angelo
Deleted
Isn't having babies knowing full well that feeding and clothing them is near impossible immoral?
-
Features
Why are "refugees" still having children?
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
laughing dog
Contributor
And there is the crux of the communcition/ "Intuitive moral assessments" are the equivalent of " I think it is valid, it is valid" reasoning when people do not share the same "moral intuition". Your "moral intuition" is not shared by a number of posters which translates into a disagreement of over inferred meanings and even over the actual meaning of words. Your "refutations" are unconvincing to anyone who does not share your "moral intuitions". Which is why your "arguments" appear like unappetizing word salads to some posters.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Indeed. Even Derec does not agree with Angra's zombie apocalypse conclusion.
Derec
Contributor
Islamic invaders into Europe a definitely a demographic threat
Afghan couple who have nine children and receive £5,000 a month in benefits have asked for free IVF treatment after arriving in Austria (and the wife is 44)
And the #opentheborders and #refugeeswelcome idiots and fifth columnists want to bring millions more in! It's suicide!
Afghan couple who have nine children and receive £5,000 a month in benefits have asked for free IVF treatment after arriving in Austria (and the wife is 44)
And the #opentheborders and #refugeeswelcome idiots and fifth columnists want to bring millions more in! It's suicide!
angelo
Deleted
Tell that to the left leaning muslim apologists.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
No, that is not true. The validity of a piece of reasoning has nothing to do with our intuitive moral assessments.laughing dog said:
Also, the use of scare quotes around "moral intuition" is uncalled for. For that matter, we make intuitive epistemic probabilistic assessments in order to tell that, say, Young Earth Creationists are vastly mistaken. But a smart, philosophy-inclined YEC doesn't need to engage in invalid reasoning, or generally logical errors (not explicitly, anyway; he might be engaging in non-Bayesian updates while implicitly asserting Bayes, but that would be vastly difficult to show, if even doable in practical cases).
Still, this is finally a reasonably relevant reply, so it's a definite improvement.
We may distinguish between prima facie moral intuitions, and the intuitions that result after discussion (which would be applicable to this particular situation if my opponents were generally reading my posts rationally, with intent to understand them, and in a calmer fashion), further consideration, etc., and which often result from triggering other also prima facie but more basic and stronger moral intuitions.laughing dog said:
Disagreement based on different prima-facie moral intuitions might be overcome later (again, if people taking part in the discussion were being rational, etc.).
If the disagreement persists (but for a seriously long time), I think (this is epistimic intuitions after consideration at work) one would have to look for other causes before giving substantial weight to the idea that the meaning of the words is different (which would lead to a moral error theory, which you have proposed by would be self-defeating in your case, since you've been making moral judgements).
And the refutations of YEC are unconvincing to anyone (like YECs) who does not share the debunker's epistemic intuitions (btw, both instances of scare quotes are out of place, as they are implicitly derogatory in an unwarranted fashion).laughing dog said:
That, however, is not a problem for arguing against YEC.
Now, that said, if my opponents were to simply say that they do not share my intuitions, that would be a relevant reply, and we would have to think about how to elicit other, stronger intuitions, to see perhaps if the intuitions of one or more participants after deliberation are different from the prima facie intuitions.
That would be alright.
However, that is not how my opponents usually reply. Instead, they usually engage in things like invalid reasoning, false and unwarranted attributions of belief to me, and generally gross misrepresentation of what I'm saying. That is not at all a rational way to discuss, and gives me reason to suspect (apart from other reasons, more generally applicable to humans) that the persistence of the disagreement might not be due to disagreement at a most basic level of moral intuitions, but rather, they're being confused by their irrational thinking on the matter (which might be the result some ideology/religion - leftist or rightist - and/or that they're too angry with me to think clearly, and/or that they're engaging in group thinking and are signaling to their ingroup that they're one of them - not deliberately, but instinctively -, or whatever the cause of their not rational replies).
