The Woeful State of Modern Debate

_{William Murray

March 18, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

In debate after debate I’m sure we’ve all noticed that some people continually recycle the same statements over and over as if those statements represent something more than emotion-laden rhetoric that hasn’t already been factually and logically refuted or otherwise sufficiently responded to. While this is hardly surprising, what has piqued my interest are discussions involving the election of Donald J. Trump and abortion, I suppose because those subjects carry a great deal of emotional weight for many people. I think the reaction to these subjects reveals something extremely interesting and dangerous to society.

I’m not just talking about atheists/materialists here, but people in general. In every single discussion I had with anyone not supporting Trump, their reaction to Trump was not one of cool political discourse, but of outright hate. They hated Trump. However, not a single one of them could give me even a single policy position of the candidate. Not a single one of them could tell me anything whatsoever about his history other than that he was a rich businessman and star of The Apprentice. None of them had ever even watched a single, whole Trump rally video. Having a discussion with them brought out all the negative characterizations of Trump you find/found everywhere in various media outlets, including comments about his “orange” skin and comb-over hair.

Similarly, when having a “debate” about abortion, the same emotion-laden polemic is used over and over. Recently, on this blog, some commenters offer supposed “righteous indignation” about how pro-life advocates act (or rather, in their eyes, refuse to act appropriately) in response to what they refer to as a “holocaust” – the mass-murder of the unborn. Others react with emotional, “shaming” and “virtue-signalling” talking points about “reproductive rights” and “patriarchical oppression”. Ignoring the scientific fact that human life is known to begin at conception, they talk about other points of the growth of a human from conception that they personally feel would be better marks for granting human right protections – like where they think the fetus might be self-aware, or feel pain, or upon birth. While birth, unlike the other points, is not a vague marker, it suffers from other, logical problems as far as being the best marker fo application of human rights, rendering it simply an arbitrary point after conception with respect to application of human rights.

Now, what do these rhetorical responses and positions have in common? They are all based on subjective feelings and arbitrary points of factual reference that support those arbitrary feelings. In other words, it is the personal, subjective feeling that grounds many views, not relevant facts, grounded principles and logical examination.

For example, attacks on Trump and protests against him are not based upon substantive principles, relevant facts and logical examination; if they were, one would realize that unless they have known a person for many years, they are not likely to have a good understanding of that person’s character or views. Certainly, there is no logical or principled basis for taking a few minutes of snippets of what anyone says – especially in private in certain situations – and using those snippets to form a supposedly valid opinion of a person’s entire history or character. Also, ignoring the relevant facts – the actual entire history of that person in word and deed, and their official statements and policy points unfiltered by perhaps biased interpretation – is at best an unconscious effort to protect one’s negative feelings about that person.

In our other example, some here have made the claim that making abortion illegal might not, in the long term, reduce the number of abortions. If we assume it is a fact (and it is hardly that), it is an irrelevant one with respect to the arguments actually being made about abortion – that accepting and promoting the killing of innocent human life is corrosive to a decent culture based on unalienable human rights. Pointing out that they themselves would act violently to stop the killing of an innocent and so pro-lifers cannot actually consider abortion the killing of an innocent because they are not reacting violently is nothing more than emotional, self-righteous rhetoric and a false comparison.

There is a principle involved here: that all humans have unalienable rights. Defenders of abortion make the claim that there are some situations where humans should not have such rights. This reasoning necessarily opens the door to the subjective view that this group of humans or that group of humans are not protected by human rights. One might say that a human without apparent self-awareness doesn’t deserve that right; but what is the “self-awareness” marker other than an arbitrarily-assigned category? Post-birth humans – another arbitrarily assigned category. How about the comatose? Severely autistic? Deformed? One can make the case that if you are missing a limb, then you aren’t “fully” human. Who gets to define what is “human” enough to be deserving of human rights? Whatever government is in power? Whatever the majority decides?

If we go down that path of reasoning, then the holocaust is – according to that line of reasoning – no different than abortion; government and society defining a category of human life as “not human enough to deserve the basic protection of their right to life” and thus creating the legal and moral freedom to exterminate that class of human life. Moral subjectivism only exacerbates the hypocrisy of the abortionist argument; if it is society that decides what is and is not human life, then abortion is exactly like the holocaust.

This post-modernist moral relativism renders all “social justice” positions inherently absurd and hypocritical; if I can identify as anything and expect acceptance and tolerance for my position, how then does one justify spewing hate and intolerance for those who self-identify even as racists, misogynists and homophobes? If they can hate Trump, I can hate Clinton. If they can hate patriarchy, I can hate equality. If they can hate homophobes, then by post-modernist moral subjectivism I am certainly entitled to hate homosexuals.

If there are no fundamental principles or relevant facts from we all agree to submit to and from which we agree to draw rational conclusions, all one is left with is the whim of subjective feelings and arbitrarily organized references to support those feelings. What that ends up looking like is reliance upon rhetoric, invective, intimidation and, ultimately, violence. It also ends up looking like what we have on this site – a plethora of people utterly incapable of making a rational argument based upon logical inference derived from principle and relevant fact, ending up in self-conflicting absurdities and hypocrisies.

I’m at a loss at how to begin debating those who have absolutely no understanding of critical reasoning; it’s not like you can educate them in such skill during the debate; they have no idea what you are objecting to. They don’t comprehend arguments based on principle. They think any fact that feels like it supports their view actually helps their argument or actually rebuts the other person’s. They think a comparison of feelings and hypothetical personal reactions is a valid argument. They think mockery and personal insult is a valid form of debate. They think shaming and virtue-signalling is the be-all and end-all of public discourse. They think some ideas should not be discussed and actually think free speech is “hate” speech. IOW, as soon as you argue for Trump, or against abortion, you are automatically beyond the realm of civil discourse and the only appropriate response is shaming and ridiculing.

