A Modest Thought Experiment

_{Barry Arrington

February 2, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s a thought experiment for our materialist friends.

Suppose you have a table, and on that table you place three cylinders, one each of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Beside these cylinders you place a lump of carbon, a lump of calcium, and a jar of phosphorus. These chemicals make up over 98% of the human body by mass. Suppose further that you place on the table containers of each of the trace chemicals found in the human body so that at the end you have on your table all of the chemicals found in the human body in the same amount by mass and in the same proportion as those chemicals occur in the human body.

Now ask yourself some questions:

1. Do you owe any moral duty to any of the individual chemicals? I presume you will say the answer is “no.”

2. Does your answer change if instead of the individual chemicals, you consider all of them setting there on your table together? I presume the answer is still “no.”

3. Now suppose you mix all of the chemicals together? Does your answer change? I presume the answer is still “no.”

I presume by your answer to these three questions that you believe that there is nothing special about the chemicals in the human body – whether considered in isolation or in combination – that causes you to owe any moral duty to those chemicals. On materialist premises, a human being is nothing more than a somewhat sophisticated mixture of its constituent chemicals. I presume you will say that you owe moral duties to other human beings. So my final question is this:

4. What is it about the mixture of chemicals we call “human being” that makes it the repository of moral rights (i.e., the converse of the moral duty you owe it)?

Chart courtesy of Wikipedia.

Comments

Barry Arrington: There is no prior principle to the idea that when I have two of something and add two more I have four. That is why it is self evident. In fact, the prior principles were determined over a century ago. Barry Arrington: if you are suggesting that in math there are no self evident fundamental propositions for which further demonstration is impossible, then you do not understand math. Mathematical propositions have to be adopted, but they don't have to be self-evident.Zachriel_{February 5, 2015
February
02
Feb
5
05
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Tim #133 Thank you for a calm and polite response.
You are correct in the sense that it is somewhat of a discussion stopper; however, you have laid the “blame” with Barry and his claim that he is right and you are lying. This is not accurate, though. The conversation ended with your claim that moral judgments can only be subjectively held.
With all these threads it is very hard to tell where the conversation ends! I have given several arguments to support my case and I am prepared to continue to defend it (time permitting). I will do this by presenting arguments and examples - not by declaring myself obviously or self-evidently right. The fact remains that at that time Barry was arguing that he is self-evidently right and I am lying and really that was about it - although curiously he has never made it clear what the actual lie is (i.e. what I have said that is intentionally false). Since then he has written a passionate OP which seems to amount to adding that not only is he right but it is immoral to disagree with him – but I confess I find the OP rather hard to understand and I may be interpreting it wrongly.
1) Such a claim is consonant with strict materialism, but that also implies that all moral judgments are only subjectively held, and what’s worse . .
I have slightly simplified my position to avoid writing an essay each time I respond. I am convinced that moral judgements are essentially subjective but I also recognise that some objective facts are so universally accepted as reasons for judging something right or wrong that they effectively entail a moral judgement. For example, it is so universally accepted that inflicting human suffering is wrong that to say “this causes immense suffering” almost entails this is morally wrong.
2) The weight of moral judgment in terms of “right and wrong” action is, indeed must be, completely arbitrary (in both senses of the word!),
I strongly disagree. Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim. I have argued countless times that subjective judgements are frequently based on extensive reasoning – often appealing to commonly accepted principles
“What’s the difference between the pitbull (or wild tiger) and the human sociopath who would do something similar given the chance?”
That’s a very interesting debate but objectivism doesn’t solve it. For me it is a subjective decision as to what counts as being a moral agent for you it appears to be an objective decision – but it involves much the same arguments and quandries.
On materialism and preference utilitarianism, the answer is easy. Easy, as long as you are willing to treat the sociopath like a dog.
For preference utilitarianism maybe – for materialism in general it is no easier than it is for you. Although I have great respect for R.M. Hare this is mainly based on his insight into the prescriptive nature of moral language – I am not a preference utilitarian. Mark Frank_{February 5, 2015
February
02
Feb
5
05
2015
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