No, that's because they're not being rational. Clashes of moral intuitions per se would not at all result in that.laughing dog said:
Last edited:
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I do not believe Derec and I have discussed the matter. Who knows whether we would agree?
But in any event, I can always appeal to stronger cases (e.g., nearly everyone is burned alive at 3, etc.), and I'm sure at some point Derec will agree with my points.
If some disagreement persists, so be it. Misrepresentation, false attributions of belief, non-sequiturs, etc., are very different matters.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
"Needed" would use children as a means to an end, but let me try to persuade you (prompted by Don2's reply) that it's immoral for Glenn and Maggie to try to have a child. It seems to me you still reckon that it would be okay to subject a child to the risks of TWD, which I disagree with, but there are very negative aspects of the situation that characters fail to see (but shouldn't).Derec said:
Let me begin with the following point:
1. If the fetus dies after some basic brain function develops (the part needed for walkers, which isn't much), there is a high chance that she will die in a horrific manner, with a walker/crawler trying to eat her from the inside, or scratching her if it has the means to, or just trying and trying and trying (unbearably painfully) until it manages to draw blood - and beyond -, unless she manages to expel it before that happens, but it's a real chance of a horrific result.
For that reason alone, it would be immoral for Glenn to try. The very, very slim chance of trying to perpetuate human genes in that situation (pretty much zero, by the way) is not enough to justify exposing his wife to that horrific risk (the chances of the fetus dying after that point may be low, but not that much given their sort of life; besides, the result would be truly horrific). He should have known that.
Now, Maggie does not know that, either, but she rationally should know it too. If she knew and wanted to take the risk, I still reckon Glenn should refuse.
Tthere are other reasons why it would be wrong for both of them to try to have a child, but I'll get to that later, if this one doesn't convince you.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Derec,
Here's more reasons:
Based on the information available to them, the people in TWD should reckon that the walkers are almost certainly designed. They have a complex phisiology that couldn't just result from a mutated virus or something, and unguided evolution would take many steps to produce that sort of physiology - steps that didn't happen.
Now, I admit I'm no expert in biology or physics, but I very strongly suspect that walkers do not respect the way our universe works, so if walkers showed up in our world, that would provide some serious evidence of a simulation where the PTB decided to change the rules horrendously. But I don't know how much the characters know about that, so this is just one option.
Another option (if no one changed the rules) would be some other superhuman being, but one who has no power to change the rules (e.g., rogue AI, alien attackers).
Let's call all of these variants together "the superhuman hypothesis" (TSH).
Another possibility that characters should consider is that humans designed the walkers. In that case, it's extremely probable that they deliberately attacked. Had it been an accident, the makers would have very (even if anonymously) made all of the walkers info available to the world, in order to improve the chances of containing the epidemic, when it was clear it was all going to Hell.
So, let's call the hypothesis of a human attack "HAH".
Based on the info available to them, the characters should reckon that the hypothesis "either TSH or HAH" is very probable.
Now, if it's HAH, they almost certainly have vaccines, infrastructure (underground, perhaps), and they're taking over the world. Maybe they're in Russia or China. In that case, having a baby would only expose a child to the horrors of the zombie apocalypse, but won't save humanity, since humanity is not at risk. Some humans are taking over.
If it's TSH, there is a superhuman agent or agents that killed off most of humanity. Whether humanity survives in the long run depends on their choices, but given their willingness to kill and bring about horrors, there is no likely path to humanity's survival by means of just having kids, not to mention that there is no telling what more horrors lie ahead (I mean, zombie apocalypse was the first wave; what might come later?).
Given those alternatives and odds, it would be wrong to try to have a child.
What do you think?
Here's more reasons:
Based on the information available to them, the people in TWD should reckon that the walkers are almost certainly designed. They have a complex phisiology that couldn't just result from a mutated virus or something, and unguided evolution would take many steps to produce that sort of physiology - steps that didn't happen.