It’s bizarre. At times, the responses are so orthogonal to rational debate that it requires a massive effort just to explain how their point is entirely irrelevant, but doing so makes no difference because their position is entirely rooted in subjective feelings and arbitrary associations.

Armand Jacks and RVB8 don’t even understand that they have just shown, by their own reasoning, under their own worldview, and according to their own subjective, post-conception, arbitrary ideas about the application of human rights, that the Holocaust and abortion are morally, ethically and legally the same exact thing, even while insisting (because of their feelings) that they are not. This is the woeful state of modern debate.

Comments

AJ, CR et al, you have long since been pointed to the key historical parallel of Wilberforce on the slave trade. That wicked, kidnapping based trade was associated with holocaust level death tolls. Why didn't Wilberforce invest in a privateer fleet and attack the slavers directly? Why did he not press in parliament for them to be tried as kidnappers and murderers? And more? The answers are obvious, were outlined above from multiple directions and expose the hollowness of your rhetoric for what it is. I think that instead of that sort of rhetorical gamesmanship, you would be far better advised to ask your self what sort of horror are we enabling, that mounts up from a base of 800+ million unborn killed in the womb in the past 40+ years, at the current rate of a million more per week? KFkairosfocus_{March 27, 2017
March
03
Mar
27
27
2017
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

@WJM
Using the structure that justificationism built while spouting anti-justificationist views is self-defeating.
Except, nonjustificational criticism doesn’t use “the structure that justificationism built”.
It “doesn’t work” that way because some premises are necessarily unjustifiable; they are self-evident.
You seem to have confused (1) something for with we currently have no good criticism of with (2) something that is immune to criticism. For example, we currently have no good criticism that our memories are somehow based on reality. However, if aliens showed up in orbit and revealed a technology that created highly realistic, yet very false memories, then we would have just such criticism. However, even then, those false memories would have some resemblance to reality, in that they would approximate things from the physical world. IOW, what is self-evident would only be self-evident in the sense that no new criticism could be leveled against it, ever, including that which we haven’t conceived of yet. It’s unclear how you know this.
Without justification, all you are doing is spouting rhetoric. If you want to redefine rhetoric as “knowledge” or “truth”, I can’t stop you.
Now you are trying to equivocate between a philosophical theory of knowledge and having a reason to choose between theories. From the Wikipedia article on Critical Rationalism…
William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way. According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational. Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false. By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.

Without the foundational principles of logic (principle of identity, etc.) as self-evident justification, the phrase “it’s irrational” has no interpersonal meaning or knowledge value. It’s just emotional rhetoric.
In regards to the principle of identity, haven’t you heard of The New Riddle of Induction? If we define “grue” as being green until the year 2100, at which time it become blue, observations support emeralds being both green and grue according to all possible tests we can possibly apply. There is no way to distingue between them. Rather identify in the case of emeralds is baed on explanations and theories, such as optics, etc. So, we’re back to conjectural knowledge. I wrote:
Regardless of why, you still end up with unjustified premises, which means justification doesn’t work. It’s irrational. Saying you are justified because you have to stop somewhere is part of justifications and ignores a fourth option, which is to give up the quest for true, justified belief. Truth and knowledge exists, not just in the form you think it does.
You wrote:
Only, I didn’t say “because you have to stop somewhere”; I said because the other two options are irrational. You know, actually irrational, not the emotional, unjustified pretend-irrational term you use.
Option three is irrational because where you stop is arbitrary. Saying you have to stick with it regardless, because the other two are irrational, ignores the forth option, so It’s irrational as well.
It’s apparent that your post-modernist anti-realism has made you unable to understand the meaning of words and phrases grounded in rational justification.
I’m neither a post-modernist or anti-realist, so you seem to be in denial or confused.
You talk about non-justificationism, but speak about everything as if your claims can be justified and as if the rest of us shouldn’t just dismiss what you say as entirely unjustified.
Again, nonjustificational criticism is not justificationsism.critical rationalist_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

WM:
AJ’s “logic” continues to fail him.
Possibly. But not in this case.
We have those varying degrees of charges and penalties because of (1) the circumstances of the crime and (2) the state of the individual committing the crime.
Agreed. Where have I questioned this?
Any idiot can see that abortion is a unique situation because of both (1) circumstances and (2) the state of the individual committing the crime.
Actually, only an idiot would claim that it is unique. First degree murder is defined as any death that was planned and deliberate. Abortion is clearly planned and deliberate where the only purpose is ending the life of the fetus. Clearly the definition would include abortion. No new category is required if the current categories cover it. And, yes, the state of mind of the killer can affect the charge. If the person cannot tell the difference between right and wrong with respect to the act, they are criminally insane. One of the telling signs of legal insanity is when the perpetrator makes no effort to hide the act or avoid capture. The example of the guy who decalitated a stranger on a Greyhound bus and ate his flesh would be a clear example. Clearly most women seeking out and having an illegal abortion would not fall into this category. If she firmly believes that the victim intends to do her harm, self defence comes into play. Clearly any woman who thinks that the fetus intends to do her harm is covered under the insanity plea. Second degree murder/manslaughter come into play when the death is not planned and deliberate. Again, an abortion does not fall into this category. Once a conviction is made on the most appropriate charge, extenuating circumstances are used to inform the sentence. But in many cases there are mandatory minimums. I have been saying that the only reason for accepting penalties less severe for abortion is that the fetus does not have the same right to life as post birth humans. But I guess there could be another reason. If pregnant women are somehow less capable of discerning right from wrong, or are less mature and intelligent than others, they could have different punishments. Much as we do now for juvenile offenders. Do you really want to go down that road?Armand Jacks_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

@KF Excerpts from comments I’ve posted on another thread….
…there are many claims of divine moral truth. Assuming at least one of them is accurate and complete, how does Barry know it correlates with what the Christian God supposedly values and demands? And, even if that was the case, how does he know he is correctly intepreting Christian moral texts? Unless he can infallibly identify and interpret any supposed divine moral truths, Barry must have first used human reasoning and criticism, which is the very thing he claims is inadequate, to determine which divine truth to follow and how to interpret it.