The term 'self-evident truth' is inextricably linked to that resonant paragraph in the Declaration of Independence. If the objectivists here mean something different, they could do with coining a different expression. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This was 1776. It took nearly 100 years to come to a constitutional agreement that Africans should be included in the set of 'all men'. Surely that was 'self-evident'?Hangonasec_{February 5, 2015
February
02
Feb
5
05
2015
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

BA #128
Mark, certainly a person can have a different opinion. And it is self evidently true that such person’s opinion would be wrong, just as it is self evidently true that if that person had a different opinion about the sum of 2 and 2, they would be wrong. Thus, stating the matter in terms of opinion is self defeating. You cannot have a correct opinion that a self evident truth is false. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Which comment are you responding to? I never said that I agreed that it was self-evident that child torture is wrong – only that I strongly agree it is evil at all times in all places for all people. I also agree that you cannot have a correct opinion that a self evident truth is false.Mark Frank_{February 5, 2015
February
02
Feb
5
05
2015
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Barry, You may have missed my post on another thread in answer to something you said about self-evident truths: ------------------ Barry Arrington: Again, whether the Inca perceives the objective reality of the moral truth is beside the point. Being wrong about an objective truth does not make it false. At any rate, if you are going to deny a self evident moral truth, there is no use arguing with you. By definition self evident truths cannot be demonstrated. This is incoherent. How can the Inca wrongly perceive a self-evident truth? It wouldn’t be all that self-evident then after all. Furthermore, even if it is possible to be wrong about a self evident truth, as you just said, how do you know that yours, and not the Inca’s, particular concept of it is the correct one? -------------------- I think this is a valid criticism of how you apply the idea of self-evident truth in this discussion. Care to respond? fGfaded_Glory_{February 5, 2015
February
02
Feb
5
05
2015
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Barry:
So it’s still nothing but a bag of chemicals, but certain qualities of the bag of chemicals makes it a repository of moral rights when the identical chemicals without those qualities would not? Sounds arbitrary to me. Says who? You’ve given me no reason that a bag of chemicals with those qualities is morally any different from a bag of chemicals without those qualities.
"Says who" implies there must be a rights-giver in an authoritative sense. But this represents a specific theory about moral knowledge that is foundationalist in nature and ignores other epistemological positions. I can't give you a reason why I hold a position I do not hold. One key criticism of foundationalism is that it assumes some ideas are not subject to criticism and the point of which criticism ends appears arbitrary. See the Müller-Lyer illusion for example of how we can criticize experience, etc. Barry:
Of course you wouldn’t. Because most materialist I find are scared to death to confront the logical conclusions compelled by their premises.
I am? But that assumes I'm a disappointed justificationist. But this simply isn't the case. From this paper on the abuse of reason.
Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position. True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism. According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.
Just as there is no logical methodology that demands we seek truth over falsehood or criticize our conjectures in an attempt to reduce errors, there is no logical methodology that demands we seek human flourishing or any other moral goal. But this doesn't mean that solutions we propose to moral problems cannot be criticized and improved by discarding errors. There are objectively better or worse solutions to goals we choose. We can be mistaken... So, I'd suggest we both think there are objective moral choices. However, in my case, it is objective in a specific problem space. For example, If you want to build a car, but actually receive plans to build, say, a helicopter, you will not end up with a car merely because you expected otherwise. The result is independent of your belief. So, it's in this sense that it's objective. I'd also suggest that our moral goals are, in part, based on our preferences. And what happens when our preferences change? We adopt new ideas about how the world works. For example, if one thinks it's better to chop off one's hands because their actions would result in eternal damnation in the afterlife, that's a sort of "explanation" about how the world works. And it would shape one's preferences. However, like all ideas, I'm suggesting those explanations start out as conjectures. As such, they can and should be criticized, errors can be found and they can be discarded. Again, we can be mistaken. If an afterlife exists, such an act could be construed as grounds for eternal damnation instead, or there could be no afterlife. In fact, the idea that knowledge comes from authoritative sources that have always existed is a sort of "explanation" about how the world works, which one's preferences would be based on. So I'd suggest we both share the same goals but we think the world works differently and our preferences diverge accordingly. I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist. Nor do I harbor some fear or anger at God. Rather, when I actually try to take classical theism seriously, it does not withstand rational criticism. It's epistemologically at odds with our based explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. As such, I discard it.Popperian_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

The biggest criticism I have with the idea that we have moral duties in the objective sense implied is that they would have to be immune to any new knowledge that we could create that actually allows us to actually solve these, or other problems we will face in the future. Surely, if this knowledge has always existed and is unchanging then it must have taken any other knowledge into account. We're simply stuck with the options at hand and cannot make any progress regardless of what knowledge we might create. The problem of unwanted pregnancies is assumed to always be a problem because the whole process of reproduction, as it is now, is assumed to be designed that way in the first place. However, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from accomplishing it is knowing how. This includes creating solutions to the problem, such as creating an artificial womb or even transferring an unwanted pregnancy to a woman who cannot conceive on her own but wants a child. We can an will solve these problems by creating new knowledge. Should these options be inexpensive and safe (which would be the result of even more more knowledge) will everything be perfect? Of course not. But this will result in different, even better set of moral problems to solve that *we* couldn't even conceive of two thousand years ago. And when we solve those as well, we'll have an even better set of problems. We, as finite beings, cannot predict the effect of the growth of genuinely new knowledge. More importantly, it's unclear how the supposed divinely revealed set of moral duties we have today will be sufficient for such a set of future moral problems, while remaining unchangingly objective in the sense implied. So, it seems to me that something has to give for the implicit ideas in this though experiment to be tenable. For example, does someone here assume there must be something beyond the laws of physics that would make these moral problems unsolvable, and therefore prevent a whole new set of moral problems? Does someone here assume we only gain this knowledge because God reveals it to us, which implies the epistemology that knowledge comes from authoritative sources? If neither of the above, how could the existing set of moral duties be sufficient for future moral problems, yet be objective in the sense implied?Popperian_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Barry: Here’s a thought experiment for our materialist friends. It seems Barry has set up his materialist "friends" to fail, which doesn't seem very friendly. Specifically the experiment proposed is loaded in that it implicitly assumes the existence of moral "duties" based on a specific epistemological view. I can't explain what it is about the "mixture of chemicals" that endows it something which I don't subscribe to in the first place. The best explanation for the growth of moral knowledge is that, like all knowledge, moral knowledge grows when we conjecture solutions to specific problems we encounter. This is in contrast to assuming moral knowledge takes the form of moral "duties" divinely revealed to us via holy text or though pre-programming. The latter is assume that knowledge has "just aways existed" in an authoritative source without explanation, while the former is part of our universal explanation for the growth of knowledge. "God wanted it that" way doesn't solve the problem. It just pushes it up a level without actually improving it. For example, there are the moral problems of unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and being attracted to individuals of the same sex. This is in contrast to framing the issue as if killing unborn children is "good" we should kill all unborn children, or if homosexuality "good", we shouldn't conceive children in the first place. There are no problems, but merely rules - some of which if followed would result in the extinction of the human race. IOW, I'm suggesting the latter approach is mistaken from the start and smuggled in as part of the experiment.Popperian_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank at 89, thanks for this:
So really question 4 comes to the same old debate that we are having all over UD – is being “a repository of moral rights” an immaterial attribute of a human being or a function of how that human being takes part in the social activity which is morality. As you say that is the end of the discussion – in the sense that Barry has no further recourse but to say he is self-evidently right and I am lying. The thought experiment adds nothing to it.
If, as you say, morality is nothing more than a social activity that humans take part in, I see exactly why you would subscribe at least in part to Hare's preference utilitarianism. You are correct in the sense that it is somewhat of a discussion stopper; however, you have laid the "blame" with Barry and his claim that he is right and you are lying. This is not accurate, though. The conversation ended with your claim that moral judgments can only be subjectively held. Please consider: 1) Such a claim is consonant with strict materialism, but that also implies that all moral judgments are only subjectively held, and what's worse . . 2) The weight of moral judgment in terms of "right and wrong" action is, indeed must be, completely arbitrary (in both senses of the word!), you wrote:
A) Torturing infants for pleasure is wrong under all circumstances. I agree with this – I cannot conceive of a convincing counter-example. B) Everyone under all circumstances believes it is wrong to torture infants for pleasure. This is very likely false. It seems to me our disagreement is not over (A ) or (B ) but this third statement: C) “Torturing infants for pleasure is wrong” is an self-evident objective fact. I certainly disagree with this. If you think I am lying when I assert (C ) then you are presumably accusing all those philosophers who hold similar views to myself of deliberate falsehood.
I would suggest that your inability to conceive of a counter-example in "A" is due only to a lack of imagination -- a pitbull (or wild tiger) mauling a child comes quickly to mind. On strict materialism, certainly the pitbull (or wild tiger) experiences pleasure and the terrorized infant, torture. Your (anticipated) response may well be (and please correct me if I am wrong), "But the pitbull (or wild tiger) is not a moral agent!", but my response is just as straightforward, "What's the difference between the pitbull (or wild tiger) and the human sociopath who would do something similar given the chance?" It does no good to say that the sociopath is more like us because clearly in this case, it is not true. Numerous problems arise for you when you deny "C", for such a denial is inhumane. We must say that the mauling, while tragic and not preferred, cannot be considered wrong because it was in the pitbull's nature. But, what then do we say to the sociopath? Moreover, what do we do with such a person? On materialism and preference utilitarianism, the answer is easy. Easy, as long as you are willing to treat the sociopath like a dog. Oops.Tim_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