Now, I admit I'm no expert in biology or physics, but I very strongly suspect that walkers do not respect the way our universe works, so if walkers showed up in our world, that would provide some serious evidence of a simulation where the PTB decided to change the rules horrendously. But I don't know how much the characters know about that, so this is just one option.
Another option (if no one changed the rules) would be some other superhuman being, but one who has no power to change the rules (e.g., rogue AI, alien attackers).
Let's call all of these variants together "the superhuman hypothesis" (TSH).
Another possibility that characters should consider is that humans designed the walkers. In that case, it's extremely probable that they deliberately attacked. Had it been an accident, the makers would have very (even if anonymously) made all of the walkers info available to the world, in order to improve the chances of containing the epidemic, when it was clear it was all going to Hell.
So, let's call the hypothesis of a human attack "HAH".
Based on the info available to them, the characters should reckon that the hypothesis "either TSH or HAH" is very probable.
Now, if it's HAH, they almost certainly have vaccines, infrastructure (underground, perhaps), and they're taking over the world. Maybe they're in Russia or China. In that case, having a baby would only expose a child to the horrors of the zombie apocalypse, but won't save humanity, since humanity is not at risk. Some humans are taking over.
If it's TSH, there is a superhuman agent or agents that killed off most of humanity. Whether humanity survives in the long run depends on their choices, but given their willingness to kill and bring about horrors, there is no likely path to humanity's survival by means of just having kids, not to mention that there is no telling what more horrors lie ahead (I mean, zombie apocalypse was the first wave; what might come later?).
Given those alternatives and odds, it would be wrong to try to have a child.
What do you think?
laughing dog
Contributor
When you start from false premises, the conclusions are bound to be false, so you are mistaken.
Why? There is no logical reason to take your word that what you call "moral intuition" is nothing more than wishful thinking or irrationality. And such a conclusion is consistent your persistent mischaracterizations about the content of posts and the inability to discern discussions about practicality from moral issues.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
me said:
No, that is false. When you start from false premises, the conclusions may or may not be false (come on, this is basic logic. Why would you say something like that? You know better, and you can do much better!).laughing dog said:
The validity of a piece of reasoning has zero to do with the truth or falsity of its premises.
Sure there is good reason (not sure if "logical" is the right word, but whatever), but leave that aside.laughing dog said:
The fact is that we all (humans) use moral intuitions. Some of those intuitions are stronger than others. Some might be faulty due to the effect of say, left-wing ideology, right-wing ideology, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or whatever. But we all use them all the time. The scare quotes are derogatory, and if you're using them against me, to be consistent you should use them against yourself, each time you make moral judgments, which are ultimately or immediately based on some moral intuition or another. And you do make moral judgments, even if in a self-defeating manner you propose an error theory of moral talk (either epistemic or substantive, that you haven't clarified).
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
"Intuitive moral assessment?" You're making statements of fact that are logically inconsistent. Just because it "seems right" at first glance doesn't mean it is.
It's nothing to do with intuition, it's a matter of attempting to apply some consistent definition of morality that doesn't depend entirely on special pleading and emotionalism. Just because something "seems wrong" doesn't make it immoral, unless you can explain WHY it's immoral.
I'm going to spell this out to you as clearly as I can:
No action can be considered immoral based solely on the probability of harm.
Even Gunfire Bob fails this test: He KNOWS his actions are harmful, and he goes and does them anyway. He cannot be judged to be acting immorally, however, if he genuinely believes that his gun is loaded with blanks, or if he sucks at math and has calculated that terminal velocity for a falling bullet is only 9m/s (it's actually 90m/s, which can be dangerous but is not usually lethal). A reckless action is not always an immoral one, neither is a poorly-informed one.
The missing element in your conception is the significance of intent. Actions are judged to be moral or immoral based on the outcome sought by the moral actor, not the overall outcome achieved. Thus a morally acceptable action that results in a negative consequence is still, by definition, a morally acceptable action; an immoral action that results in a positive consequence is still an immoral action.
The RISK associated with an action is only relevant to the extent that a person is able or willing to account for it when making a decision. Choosing to ignore a risk, while widely considered to be reckless behavior, is NOT considered to be immoral, which more than anything is why no one considers sex, smoking, deep frying a chicken or playing professional sports to be immoral actions DESPITE the inherent risks these actions pose.
Quite the opposite: you claimed and continue to claim that intent to harm is less important than the probability of harm. This is an extraordinary enough position that I am going to have to ask you to back it up with an external source.
Not sometimes.
ALWAYS.
I made it perfectly clear, but I'll ask you plainly: do you believe forcing a captive to conceive a child for the purpose of blackmail is morally acceptable if the probability of harm is low?
Which is, actually, a very good example: it is BOB'S actions that are causing harm, not the manufacturer of the gun, not the person who GAVE him the gun, and not even the person who gave him cause to celebrate by firing into the air. Nor is buying the gun, loading the gun, or even aiming the gun into the sky an immoral action on Bob's part; only his decision to actually pull the trigger (assuming, of course, he has good reason to believe his bullet is going to kill someone and does it anyway).
Do you believe that creating handguns for Bob to use in the first place would be immoral under these conditions?
Like two paragraphs ago you pointed to:
"actions made immoral by risk, not intent."
If an risk is more important than intent, then you are assuming a definition of "morality" that is entirely concerned with outcomes and denies the importance of motive, and is essentially the exact OPPOSITE of any conventional definition of morality.
Which, more than anything, is why I have identified your position as "bullshit." The definition you're using ceases to be coherent outside of a very SPECIFIC set of circumstances. Beyond which, it looses all meaning; you can morally justify pretty much ANYTHING just by arguing that the probability of harm was low to begin with. Imagine a rapist using that as a legal defense: "She was drugged and unconscious, so she has no memory of being raped, was not physically harmed at all, and I even gave her a ride home when I was finished. No harm done!"
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
No, they're behaving stupidly. The fact that they're acting on a genuine believe that happens to be totally wrong -- and the fact that they give undue credulity to questionable sources of information -- doesn't make them immoral, it makes them RECKLESS.
Their failure is a practical one, not a moral one, because their INTENT is to protect their child from harm. If they weren't so disastrously wrong about the risk posed by vaccination, their intentions would certainly come to fruition. But at the same time "being wrong about stuff" isn't a moral failure either.
No, again, their behavior is morally consistent with their beliefs, it's just that their beliefs happen to be idiotic. But being an idiot isn't immoral either.
This is basically where your theory completely breaks down: In BOTH of these examples you're attempting to judge an action as moral or immoral purely because the OUTCOME is negative. The problem is, both of those people could just as easily be RIGHT, which in your theory would change the reality of whether or not their actions are moral or immoral; the anti-vaxxer saved their child from autism and the religious nut saved their child from Eternal Hellfire.
But morality isn't judged in hindsight; we don't let criminals out of prison just because their crimes wound up causing some good, nor is a rapist celebrated as a hero just because one of his unintended progeny grew up and cured cancer. Moral choices are evaluated in the context in which they are made, not by their outcomes, and CERTAINLY not by the probability of a particular outcome, which a normal person isn't in a position to know anyway.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
lol no, we DO NOT make "intuitive epistemic probabilistic assessments" to determine that. We look at the evidence and apply critical thinking to evaluate which theory fits the evidence better. When we do, we discover that Young Earth Creationism doesn't fit the evidence as well as conventional scientific models and THEN we determine that it is less likely to be true.
"Intuition" is irrelevant. One must apply a consistent moral standard in order to evaluate it in a meaningful way. If your standards are not consistent, then you're pretty much just making stuff up to fit your biases.
It's obvious that most people in this thread -- or the majority of western civilization for that matter -- do not share your "intuitions." It matters very little, sine morality is judged as a consistent standard of behavior, not by "intuition."
laughing dog
Contributor
Sigh. If you start with false premises, then you either end up with a false conclusion if you reason properly or a valid conclusion if you reason poorly. Since you claim to be rational and to be reasoning logically, you must be ending up with false conclusions. Or are you admitting you are being illogical?
No, there is no good reason to assume your moral intuitions are actually moral intuitions or valid.
Your reasoning is faulty for a number of reasons. Even if all people use "moral intuition" (whatever that means), it does not follow that any particular claim of the use of "moral intuition", is, in fact, moral intuition. Second, since I am not claiming to use any moral intuition, there is not need for me to use quotes around it. Third, if I do not believe your "moral intuition" is valid, it is not derogatory to use them. In fact, there is nothing inherently derogatory about using quotation marks around a term.
Last edited:
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Strictly speaking: a logical statement that contains a false premise and a true conclusion is considered an INVALID statement. This is such, because the statement cannot reliably produce true statements and is inconsistent with the conditions it is attempting to describe.
Simplified:
All cats have four legs
All cats have claws
Micky has four legs
Mickey has claws
Therefore Mickey is a cat
Mickey just happens to be a cat, so the conclusion is true. But it is logically invalid for the very obvious reason that changing the truth value of one or more premise would not continue to yield a true conclusion; in other words, it ONLY yields a true conclusion with these very specific values. For the statement to be valid, it would have to be able to produce a correct under ALL values:
--------
All cats have four legs
All cats have claws
Micky has THREE legs
Mickey has claws
Therefore Mickey is a not cat (false)
----------
All cats have four legs
All cats have claws
Micky has four legs
Mickey DOES NOT have claws
Therefore Mickey is not a cat (false)
---------
All cats have four legs
All cats have claws
Micky has three legs
Mickey does not have claws
Therefore Mickey is not a cat (false).
The invalid argument cannot reliably determine whether or not Mickey (or any other animal) is actually a cat. This is what makes it invalid: the premises do not lead to true conclusions except in that one specific case and is therefore not a valid logical rule.
[/nitpick]
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Crazy Eddie,
I've had enough. Congratulations, you got the last word.
I've had enough. Congratulations, you got the last word.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
me said:
laughing dog said:
me said:
And you even "Sigh", as you were not making a mistake on basic logic. My bad. It is not the case that you know better.laughing dog said:
Let me make it clear to you. When you start from false premises, and you reason properly, the conclusions may or may not be false.
I am being rational, and I'm reasoning properly, and I have true premises.
If my premises were false, my conclusions might be true, or they might be false.
It's a mistake about basic logic to believe (and you repeatedly claimed it, with condescending "Sigh" included!) that if the premises are false and the reasoning is proper, the conclusions must be false. That is simply not the case. If you don't know that, you don't know even the basics of logic. Please, verify with whatever source you trust that I'm telling you the truth, and withdraw that claim.
Also, you should stop being condescending with me when I'm correcting your basic logical errors.
Yes, granted, you actually thought you were right. Maybe you still think so. But you should not think so. You should realize that if you start with false premises, then you may end up with a true conclusion, or you may end up with a false conclusion, regardless of whether you reason properly or not.
This is so annoying.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Moral intuitions are not the sort of thing that can be valid or invalid, so that's just confused.laughing dog said:
Of course, my moral intuitions are moral intuitions (trivially), and of course, as a human being, I - like you, like every other human on the planet, leaving aside young children, etc. - make intuitive moral assessments all the time.
Let me ask you: how do you go about making a moral assessment, if not by means of your own intuitions?
laughing dog
Contributor
False.
True. Notice how easy it is without all that intervening, mind-numbing word salad you are so fond of.
No, they could be delusions, or any number of confused ideas.