Theism is a form of philosophical foundationalism that assumes that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. It says there must be some refuge of last resort we can appeal to that will not lead us astray from truth. However, it’s unclear how this would actually work in practice. Is that God speaking to you or is it your personal beliefs about what you think God would tell you? How do you infallibly identify those voices as coming from God, demons, your own thoughts or a neurological condition? You use human reasoning and criticism to draw conclusions from your experiences because the conclusions are [not] out there for us to experience. Human reasoning and criticism always comes first.

Yes, the Bible says that its contents came from God. However, I could write a text that said that it too came from God. The experience you have reading either claim doesn’t include the validity of either having come from God or how to interpret them. That comes from a theory you bring to the table, so to speak. For example, one such theory is that God would not use human beings to create an Even Newer Testament. (The Mormons disagree) Or that he wouldn’t use a nonbeliever, or that the Bible itself claims it is complete is correct, or that other claims in the document are not in line with what a perfectly good being would value or demand, etc. None of those things are present in the experience of reading either claim. My point isn’t that we’re completely lost or that there can be no knowledge, but that human reasoning and criticism always comes first. So, I fail to see how you’re in any better position than the non-theists you are criticizing.
IOW, it seems that at best, when faced with the problem of unwanted or dangerous pregnancies, you could say there is some objectively correct moral values or duties that would apply, but you cannot know what they would be because human reasoning and problem solving is supposedly inadequate. Apparently, you’re not taking your own theory seriously. The idea that God somehow preserves the truth in specific texts or by “writing it” on human hearts is yet another conjecture. Nothing in your experience tells you the truthfulness of that conclusion. You having accepted that idea is due to human reasoning and criticism. So are all of the conclusions of theological scholars and interpretations of Biblical teachings, etc. What you seem to be suggesting is that unless we have objective moral sources that cannot lead us into error (infallible identification and interpretation) then we cannot have any moral knowledge and we must fall into nihilism. But this is basically holding morality hostage unless we accept your epistemological views. It’s immoral. Nor does it actually solve the problem. From another thread…
It’s as of someone said. “Hey, I have this problem. I believe that X is morally correct. But that’s not enough because it would be “just an opinion”, so no one is actually bound to abide by it. I know! What if some transcendent authority values and demands X, so everyone must abide by it. Problem solved!” However, they are still let with the very same problem. This is because the claim that this supposed transcendent authority actually values and demands X would be “Just an opinion” as well, so no one is actually bound to abide by it, either. IOW, they just pushed the problem up a level without actually solving it.
Even if an argument from undesired consequences wasn’t fallacious, you still end up with undesired consequences of the fallibility of moral knowledge. There is no foundation to knowledge, moral or otherwise. Yet, it still grows. Moral knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism.critical rationalist_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

AJ said:
The only reason that makes any sense is that it is because we are acknowledging that the right to life of the fetus is NOT the same as that of post birth human beings.
AJ's "logic" continues to fail him. We do not have various different charges and sentences when it comes to homicide because those who have been killed have a greater or lesser right to life. We have those varying degrees of charges and penalties because of (1) the circumstances of the crime and (2) the state of the individual committing the crime. Any idiot can see that abortion is a unique situation because of both (1) circumstances and (2) the state of the individual committing the crime. As such, IMO, it would be deserving of a corresponding unique set of charges and punishments.William J Murray_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

JR, thank you for discussing this reasonably even though we disagree.
There is a difference between what someone would have in an ideal world and the solutions one may suggest in reality. I still think it is reasonable in very many cases to compare it to first degree murder, even if it is not perhaps feasible to treat it as such in the real world.
The penalty of a crime has two purposes, one of them is to set an example to those thinking of doing something illegal, and the other is to provide some level of perceived justice to the general public. The deterrent factor really doesn't have much impact on things like manslaughter which tend to happen without much advanced thought. But for things that require significant advanced planning, it is difficult to assume that it doesn't have a deterrence affect. As such, a harsh penalty is likely to have a significant impact on abortion whereas the types of punishments suggested here would not. How is abortion any different than someone killing an elderly sick parent because the medical bills are bankrupting them. They are both killings for the purpose of making the killer's life easier. But the killer of the elderly parent still gets the minimum sentence for murder. If the fetus is considered to be a human being with the same right to life as the elderly sick person, I still don't see how you can rationalize a lesser punishment for the killer.
I would hate to think that any woman would get an abortion if she believed her unborn child were really another human being; if she did that, she has all the mind of a murderer in the first place.
Of course the majority of women who have abortions know that they are killing something that will develop into a fully functioning human being. That is why it is such a difficult and emotional decision for a woman to make.
By arbitrarily choosing one life sign or criterion or another to determine full human status, one makes it easier to commit an abortion, but it has never been demonstrated what absolute validity or bearing these criteria have.
But I am not talking about arbitrary distinctions. We have very good knowledge and understanding of human development. In the first trimester, the fetus is little more than a mass of differentiating cells. There are no thought processes, no perception of pain or pleasure or any other senses that humans enjoy. If we are going to allow abortions, with the full knowledge that it is not practical to prevent them anyways, selecting the first trimester as the cut off makes sense. You argued that punishing woman with the same penalty as we do other murderers is not practical so a much lesser sentence makes more sense. Using the same logic, knowing that making them illegal is not going to reduce the numbers, doesn't also make sense to allow them and ensure that they are performed as safely as possible?
How is it that I would cease to be human without self-awareness?
I have not been arguing about more or less human, although that could be an argument for another day. I have been arguing about whether the right to life is absolute and starts at conception, or wether that right to life increases throughout gestation.Armand Jacks_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

The only reason that makes any sense is that it is because we are acknowledging that the right to life of the fetus is NOT the same as that of post birth human beings.
I suspect a larger motivation for those arguing against charging all of those that have sought abortions with murder is their realization that such might be a practically impossible approach, or they feel some weight at the thought of so many people charged with murder. Otherwise, they may in fact not think of abortion as being as heinous as murder, but I rather doubt that. There is a difference between what someone would have in an ideal world and the solutions one may suggest in reality. I still think it is reasonable in very many cases to compare it to first degree murder, even if it is not perhaps feasible to treat it as such in the real world. I would hate to think that any woman would get an abortion if she believed her unborn child were really another human being; if she did that, she has all the mind of a murderer in the first place. By arbitrarily choosing one life sign or criterion or another to determine full human status, one makes it easier to commit an abortion, but it has never been demonstrated what absolute validity or bearing these criteria have. One might ask the same of those that say life begins much earlier than birth. But I should think the natural position is to assume that which has its own blood, its own DNA, its own heartbeat is its own being, and if that DNA is human, it is a human being. Really it should suffice that the entity has human DNA and will develop into a human child if left alone. How is it that I would cease to be human without self-awareness? Is a lion not a lion unless it roars? Am I any less human if I can't see or hear? Do our abilities describe us, or are they the sum of humanity? If they merely describe us, a fetus is a human being that has yet to mature into its full set of abilities. If they are the sum of humanity, then indeed we may as well consider those that find themselves beset with crippling ailments "less human" for whichever perceptions they lack.JoshRob_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

KF:
And, how dare you talk about marches of folly or mutinous sailors seizing control of the ship of state and in folly carrying on without regard to consequences.
Get over yourself and this stupid self righteous hyperbolic nonsense. Nobody is suggesting that there are not consequences to decisions that we make as individuals or as governments. Everything we do has a consequence. All we can hope for is that the positives outweigh the negatives for the majority of people. And many times we are mistaken in our decisions. It would be nice to have some set of objective rules that we can all adopt to maximize the quality of lives for everyone. Unfortunately, if there is a god he has, for some inextricable reason, opted to hide these from us and allow us to blunder on the best we can. You keep taking examples from history to make your points, which is always a smart thing to do. But you cherry pick these historic events and people. The fact is that the greatest atrocities have occurred as the result of concentrating on what we think is best for society in the future without thinking about the consequences to the individual. And many of these were done with the best intentions. The crusades, the inquisition, Marxism, communism, eugenics, the holocaust (the real one, not your fabricated abortion one), the residential school system, forced Christian conversion of indigenous peoples, colonialism, the criminalization of homosexuality, the criminalization of early stage abortions...The list is endless. All of these ignored the consequences to the individual in favour of some misguided and often incorrect belief that they would benefit society. If we concentrate on how our decisions impact the individual rather than how it impacts the amorphous society, society will work itself out. What you rediculously call a march of folly, in many cases, is nothing more than people and governments attempting to make decisions that benefit individuals with the minimal negative consequences to other individuals. They get it right, in my opinion, more often than they get it wrong. I suspect that your biggest complaint is that Christianity is losing its historic and histrionic strangle hold on the decision makers in the west. Many of us, including many Christians, see this as a good thing.Armand Jacks_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

JR:
Long ago (as far as this thread is concerned) you were pleased that I admitted abortion would be first degree murder. While I essentially defend that position, your wielding it as an argument against the prosecution of abortion wasn’t particularly earth-shattering, as many have already discussed the legal stipulations that have been and could be put into law.
I think you misunderstand my argument. If it was because of how I worded it, I apologize. I wasn't trying to use the lack of will to penalize the woman as we do all others who commit first degree murder as argument against charging them. My argument was with the inconsistency between the insistence by many here that the fetus (from conception to birth) has the same right to life as any other human being, and the unwillingness by the same people to treat the woman who has an abortion in the same way that we treat all other first degree murderers. We do not modify the penalties for anyone convicted of first degree murder based on the age of the victim. The best the person can hope for is the minimum sentence (life in prison with no parole for 25 years). Why should we have a different minimum sentence for the premeditated murder of a human being who's only crime is not to have been born yet? The only reason that makes any sense is that it is because we are acknowledging that the right to life of the fetus is NOT the same as that of post birth human beings.Armand Jacks_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

rvb8,
Do you value human life so poorly that you do not consider the rghts of the two year old?
Did I do that good a job of imitating your own language? You didn't seem particularly disgusted with killing newborns; after all, you merely said it became "complicated." Here's another question in much the same vein: do you value human life so poorly that you would carelessly draw a line between "fetus" and "human" where it is most convenient to you? What about any concern that your evaluation is incorrect? I suspect there can be no concern, since you feel you may freely dictate what is or is not human.
Take your poor understanding of ‘self aware humanity’ elsewhere.
I have no such poor understanding, but you might educate me on another point: Why are self-aware beings morally necessary to preserve? You seem more than willing to judge those around you if they even disregard self-awareness while speaking hypothetically. Sounds like a strong moral absolute; from where is it derived? What credibility do your morals really have? Why are you right?JoshRob_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

WJM, a real mess indeed. KF PS: Onlookers, I still point us here on, to see how to set things straight.kairosfocus_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Without the agreement that some knowledge is objective and without an agreement about how such knowledge is justified and how arguments should be legitimately made and how conclusions are justifiably reached, then we're all just spouting personal feelings and emotional rhetoric.William J Murray_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

CR said:
None of those scenarios pose a insurmountable problem in making progress.
That depends on how you define "making progress", and whether or not such progress ultimately depends/depended on some form of justification. Using the structure that justificationism built while spouting anti-justificationist views is self-defeating.
Regardless of why, you still end up with unjustified premises, which means justification doesn’t work.
It "doesn't work" that way because some premises are necessarily unjustifiable; they are self-evident. They are what you use to justify other statements/views. Without justification, all you are doing is spouting rhetoric. If you want to redefine rhetoric as "knowledge" or "truth", I can't stop you.
It’s irrational.
Without the foundational principles of logic (principle of identity, etc.) as self-evident justification, the phrase "it's irrational" has no interpersonal meaning or knowledge value. It's just emotional rhetoric. You can't carry on a conversation without implying it is somehow ultimately justified.
Saying you are justified because you have to stop somewhere is part of justifications and ignores a fourth option, which is to give up the quest for true, justified belief.
Only, I didn't say "because you have to stop somewhere"; I said because the other two options are irrational. You know, actually irrational, not the emotional, unjustified pretend-irrational term you use.
Truth and knowledge exists, not just in the form you think it does.
For your statement above to have any meaningful value, truth and knowledge must exist in the form I think it does, otherwise your words don't refer to anything other than your personal feelings and your personal definitions of terms. See how that works?
Second, you have arbitrarily decided when to stop looking for a cause. It’s unclear how you known which phenomena in question is uncaused and cannot be explained, etc.
It's apparent that your post-modernist anti-realism has made you unable to understand the meaning of words and phrases grounded in rational justification. I haven't arbitrarily decided anything nor have I pointed at any particular phenomena to make any particular claims. But, what do you care? Truth and knowledge don't exist; you respond as if I said things I didn't because it serves your purpose to do so.
Our current, best theory of gravity conflicts with quantum mechanics and breaks down inside a black hole. Does that mean we give up on trying to improve and unite them? Why should we do so with “God” or whatever you consider an ultimate cause.
You talk about non-justificationism, but speak about everything as if your claims can be justified and as if the rest of us shouldn't just dismiss what you say as entirely unjustified. When you can actually discuss things as if justification is unnecessary, then I'll have no reason to respond to you at all, because your phrasings will explicitly demonstrate there is no justification for your views. See how that works?William J Murray_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

JR (attn AJ and RVB8):
Self-indulgent narcissism… hmm. You mean like killing someone because their ongoing existence is undesirable? Let’s ignore abortion for a moment: suppose a woman evaluates her future and sees that her little 2 yr old toddler is going to really hamper things. Well, if not for the “complications” of human emotion and hormones, she could just drown the kid in the bath tub and move on with her life. Empowering, wouldn’t you say? But of course, you wouldn’t support her; she’s clearly ignored the “complexity” of her situation. I think the endless accusations that morality is narcissism comes from the sort of morality you may have experienced in your life or witnessed in social justice warriors. Morality is only a means to “feeling good” when you invent your own system of morality that carefully approves one’s own history and behaviors. That sort of morality is more rampant among relativists, adopting a system of morals that never besets them with guilt. Amorality is a fantastic way to acquit oneself, too.
Such are the matches we have been playing with in our civilisation for a very long time now. Koop and Schaeffer long ago warned about the chain from abortion-ism to infanticide-ism to euthanasia-ism. They were brushed aside, but their warning is coming true before our eyes as a conscience-benumbed civilisation becomes ever more and more hellish and foolish, marching hard for the cliff-edge. And, how dare you talk about marches of folly or mutinous sailors seizing control of the ship of state and in folly carrying on without regard to consequences. KFkairosfocus_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

CR, knowledge in many cases is objective; which means that it is independent of any particular person's subjectivity. And that exactly holds for the moral absurdity of nihilism and that which tends to it. It also holds for how ascribing (or simply implying that . . . ) moral government as testified to by conscience etc is merely subjective and/or relative to the power games of a community at a given time and place [etc, etc] lets loose grand delusion in mindedness. This leads to an infinite regress of shadow-show worlds, and thence to collapse in absurdity. including the absurdities that have robbed 800+ million members of our posterity of their lives over the past 40+ years, on excuses that are flimsy at best and clearly tend to the entrenching of ever widening corruption of conscience, law, government, professions and community, leading to nihilism. Which we see all around us, and yes that is a march of folly on the mutinous ship of state.. We have every good reason to understand that we are under moral government and that by and large conscience is capable of accurately perceiving our moral status and options; guiding our reasoning process. That in turn means that playing ideological games with conscience is intellectual suicide. But also it points to a world in which such makes sense and that raises the issues you are loath to address. Starting with the rooting of the world in an IS that inherently also grounds OUGHT. KFkairosfocus_{March 25, 2017
March
03
Mar
25
25
2017
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Josh, your silly, 'suppose a women evaluates' non-example is just that, silly, and inhuman. What about the 'sentient' 'self aware', two year old's rights? Do you value human life so poorly that you do not consider the rghts of the two year old? Take your poor understanding of 'self aware humanity' elsewhere. AJ, we are largely in agreement, and I don't wish to antagonize an ally, but you are splitting haires. Either abortion is ok because the fetus is not a complete human, or it is not; your words.rvb8_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Wow, this thing has really grown. Lost my internet service for a few days. AJ @36, Long ago (as far as this thread is concerned) you were pleased that I admitted abortion would be first degree murder. While I essentially defend that position, your wielding it as an argument against the prosecution of abortion wasn't particularly earth-shattering, as many have already discussed the legal stipulations that have been and could be put into law. The law is not inflexible; it can be adjusted to more feasibly serve any purpose, whether one argues that the purpose is good or evil. We may elect to change laws regarding first degree murder, even, if there is a movement to do so. This may have already been dismissed or otherwise put to rest, but I only felt a need to make some final addendum. As to your quibble about my hope that the women would be ignorant, it has more to do with the nature of moral culpability than with law. I suspect you would not relate, as you seem to be very comfortable with the notion that objective morality is a farce. No one has ever felt guilty for a wrong they did not realize they had committed; this is a demonstration of the very nature of guilt. I would have a hard time blaming a child, for instance, for doing something terrible if he did not understand what he was doing. Essentially, I am merely hoping for their innocence at heart in what is to my moral, reasoning mind an act of murder committed against a most helpless and innocent victim. rvb8,
...murdering the new born becomes incredibly complicated.
I must imagine this is the sum of your thoughts about killing newborns. It's complicated. If only it were simpler, we could just punch the baby a couple of times and avert all sorts of expenses and obligations.
This supposed moral complicated argument is just so much self indulgent narcissism. It is an ongoing fact that our intellect lets us predict, guess, and plan the future, many years in advance. This being the case humans will always imagine their futures, and women will always imagine their futures. As women predict their futures, and predict that a baby is not at present deirable, they, and their partners will imagine ways to end this ‘not desired’ outcome.
Self-indulgent narcissism... hmm. You mean like killing someone because their ongoing existence is undesirable? Let's ignore abortion for a moment: suppose a woman evaluates her future and sees that her little 2 yr old toddler is going to really hamper things. Well, if not for the "complications" of human emotion and hormones, she could just drown the kid in the bath tub and move on with her life. Empowering, wouldn't you say? But of course, you wouldn't support her; she's clearly ignored the "complexity" of her situation. I think the endless accusations that morality is narcissism comes from the sort of morality you may have experienced in your life or witnessed in social justice warriors. Morality is only a means to "feeling good" when you invent your own system of morality that carefully approves one's own history and behaviors. That sort of morality is more rampant among relativists, adopting a system of morals that never besets them with guilt. Amorality is a fantastic way to acquit oneself, too.JoshRob_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Rvb8:
...you are boxing yourself into a corner with your, ‘after the first tri-mester it becomes complicated’, argument.
That may be so. I've never been much of a boxer. But I don't agree with your argument over what self-awareness is. Just because you don't recognize yourself in a mirror doesn't mean that you are not self aware. This being said, I agree that there probably isn't much in the way of self-awareness in the second trimester, but as the brain becomes more developed, the potential increases. The other aspect is the ability to perceive pain. Which definitely starts developing in the second trimester. I prefer not to inflict pain.Armand Jacks_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

AJ, you are boxing yourself into a corner with your, 'after the first tri-mester it becomes complicated', argument. No! It is not complicated. The fetus is not self aware, it does not know it is human, it does not know this for up to 6-7 months after birth. When it first realises it is looking in the mirror at an image of itself, it is 'self-aware'. At which point it is human. Do I support after birth infanticide? No! Why? Because the hormones of the protective father, and nurturing mother, are at this point in 'evolved' hyper-drive, and murdering the new born becomes incredibly complicated. But, at any point prior to this epiphany, sure. This supposed moral complicated argument is just so much self indulgent narcissism. It is an ongoing fact that our intellect lets us predict, guess, and plan the future, many years in advance. This being the case humans will always imagine their futures, and women will always imagine their futures. As women predict their futures, and predict that a baby is not at present deirable, they, and their partners will imagine ways to end this 'not desired' outcome. End of Moral story!rvb8_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

@KF #143
Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
You’ve inadvertently given an example of how knowledge is independent of anyone’s belief. To illustrate this, what did and will happen? The idea that might makes right, manipulation makes right, justice, etc., was a conjecture by the crew. And, under that guise, those that lack the knowledge to sail will try to pilot the boat. And when they fail, assuming that failure is not fatal, it will be passed to some other sailor that clams to be mightier or even more of that false assumption, but lacks knowledge as well. And, assuming that too is not fatal, etc., eventually the idea that might makes right, manipulation makes right, justice, etc., which was supposedly the explanation for successful sailing, will become suspect. Assuming they are not completely lost by then, they will return to the idea that that knowledge of how to pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, etc. , is the explanation of how to pilot the ship and the error will corrected. In that sense the knowledge of how to pilot the ship plays a causal role in it being retained in the brains of sailors and books used to train them.critical rationalist_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

CR et al: I simply refer you here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/chains-of-warrant-and-of-causation-in-origins-science/ and here: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/understanding-self-evidence-with-a-bit-of-help-from-aquinas/ also (perhaps, ESPECIALLY), here: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/fyi-ftr-p-burns-down-rationality-in-order-to-save-critical-rationality/ Your root quarrel is with first principles of right reason and -- ironically -- with rationality. It is a saddening measure of the woeful state of thought, discussion and debate in our time that these issues have to be on the table. G'day, KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

AJ:
I do not oppose abortion on demand in the first trimester. A decision completely made by the woman upon consultation with a doctor. After the first trimester, it is my opinion that it should not be available on demand and only be used when the woman’s health is at serious risk.
After the first trimester, do you believe it should not be available because it is the taking of a life? Or is there some other reason it should not be available?Phinehas_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

M62, we are not God, do not know more than that we are dealing with a distinct human life from conception. This is a case where arrogating to ourselves the benefit of such a doubt with willfully imposed death of the innocent on the line, is utterly corrosive. WJM is right, it is not the fate of the innocent child alone, it is what we do to our souls/ consciences, communities and institutions. We play with fire here, hellish fire. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Why is foundationism undesirable? From this paper on constructor theory.... (Emphasis mine)
Consider an automated factory for producing goods to a particular specification. Though its purpose may only be to produce those goods, the laws of physics imply that it must transform something into them and, typically, also use other resources and produce waste products. Very few such transformations happen spontaneously; that is to say, almost all require a constructor, which I shall define as anything that can cause transformations in physical systems without undergoing any net change in its ability to do so. I shall call those physical systems the constructor’s substrates:
Constructor input state of substrate(s) ------------------> output state of substrate(s). (1)
A transformation, regarded as being caused by a constructor, I call a construction. Constructors appear under various names in physics and other fields. For instance, in thermodynamics, a heat engine is a constructor because of the condition that it be capable of ‘operating in a cycle’. But they do not currently appear in laws of physics. Indeed, there is no possible role for them in what I shall call the prevailing conception of fundamental physics, which is roughly as follows: everything physical is composed of elementary constituents such as particles, fields and spacetime; there is an initial state of those constituents; and laws of motion determine how the state evolves continuously thereafter. In contrast, a construction (1) is characterised only by its inputs and outputs, and involves subsystems (the constructor and the substrate), playing different roles, and most constructors are themselves composite objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could possibly mention them: the whole continuous process of interaction between constructor and substrate is already determined by the universal laws governing their constituents. However, the constructor theory that I shall propose in this paper is not primarily the theory of constructions or constructors, as the prevailing conception would require it to be. It is the theory of which transformations
input state of substrate(s) ------------------> output state of substrate(s). (2)
can be caused and which cannot, and why. As I shall explain, the idea is that the fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of those issues, and that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it can be abstracted away, leaving transformations (2) as the basic subject matter of the theory. I shall argue that we should expect such a theory to constitute a fundamental branch of physics with new, universal laws, and to provide a powerful new language for expressing other theories. I shall guess what some of those laws may be, and explore the theory’s potential for solving various problems and achieving various unifications between disparate branches of physics and beyond, and propose a notation that may be useful in developing it. Causation is widely regarded by philosophers as being at best a useful fiction having no possible role in fundamental science. Hume (1739) argued that we cannot observe causation and therefore can never have evidence of its existence. But here I shall, with Popper (1959, 1963), regard scientific theories as conjectured explanations, not as inferences from evidence, and observation not as a means of validating them, but only of testing them. So Hume’s argument does not apply. Nor does the argument (e.g. by Russell 1913) that the fundamental laws of physics make no reference to causes – for that is merely an attribute of a particular way of formulating those laws (namely, the prevailing conception) not of the laws themselves. Moreover, the prevailing conception itself is not consistent about that issue, for the idea of a universal law is part of it too, and the empirical content of such a law is in what it forbids by way of testable outcomes (Popper 1959, §31 & §35) – in other words in what transformations it denies can be caused to happen, including to measuring instruments in any possible laboratories. Explanatory theories with such counter- factual implications are more fundamental than predictions of what will happen. For example, consider the difference between saying that a purported perpetual motion machine cannot be made to work as claimed ‘because that would violate a conservation law’ and that it won’t work ‘because that axle exerts too small a torque on the wheel’. Both explanations are true, but the former rules out much more, and an inventor who understood only the latter might waste much more time trying to cause the transformation in question by modifying the machine.
critical rationalist_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

@WJM
This is a category error. We’re talking about fundamental causal system premises. The causal system is either a system of infinite regress; or it started from nothing – no cause, just an effect; or it began from an uncaused cause. The third option isn’t “giving up” or ‘stopping” at an arbitrary point; it premises a logically necessary condition of existence in order to avoid (1) infinite regress and (2) an uncaused effect (something from nothing).
None of those scenarios pose a insurmountable problem in making progress. Regardless of why, you still end up with unjustified premises, which means justification doesn’t work. It’s irrational. Saying you are justified because you have to stop somewhere is part of justifications and ignores a fourth option, which is to give up the quest for true, justified belief. Truth and knowledge exists, not just in the form you think it does. Second, you have arbitrarily decided when to stop looking for a cause. It’s unclear how you known which phenomena in question is uncaused and cannot be explained, etc. Our current, best theory of gravity conflicts with quantum mechanics and breaks down inside a black hole. Does that mean we give up on trying to improve and unite them? Why should we do so with “God” or whatever you consider an ultimate cause. IOW, the problem with the current conception of physics is that it must start with some initial conditions, which can be unknowable, untraceable, etc. This is why Deutsch’s constructor theory is such an important fundamental development, because it’s about what’s possible and what’s not. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, it’s possible given the right knowledge. Saying we cannot make progress without a foundation it is denying that we can make progress. That is immoral. Third, not only is it not possible, but it’s undesirable because it limits theories to what we can supposedly justify in some way. We wouldn’t be where we are now if that were actually the case. What we want from theories is their content, not their source.critical rationalist_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Marfin:
AJ re- 146 I know you dont oppose abortion, but do oppose abortion on demand , you best be careful with that as you will be accused of interfering with women’s wombs and their freedom to choose.
I do not oppose abortion on demand in the first trimester. A decision completely made by the woman upon consultation with a doctor. After the first trimester, it is my opinion that it should not be available on demand and only be used when the woman's health is at serious risk.
To you then humans are just animals but during the gestation period they become more self aware animals and more perceptive of pain.
Yes.
I hope you realise that your believe you view is correct , but you have no concrete basis for knowing its right, and your opinion only matters to you.
My opinion is based on objective evidence. And I will modify my opinion if presented with contradictory objective evidence. Those are pretty solid grounds to base opinions on. Yes, opinions are personal. But when enough people share the same opinion, it often gets imbedded in law. At that point, it matters to many others a well.Armand Jacks_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

KF: the various hair-splitting rationalisations and timelines fall apart on one single test: human life has an intrinsic right to live from conception to natural death, on pain of letting loose the forces of chaos starting in our very souls. Maybe not. Why is it rational to think that an embryo has any conscious "spirit" attached to it when it's nervous system is not fully developed? Or at least before any brainwaves are detectable? We allow people to die in the hospital all the time when there are no brain waves remaining. Standard procedure. Is this wrong? Or should we keep the body alive forever despite the lack of brainwaves? We are not God and must not get into the game of playing God and commodifying human life. Humans play God all the time when they defend themselves against an attack or go to war with a perceived enemy, or "pull the plug" on brain dead person lying on a hospital bed. We play God all the time in lesser ways when we set up laws and courts and judge people for societal crimes and lock them away or execute them. Should we do away with all of this because by these we are "playing God"? I suspect you derive most if not all of your morality from the Bible, but even amongst Bible believers (Jews and Christians) there is much disagreement about what is moral or not. Not all of us derive our morality from the Bible or other religious text. (It would appear from Exodus 21:22-25 that the unborn are not on par with borne humans.) For what it's worth, my view of abortion is similar to Armand Jacks's. I am OK with it up to the point of brainwaves being detectable, and that's about 40 days. Without brain waves, the embryo is no more human than a brain dead person lying in a hospital bed.mike1962_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

KF:
AJ & Pindi, do you understand what you are revealing about your mentality, level of reasoning and intent in the face of willful mass killing and outright holocaust — 800+ millions and counting at a million more per week — of innocent human life;
Further:
AJ, the various hair-splitting rationalisations and timelines fall apart on one single test: human life has an intrinsic right to live from conception to natural death, on pain of letting loose the forces of chaos starting in our very souls. We are not God and must not get into the game of playing God and commodifying human life. One robbed of his or her life is robed of all else. KF"
Allow me to clip a significant point from the OP that is relevant:
In debate after debate I’m sure we’ve all noticed that some people continually recycle the same statements over and over as if those statements represent something more than emotion-laden rhetoric that hasn’t already been factually and logically refuted or otherwise sufficiently responded to.
Now, that is food for thought.
Do you understand what happens when something very wrong and destructive is embedded into a civilisation such that only a reformation can return us to sobriety and soundness?
So, does this mean that you are in favour of outlawing smoking and drinking? Not making something illegal and condoning the action are not the same thing. There are many actions that the government allows and at the same time does not promote or condone. Abortion is one of those.
Has the example of Wilberforce sunk in?
The fact that you continue to repeat this in spite of my corrective does not speak well for you.
Are you aware of just how inherently unstable democratic government has been since the days of the Peloponnesian war and why a whole panoply of cultural buttresses is needed to stabilise it?
As are communist, Marxist, Monarchist and theocratic governments. Further evidence of the lack of a world-root IS that is capable of grounding OUGHT. But we have been over this before.
As for marches of folly based on manipulation of the public, this micro-cosm should give you pause if your consciences are not so benumbed that you cannot understand clearly enough to think straight.
Further evidence of the lack of a world-root IS that is capable of grounding OUGHT. But we have been over this before.
Marches of folly to ruin are real, and are going on as we speak so we would be well advised to learn from lessons of history bought with blood and tears lest we pay the same price again, with interest. KF
Yes they are real, but you have failed to provide sufficient evidence that we are headed towards ruin at this time. I understand that you are not happy with the fact that people in ever increasing numbers are questioning the teachings of their respective religions. But if the teachings of a faith cannot withstand scrutiny, maybe the problem is with the teachings.Armand Jacks_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

AJ re- 146 I know you dont oppose abortion, but do oppose abortion on demand , you best be careful with that as you will be accused of interfering with women's wombs and their freedom to choose. To you then humans are just animals but during the gestation period they become more self aware animals and more perceptive of pain. If we are just animals then whats the big deal we kill animals for sport, fun, protection, food, why care if we kill just one more animal, when there is no moral objectivity anyway, and it just comes down to choice, and that choice is not a freewill choice but a product of evolution. I hope you realise that your believe you view is correct , but you have no concrete basis for knowing its right, and your opinion only matters to you.Marfin_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

AJ, the various hair-splitting rationalisations and timelines fall apart on one single test: human life has an intrinsic right to live from conception to natural death, on pain of letting loose the forces of chaos starting in our very souls. We are not God and must not get into the game of playing God and commodifying human life. One robbed of his or her life is robed of all else. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2017
March
03
Mar
24
24
2017
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply