interpreted in as charitable a way as possible...]