MF (& Piotr), that one may prove a self evident truth through some process does not change its self-evidence. And in the case of things like 2 + 2 = 4, the proof relative to axiomatic systems is far more abstruse than the recognition that based on what is meant this must be so. (I have seen for example establishment of natural numbers based on successive power sets of transfinite character . . . I much prefer to start with the set that collects nothing. But I have had quite a debate with an intelligent youngster on how complicated and counter-intuitive that notion is.) KF PS: Self-evidence does NOT mean axiomatic.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

#129 Yes, such fundamental propositions have their place in maths; we call them axioms. 2+2=4 is not one of them. Even axioms, however, are not supposed to be statements about the real world. To a mathematician, a small arithmetical "universe" (mod 3) with just three natural numbers {0, 1, 2} in which 1+1=2, but 2+1=0 and 2+2=1, is thinkable, well-defined, and logically consistent (and, in case you shrug it off as a meaningless abstract game, such systems have important real-world applications). UD Editors: *sigh* You can demonstrate anything you want when you change the meaning of terms. But when you have two sticks and then add two more sticks you will always have four sticks. You are a fool.Piotr_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

There is no prior principle to the idea that when I have two of something and add two more I have four. That is why it is self evident. Tell it to speakers of languages which have no numeral systems (Pirahã is an example). Speakers of Pirahã simply lack the concept of "4" as a specific number, nor do they do addition. 2+2=4 is no more self-evident to them than 5896329+999985741=1005882070 is to you. Their general intelligence is normal, in case you wonder, it's just a question of their language lacking some concepts that we (well, some of us) take for granted. Have you ever wondered what the Peano axioms are really about? Even to understand the expression 2+2=4 you need to grasp the concepts of equation, addition, and the idea that there are many different natural numbers. UD Editors: *sigh* You sadden me and disgust me in equal measure. You are such a wonderful host. The sentiment is reciprocal. UD Editors: And thanks for coming onto this blog and demonstrating everything that is wrong with this postmodern hell you people are busy building. As I've said before, don't worry. I realize I am fighting a rearguard retreat. The center cannot hold. Your side will surely win (at least in the short to medium term), and you can come and mock me at whatever camp they put me after the round up all of the undesirables (assuming I live long enough to see the inside of a camp). Piotr_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Piotr, if you are suggesting that in math there are no self evident fundamental propositions for which further demonstration is impossible, then you do not understand math. Demonstration must at some point come to an end.Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Mark, certainly a person can have a different opinion. And it is self evidently true that such person's opinion would be wrong, just as it is self evidently true that if that person had a different opinion about the sum of 2 and 2, they would be wrong. Thus, stating the matter in terms of opinion is self defeating. You cannot have a correct opinion that a self evident truth is false. Why is that so hard for you to understand?Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

No, Mark and Piotr, you cannot demonstrate that 2+2=4. Yes, you could illustrate it with synonyms, like || and || is the same as ||||. But that is not a demonstration. A demonstration requires one to reason from prior principles to subsequent principles. There is no prior principle to the idea that when I have two of something and add two more I have four. That is why it is self evident. To understand the proposition is to know that it must be true, not because some prior principles are true and one can deduce its truth from those prior principles. Sheesh. Is there no truth so basic you people won't dispute it? What am I saying? I know the answer to that question is "no." You sadden me and disgust me in equal measure.Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

#120 Barry Arrington, Maths is the field of learning where you can prove a proposition (not every one, to be sure), rather than test it, by tracing it back to axioms. 2+2=4 (i.e., S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))) ) easily follows from the Peano axioms for the natural numbers and the definition of "+". Of course in order to prove it you start with the assumption that the Peano axioms are "self-evident", but that's a different story. (Addition can be extended to domains other than N, for example to modular arithmetics: 2+2=1 (mod 3), where "=" stands for a congruence relation.)Piotr_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Barry #120
When you resort to invoking babies’ inability to understand even simple math to make your case, there really is no sense in continuing to discourse with you.
It was hardly central to my case. The fact remains there are plenty of ways of demonstrating 2 + 2 = 4. You can prove it from Peano's axioms. You can learn it the way a child does by taking two pairs of things,putting them together and then counting how many you have etc. In the event that someone disputed it you could do better than to saying it is self-evident and they were lying.Mark Frank_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Barry When I disagreed with your comment:
You know for a certain fact that torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people.
I stressed that it was the because I don’t regard moral judgements as facts. This after all is the essence of the subjective/objective debate. I think they are opinions not facts. In the very same comment I said:
All of us (here and now) would agree without hesitation that torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people. I think that is broadly true.
So we both agree it is evil at all times and all places for all people. It is just we disagree on whether it is a fact or an opinion. So when you announce that I am lying – what exactly am I saying that is intentionally false? Edited addition: I don't understand your introductory sentence which appears to say you never said I didn't personally agree but only that I didn't agree! A subtle difference!Mark Frank_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

I'll check out the literature, Barry. Give me a short answer. Pretty please.skram_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

skram at 121. There is an extensive literature on the subject. You should check it out.Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
There is no way to demonstrate that 2+2=4. It is either accepted as a self evident truth or not.
Is 5+5=10 also a self-evident truth? How about 135+334=469? Also self-evident? Where do self-evident truths end and provable propositions begin? These are serious questions.skram_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

It is not strictly true that there is no way to demonstrate 2+2=4 and there are people (in fact everyone at some stage in their life) who do not find it obvious.
When you resort to invoking babies' inability to understand even simple math to make your case, there really is no sense in continuing to discourse with you.Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Mark, I never said you did not personally agree with the statement. I simply quoted you when you said you disagreed with the following proposition:
You know for a certain fact that torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people. It is literally impossible to imagine any circumstance under which that act would be other than evil.
Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Barry
Mark Frank @ comment 89 to the modest experiment thread: Barry has no further recourse but to say he is self-evidently right and I am lying.

Notice the implicit appeal to emotions here. “Intolerance” is the unpardonable sin of our time. Mark is clearly playing to that along the lines of, “That Barry. He’s just so close minded and intolerant. It’s my way or the highway for him.”
This would appear to be another thing that is clear to you that is not clear to me. All I said was that you had no further recourse. I said nothing about intolerance. I try to think only in terms of the debate not personalities (although I admit I have sometimes said that you appear to be more interested in winning an argument than discovering the truth).
This is an appeal to an emotional aversion to the unpardonable sin of our time. It is an implied insult disguised as an argument. It is not logic.
How about discussing whether it is true i.e. do you have any arguments to support your case other than saying you are right and I am lying?
Suppose I were to say 2+2=4 and Mark were to say “I disagree.” Here we have another self evident truth. There is no way to demonstrate that 2+2=4. It is either accepted as a self evident truth or not. And anyone who denies it is true is lying (granted; they could be insane, but let’s set that aside). If I called Mark on this lie, I am certain he would not say “Barry has no further recourse but to say he is self-evidently right and I am lying.”
It is not strictly true that there is no way to demonstrate 2+2=4 and there are people (in fact everyone at some stage in their life) who do not find it obvious. However, leaving that aside, we were debating a highly controversial topic which as I pointed above has been disputed since Hume at least. To announce that you are self-evidently right and I am lying in this case seems like no argument at all.
Yet, he does say that for purposes of a self evident moral truth. What is the difference? The difference is that we live in a time when you can get away with denying self evident moral truth. Indeed, it is fashionable among a certain class to do so.

The point is that I am not “intolerant” when I call someone a liar for denying that 2+2=4. I am merely pointing out an obvious fact. Nor am I intolerant when I say Mark Frank is lying when he says he disagrees with the following statement: “torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people. It is literally impossible to imagine any circumstance under which that act would be other than evil.” Again, I am merely pointing out an obvious fact.
Please read #99. I agree that “torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people.” That is not our disagreement. Our disagreement is whether this an objective fact or a subjective assessment – something which has been the subject of debate for centuries.Mark Frank_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Petrushka @ 11: The question was, what is about the mixture. And the answer is the arrangement or configuration. Yes I see. The chemical arrangement on the table is what is intelligently designed obviously. It is the human being that is the randomly concocted jumbled mess, the result of stochastic indeterminism and chaos. And obviously purposeless. Obviously.groovamos_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: There have been many debates among philosophers about this over the centuries. Thank you for that. In past centuries philosophers were revered. Now we have materialists as the self-appointed priesthood. Professional philosophers are held in some kind of deprecated esteem by the new priesthood of material - including Neil deGrass Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Philosophical history is a "waste" in light of the new ~~philosophy~~ 'knowledge'. What the world has been obliviously awaiting all these millennia is this new knowledge of materialism for to make sense of it all.groovamos_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

The most amusing thing about Mark Frank’s polemics is that he invariably resorts to an appeal to emotion instead of logic. This is how he does it: Barry @ comment 162 to moral intervention thread: You know for a certain fact that torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people. It is literally impossible to imagine any circumstance under which that act would be other than evil. Mark Frank @ comment 181 to moral intervention thread: By taking an extreme example you hide issues under a cloud of emotion and make anyone who disagrees with the precise wording appear to condone the act. Nevertheless I disagree. Barry @ comment 202 to moral intervention thread: if you are going to deny a self evident moral truth, there is no use arguing with you. By definition self evident truths cannot be demonstrated. And when you lie, as you have here, and say a self evident truth is false the discussion must necessarily come to an end. Mark Frank @ comment 89 to the modest experiment thread: Barry has no further recourse but to say he is self-evidently right and I am lying. Notice the implicit appeal to emotions here. “Intolerance” is the unpardonable sin of our time. Mark is clearly playing to that along the lines of, “That Barry. He’s just so close minded and intolerant. It’s my way or the highway for him.” This is an appeal to an emotional aversion to the unpardonable sin of our time. It is an implied insult disguised as an argument. It is not logic. Suppose I were to say 2+2=4 and Mark were to say “I disagree.” Here we have another self evident truth. There is no way to demonstrate that 2+2=4. It is either accepted as a self evident truth or not. And anyone who denies it is true is lying (granted; they could be insane, but let’s set that aside). If I called Mark on this lie, I am certain he would not say “Barry has no further recourse but to say he is self-evidently right and I am lying.” Yet, he does say that for purposes of a self evident moral truth. What is the difference? The difference is that we live in a time when you can get away with denying self evident moral truth. Indeed, it is fashionable among a certain class to do so. The point is that I am not “intolerant” when I call someone a liar for denying that 2+2=4. I am merely pointing out an obvious fact. Nor am I intolerant when I say Mark Frank is lying when he says he disagrees with the following statement: “torturing an infant for personal pleasure is evil at all places, at all times, for all people. It is literally impossible to imagine any circumstance under which that act would be other than evil.” Again, I am merely pointing out an obvious fact.Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

#113 SB Hume, AJ Ayer and all the verificationists, RM Hare and other linguistic philosophers - that will do for a start. As I said before read RM Hare The Language of Morals if you are interested in hearing a different point of view.Mark Frank_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank
We are debating whether such phrases as “should not do” or “It is wrong” or “it is wrong for everyone” are objective. There have been many debates among philosophers about this over the centuries.
Which philosophers have argued that such formulations as, "it is wrong" or "should not do" or "this is wrong for everyone" are subjective terms?StephenB_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

piotr
No.
I write this sentence on a blackboard: "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Some readers do not understand its meaning. Under the circumstances, does that sentence contain information?StephenB_{February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply