Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 163

Thread: FORGIVENESS

  1. Top | #61
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,909
    Rep Power
    17
    He may only have been using his everyday logic.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  2. Top | #62
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    This assumes as true the very thing that's in question.
    It does not assume. It assesses. The thing is this. No matter how many counterexamples I can come up with, you can always say it is not so. But perhaps a contrastive scenario will be even more obvious.



    S13: A few centuries into the future, Jack is one of the colonists going to a nearby planetary system. He is a psychopathic serial killer, and is planning to do all sorts of killings for fun. He goes into cryosleep with everyone else, but plants a reprograms his pod to wake up a day earlier than scheduled. He also plants a virus so that no one is warned when he wakes up. So, he does wake up. And he proceeds to murder 3 members of the 4-people crew, one by one, and before they knew what hit them. The fourth one, Sally, he takes by surprise, beats up, and then tortures slowly, to get the codes to access the main functions of the ship. Then, he murders her too. After that, he kills everyone else on the ship, by rigging the cryopods to give them a lethal electroshock. They don't know what hit them, either. He also plans to wreak havoc on the ground, on arrival to planet #294, his destination. He reckons he can't just land with everyone else dead - that would raise questions! So, instead, he programs the ship to collide with the colony. Since the colony is new and still pretty small, a direct hit to the inhabited area will kill everyone, he thinks. He is going to abandon ship on a small pod, and land in an area for landing and launching ships. He will then live there, and lauch again on a different ship, in course to Earth, to kill more people. He thinks his actions are fine. The people on the ground are unaware of his actions, and get killed by the collision.
    Obviously, in S13, the actions Jack carries out after murdering the people on board and with the intend - which he achieves - of murdering everyone on the ground, are immoral. Now the contrast:



    S14: A few centuries into the future, Jack is one of the colonists going to a nearby planetary system. He is a psychopathic serial killer, and is planning to do all sorts of killings for fun. He goes into cryosleep with everyone else, but plants a reprograms his pod to wake up a day earlier than scheduled. He also plants a virus so that no one is warned when he wakes up. So, he does wake up. And he proceeds to murder 3 members of the 4-people crew, one by one, and before they knew what hit them. The fourth one, Sally, he takes by surprise, beats up, and then tortures slowly, to get the codes to access the main functions of the ship. Then, he murders her too. After that, he kills everyone else on the ship, by rigging the cryopods to give them a lethal electroshock. They don't know what hit them, either. He also plans to wreak havoc on the ground, on arrival to planet #294, his destination. He reckons he can't just land with everyone else dead - that would raise questions! So, instead, he programs the ship to collide with the colony. Since the colony is new and still pretty small, a direct hit to the inhabited area will kill everyone, he thinks. He is going to abandon ship on a small pod, and land in an area for landing and launching ships. He will then live there, and lauch again on a different ship, in course to Earth, to kill more people. He thinks his actions are fine.
    Unbeknown to Jack, while he was in cryosleep, a massive war broke out on Earth, and it got to the colony. Tens of thousands of nukes were used, as well as smart killer robots, and bioweapons. Humans were all killed. As for the colony, a bunch of killer robots got there faster (better propulsion system, no need for life support) and killed everone. All of the other colony ships were also blown up. Result? After he killed everyone else on board, the only human being left in the universe is Jack. There are also no aliens smarter than, say, a frog. So, all of the actions he carried out after he murdered all of the other colonists, where considered fine by everyone in the universe ("everyone"="Jack").

    And again, Jack's in S14 are exactly equally immoral as Jack's actions in S13, because his intent was the same, the information available to him was the same, his beliefs were the same, in fact all of his decisions leading up to that moment were the same (it's the same Jack up to that point). The only differences in effects resulted from the actions of external third parties he did not know about and had no way of knowning about.


    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    The only thing we can say with certainty is that both you and I (external to Ahmed's universe) consider Ahmed's actions immoral (and probably insane) and that the entire population of Ahmed's universe think he did no wrong.
    No, we can also use our moral sense instead of religion/ideology/philosophy (RIP for short) and tell that Ahmed's actions were immoral. Obviously.


    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    Nothing in your scenario can be taken as logically entailing that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions.
    Logically entailing? Well, it follows from the fact that his actions were immoral. But of course, one needs to use a (normally functioning) human moral sense to see that. If you use RIP instead, then you are using the wrong tool. However, for that matter, no matter how much empirical evidence I bring a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) can point out that none of that entails common descent, say the fossils, etc. may have been planted by God to test us, or by demons to confuse us, or whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    Anyway, congratulations on coming up with a totally unrealistic and convoluted scenario which challenged my intuitions!
    You set up a scenario in which some agent A does X, and everyone in the universe makes the assessment that X is fine. That requires a very small universe, in which the entire population of the universe is aware that A did X. Thus, it is apparent that the scenarios will be totally unrealistic and convoluted, but this is so because of the way you set it up.

  3. Top | #63
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    I guess you can at least hope that whoever reads it arbitrarily limits their enquiries to colloquial everyday language, mere intuitions, folk-psychology, 'how things subjectively seem', incomplete analyses and inadequate definitions and so on. Try a theology forum maybe. Stay away from science and proper, thorough philosophy. Neither are your strong suit.
    You are very confused. But on the issue of forgiveness, I will not forgive you for this, unless you show significant change in your behavior. You have an obligation not to attack me like that.

    Also, by the way, it seems you are attempting to mete out retribution on me (instinctively, or deliberately, that I do not know). Otherwise, why would you be trying to hurt me with something like "Try a theology forum maybe. Stay away from science and proper, thorough philosophy. Neither are your strong suit."?

    You're not trying to hurt me just for fun, I take it. You are not trying to deter me from posting, unless you are being utterly irrational, since it is pretty obvious by now that attacks do not deter me from posting back (and you already realized that in the other thread). So, it seems it is retribution you have in mind. But maybe you can shed some light on your motivation, if it was not retribution?

  4. Top | #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    387
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,319
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    This assumes as true the very thing that's in question.
    It does not assume. It assesses.
    I've no idea what that means other than that you assess (assume) it to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But perhaps a contrastive scenario will be even more obvious.
    Thanks for taking the trouble but I'm afraid I have no idea what exactly you think you're demonstrating with these tortuous scenarios.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    Nothing in your scenario can be taken as logically entailing that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions.
    Logically entailing? Well, it follows from the fact that his actions were immoral. But of course, one needs to use a (normally functioning) human moral sense to see that.
    This makes no sense.

    You appear to be saying that the reason Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions., is because it follows from the fact that Ahmed's actions were immoral (impermissible).

    This is circular.

    Is it your view that anyone who is sceptical about attitude-independent moral properties has an abnormally functioning moral sense?

  5. Top | #65
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    I've no idea what that means other than that you assess (assume) it to be true.
    You made a claim that "This" assumes, implying I assume. But I do not. I assess, using my moral sense of course. Assessing is not the same as assuming. I invite readers to use their respective moral senses (not religion/ideology/philosophy) to assess by themselves whether it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    Thanks for taking the trouble but I'm afraid I have no idea what exactly you think you're demonstrating with these tortuous scenarios.
    That there are possible scenarios in which agent A does X, everyone in the universe believes that X was okay, yet X was immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    This makes no sense.

    You appear to be saying that the reason Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions., is because it follows from the fact that Ahmed's actions were immoral (impermissible).
    What I am saying is that it follows from the fact that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible + the fact that everyone in the universe believed otherwise, no one had negative feelings towards it, etc., that the impermissibility was independent of those feelings, beliefs, etc., going by the very test you propose (namely, that everyone in the universe thought it was fine).
    As I pointed out, that of course requires the the fact that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible, but one needs to use a (normally functioning) human moral sense to see that it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    Is it your view that anyone who is sceptical about attitude-independent moral properties has an abnormally functioning moral sense?
    No, they may well be using RIP (religion/ideology/philosophy) instead of their moral sense, or they may disagree about some relevant nonmoral facts.

    For example, in scenarios S13, S14, the actions Jack carries out after murdering the people on board and with the intent of murdering everyone on the ground for fun, are immoral. Given that - again by the test you proposed, namely that everyone in the universe believes they were fine -, this shows that the immorality of the behavior is independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions, then my position is that a person who reads S13 and S14 carefully and is skeptical of moral properties independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions, is in one of the following situations:

    a. He does not accept your proposed test for independence, for whatever reason, or
    b. He fails to realize that both in S13 and S14, the actions Jack carries out after murdering the people on board and with the intent of murdering everyone on the ground for fun, are immoral.
    c. Both a. and b.

    Now if it is a. but not b., nothing else can be said at that point. On the other hand, if it is b., then he is in error. The error, as usual, has one of the following causes.



    1. He is mistaken about nonmoral facts, e.g., he misconstrued the scenario, added further conditions, is not aware of some of the relevant facts because he is not carefully reading the scenario, or other nonmoral issues.
    2. He is using the wrong instrument, like RIP or something along those lines, instead of or interfering with the verdict that his moral sense would otherwise yield.
    3. His moral sense (i.e., the faculty by which humans normally make moral assessments) is malfunctioning.
    4. A combination two or three of the above.

    Note, however, that this is the case with all moral errors, and is no different from errors in other, nonmoral domains, or even fail to make the right call. For example, suppose someone is skeptical about whether chimps and mosquitoes have a common ancestor. The realistic options are:


    1. She is mistaken about some of the relevant observations that have been made, generally the scientific evidence supporting it, or else simply lacks that information, or is not aware of it because she is not thinking about it.
    2. She is not using her epistemic sense (i.e., the faculty by which humans normally make epistemic probabilistic assessments) to make the assessment, but something else, like RIP (or she is using a combination of both, but RIP,etc. interferes enough to make her fail to get the right assessment).
    3. Her epistemic sense is malfunctioning.
    4. A combination of two or three of the above.

  6. Top | #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    387
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,319
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    What I am saying is that it follows from the fact that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible + the fact that everyone in the universe believed otherwise, no one had negative feelings towards it, etc., that the impermissibility was independent of those feelings, beliefs, etc., going by the very test you propose (namely, that everyone in the universe thought it was fine).
    You're thoroughly confused.

    You've convinced yourself that you've established that Ahmed's behaviour is impermissible, independent of anyone's opinion. You haven't.

    All you've done is establish that in the opinion of you and I Ahmed's behaviour is impermissible.

    You need to understand that this does not establish the fact that Ahmed's behaviour is impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions.

  7. Top | #67
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    What I am saying is that it follows from the fact that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible + the fact that everyone in the universe believed otherwise, no one had negative feelings towards it, etc., that the impermissibility was independent of those feelings, beliefs, etc., going by the very test you propose (namely, that everyone in the universe thought it was fine).
    You're thoroughly confused.

    You've convinced yourself that you've established that Ahmed's behaviour is impermissible, independent of anyone's opinion. You haven't.

    All you've done is establish that in the opinion of you and I Ahmed's behaviour is impermissible.

    You need to understand that this does not establish the fact that Ahmed's behaviour is impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions.
    No, you are confused about what I said. Again, it follows from the fact that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible + the fact that everyone in the universe believed otherwise, no one had negative feelings towards it, etc., that the impermissibility was independent of those feelings, beliefs, etc., going by the very test you propose (namely, that everyone in the universe thought it was fine). The objection you raise is that I have not established that Ahmed's behavior (or Jack's in S13 and S14) was impermissible. Again, I have, by the usual way this is done: a normally functioning human moral sense yields that. Are you saying that you do not intuitively see that Jack in S13-S14 behaved immorally when he intended to kill everyone in the colony for fun, and that so did Ahmed in S12 when he intended to do that because they were infidels? Actually, it seems you do intuitively see it, as you say "in the opinion of you and I ", including yourself. That is unsurprising, as you are human.

    Your test for establishing that a person's behavior is impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions is that it needs to be impermissible even though everyone in the universe believes it is okay. I provided examples of that (S12 and S14), as assessed by my moral sense, but of course I claim this is what a normal human moral sense yields (not RIP, but an actual use of a human moral sense). I invite readers to try on their own.

  8. Top | #68
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    The AntiChris,

    Let me explain this in other words, before your next reply saying I'm very confused or something along those lines:

    How should one go about assessing whether the behavior of Ahmed or Jack was immoral?
    The proper way is to ponder about the intentions, beliefs, predicted consequences, etc., and use our moral sense. If you believe otherwise, then what method do you propose? In that case, by the way, I would argue that you are rejecting human morality, and so I would ask about the reasons.

    Now, I claim that by that proper method, Jack in S13-S14 behaved immorally when he intended to kill everyone in the colony for fun, and so did Ahmed in S12 when he intended to do that because they were infidels. If you want to debate whether this method yields these result, then alright, let me know and we can debate that. If, on the other hand, you reject the method in the first place, please let me know so that I argue that you are rejecting human morality.

    So, why is it that their behavior is impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions?
    Well, that is by a combination of the proper method to figure out whether Jack or Ahmed behaved immorally in the aforementioned situations (in particular S14 in the case of Jack), and your own test for independence: his behavior is impermissible (as properly assessed) even though everyone in the universe (at that time, that was the perpetrator himself) thought it was okay (and, in the case of Ahmed, even praiseworthy).

  9. Top | #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    387
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,319
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    The AntiChris,

    Let me explain this in other words, before your next reply saying I'm very confused or something along those lines:

    How should one go about assessing whether the behavior of Ahmed or Jack was immoral?
    The proper way is to ponder about the intentions, beliefs, predicted consequences, etc., and use our moral sense. If you believe otherwise, then what method do you propose? In that case, by the way, I would argue that you are rejecting human morality, and so I would ask about the reasons.

    Now, I claim that by that proper method, Jack in S13-S14 behaved immorally when he intended to kill everyone in the colony for fun, and so did Ahmed in S12 when he intended to do that because they were infidels. If you want to debate whether this method yields these result, then alright, let me know and we can debate that. If, on the other hand, you reject the method in the first place, please let me know so that I argue that you are rejecting human morality.

    So, why is it that their behavior is impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions?
    Well, that is by a combination of the proper method to figure out whether Jack or Ahmed behaved immorally in the aforementioned situations (in particular S14 in the case of Jack), and your own test for independence: his behavior is impermissible (as properly assessed) even though everyone in the universe (at that time, that was the perpetrator himself) thought it was okay (and, in the case of Ahmed, even praiseworthy).
    The problem with your argument is that you equivocate between two different senses of morally "impermissible".

    In the first sense we agree that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible. In agreeing with you I'm assenting only that in my opinion Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible.

    Having established this 'agreement' you now take it as fact that Ahmed's behaviour now has the attitude-independent property of impermissibility. This assumption is demonstrated when you defend the notion that Ahmed's behaviour is "impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions". This is unwarranted. The only conclusion we can draw from your various scenarios is that both you and I consider Ahmed's action impermissible whilst the entire population of Ahmed's universe disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    your own test for independence
    I want to make it clear I wasn't proposing a test. I was simply raising an unintuitive consequence of your views.

    ___________________________________

    If, in presenting your contrived 'Ahmed' scenarios, all you wanted to do was challenge my intuitions by attempting to show me that it's theoretically possible that I could disagree with the moral views of the population of an entire universe, then you've succeeded.
    Last edited by The AntiChris; 02-22-2020 at 10:56 AM.

  10. Top | #70
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    The problem with your argument is that you equivocate between two different senses of morally "impermissible".
    No, I do not equivocate. I always use 'impermissible' in the sense of 'morally impermissible', in the usual sense of the words in English. However, if you used the word 'impermissible' in a non-standard manner, then I misunderstood your post because I did not know you were using it so, but I did not equivocate.
    That said, it seems either I did not misunderstand, or else I did because you used the word 'impermissible' in a non-standard manner. In fact, your assessment about the meanings of the word 'impermissible' is mistaken (see below), though even this is not crucial, as I do not need your agreement on this point to make mine (see further below).


    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    In the first sense we agree that Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible. In agreeing with you I'm assenting only that in my opinion Ahmed's behaviour was impermissible.
    Your theory that there are two different meanings of the word 'impermissible' is mistaken. There aren't two different meanings of 'impermissible' in English. Consider the following two statements:

    SR1: The traffic light was red.
    SR2: In my opinion, the traffic light was red.
    Now, there are not two different meanings of 'red' in SR1 and SR2 in English. The meaning is only one. If I assert SR1 I am saying it was red, and of course I am expressing my own view. Colloquially, though, SR1 is more assertive than SR2 - though that might depend in context -, so in general, if I assert SR1, I'm more confident that my assessment is correct than I am if I assert SR2. But either way, I'm using the word 'red' to mean the same.

    Now consider the two following statements:

    SA1: In S12, Ahmed's attempt to kill everyone in the colony because they were infidels, was impermissible behavior.
    SA2: In my opinion, in S12, Ahmed's attempt to kill everyone in the colony because they were infidels, was impermissible behavior.

    The use of 'in my opinion' is SA2 is akin to the use corresponding use in SR2. In usual contexts, it conveys less confidence in one's assessment. But the word 'impermissible' does not take different meanings. It takes the same.
    Now, if you used the word 'impermissible' to mean something other than what it means in normal English, then you misspoke - as you did not clarify you were using a special definition, rather than the ordinary meaning in English -, but this is not crucial (see below).

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    Having established this 'agreement' you now take it as fact that Ahmed's behaviour now has the attitude-independent property of impermissibility. This assumption is demonstrated when you defend the notion that Ahmed's behaviour is "impermissible independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions". This is unwarranted. The only conclusion we can draw from your various scenarios is that both you and I consider Ahmed's action impermissible whilst the entire population of Ahmed's universe disagree.
    The fact that you agreed only is used as further evidence. But it is not required. And it is not why I reckon it is independent of anyone's beliefs, etc. (heretoforth, 'independent' for short). Let me try to clarify further, as there clearly is a misunderstanding.


    I reckon that moral properties are independent because it is intuitively clear. That is what my moral sense says. And it is generally what the human moral sense says. I can do that by using my moral sense as a guide (I'm human), but further, I can observe that that is how people debate morality, rather than saying 'there is no objective fact of the matter' (or similar expressions) and back down. Rather, they insist a person is mistaken, etc.

    Granted, it might be argued that the human moral sense is generally unreliable, so that we do not know the moral facts. That would result in an epistemic moral error theory. Or it might be argued that there are no moral properties, resulting in a substantive moral error theory. Or it might be argue that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not something has a moral property (e.g., whether it is immoral), which would seem to result in some sort of error theory too - at least, error about whether there is a fact of the matter, which is what the human moral sense says (just look at how people discuss morality).

    However, in any of those cases, it would not be rational to mistrust one of our faculties on the suspicion that an error theory might obtain without good evidence supporting such hypothesis. The burden of course is not on the person who trusts his moral sense, but on those claiming otherwise, or demanding evidence that there are facts of the matter as to whether a person is a bad person, a behavior permissible, etc., whether that is relevantly independent of people's beliefs, attitudes, etc. Again, that is what the human moral sense says, and that demand has the burden backwards. It is not rational not to accept what one of our faculties say, without good evidence supporting the error theory.

    So, in short, I do not need to show independence. You should show there is not independence. And you tried, actually, to argue against it. In particular, you proposed the following:

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post766949

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    You've taken one particular interpretation of what I said which avoids the uncomfortable logical conclusion of your view. I'll be explicit.



    Given Angra Mainyu's view that an action is moral/immoral independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions, it follows that in principle it is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even if everyone in the universe thought it was fine (not immoral).

    Is this a problem for you, or does it conform with your intuitions?
    Of course, that is not at all uncomfortable, and I did not took 'one particular interpreation', but rather, took your words for what they were (as I already explained).

    Still, here what is important is that you think that that would be uncomfortable. You attempt to show that somehow that in principle it is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even if everyone in the universe thought it was fine (not immoral) is somehow something odd, weird, etc., i.e., counterintuitive. And you are using that as evidence against the independence view.

    Now, there is a subtlety here. You say that that "in principle it is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even if everyone in the universe thought it was fine (not immoral) " follows from the independent view, but you do not say it also implies it. In context, I think you clearly indicated you considered that it implies it, so I was trying also to use that to support the view that independence holds (though again I do not need it, as the burden is not on me). But we can table that for later. Let us then consider the following thesis:


    T1: It is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even if everyone in the universe thought it was fine (not immoral).
    You claim that if T1 is false, then independence is false. Further, you suggest that T1 is 'uncomfortable', as in counterintuitive, improbable, weird, or whatever, just bad.

    So, my goal is to show that T1 is clearly true. What I need to do is construct a possible scenario in which a person behaves immorally, but everyone in the universe beliefs his behavior was fine. So, that is what scenario S12 (and scenarios S13-S14 for good measure) is for. Let us then consider the following statements:


    SA3: In S12, Ahmed behaved immorally when he attempted to kill everyone in the colony because they were infidels.
    SJ3: In S14, Jack behaved immorally when he attempted to kill everyone in the colony for fun.
    As Ahmed and Jack were the only person left in their respective scenarios, and they reckoned that their behavior was fine, it follows that if either SA3 or SJ3 is true, then so is T1, and your objection to independence fails.

    Yet, I claim that both SA3 and SJ3 are true. What is the basis of my claim? Well, of course, I use my moral sense. That is the proper way of making moral assessments. I invite others - readers - to make their own assessments as well.
    That is enough. That shows that T1 is false. Now, you might say that I have not established that SA3 is true, or that SJ3 is true. I just used my moral sense. But of course, using my moral sense is the rational way of making an assessment. Your objection would be akin to that of a YEC who says that - no matter how much evidence I presented - I have not established that mosquitoes and chimps have a common ancestors. Indeed, the observations do not logically entail so. There are logically consistent alternatives, like that all of the evidence for common descent was planted by demons, or by Yahweh to test us, or by evil scientists involved in a massive conspiracy, or infinitely many others.

    I may not be able to persuade people who do not accept that SA3 and SJ3 is true because either their moral sense is failing, or otherwise are making an improper assessment, perhaps using RIP instead of their moral sense. Still, here comes the part about your moral sense. When you assert that in your opinion, Ahmed behaved immorally, you are giving me pretty good evidence that your moral sense is not failing on the subject. You are making the proper moral assessment: he is behaving immorally. Your qualification "in my opinion", combined with your mistaken theory about the meaning of the relevant words (in this case, 'impermissible', see above) tells me that you are applying RIP here, i.e., instead of your moral sense, you reject SA3 and SJ3 because of a religion, ideology or philosophy. You are making the assessment using an improper tool. But were you to use the proper tool, you would reckon SA3 is true, and thus, so is T1.


    That said, let us say that your moral sense actually did not say that both SA3 and SJ3 are true. In fact, let us say it didn't even say that at least one of them is true. Then, I am afraid I would have to reckon your moral sense would be malfunctioning, probably afflicted by a RIP. I would still ask readers - whose moral senses probably are working reasonably well, as is the case for nearly everyone nearly all the time - to make their own assessments, but using their moral sense, not RIP (if they use RIP, then it's wrong instrument, so who knows what they'll say).

    But even then, even if your moral sense failed to say that at least one of them is true, hopefully you will recognize that the moral senses of nearly everyone else would say otherwise, so they would reckon that T1 is true, and so it is not an uncomfortable fact that independence implies that in principle it is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even if everyone in the universe thought it was fine (not immoral) is somehow something odd, weird, etc., i.e., counterintuitive. And you are using that as evidence against the independence view.

    In short, I have shown that T1 is true, and indeed not odd at all. I have then shown that your argument against independence fails (beyond a reasonable doubt, not as in logically follows).

    Let us get back to the following issue. I took it - as I understood the context - that you were agreeing to the following indepedence test:


    IT1: Suppose agent A immorally does X. Suppose everyone in the universe believes A's doing X was morally permissible. Then, the impermissibility of A's doing X is independent.

    Now you say:

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris
    I want to make it clear I wasn't proposing a test. I was simply raising an unintuitive consequence of your views.
    Okay, so I misunderstood the context and you did not mean to agree with IT1, sorry about that. I would like to ask, then: would you agree with the test? In other words, do you think that that is a sufficient condition for independence? Or do you think independence requires further conditions?

    But there is one point I want to make. Your claim "I was simply raising an unintuitive consequence of your views." is false. I mean, I accept of course that you meant to raise an unintuitive consequence of my views. But you did not, because that is not at all an unintuitive. It is very intuitive. Obviously, I rely on my own moral sense to say that. And the reason I trust my moral sense is that I don't have a good reason not to. Usually, normally, and properly, we trust our faculties unless we have a specific reason not to trust one of them. This applies to the moral sense as well.

    Furthermore, it seems that T1 is not even counterintuitive to you. Yes, I know you only agree that in your opinion, Ahmed's actions in question are immoral. But despite your qualification, that says that your moral sense is also reckoning 'immoral' when contemplating the action. If you were to accept its verdict, then it seems you would say that it is immoral, not just 'in your opinion', which seems to be a qualification prompted by something other than your moral sense, e.g., a RIP. Otherwise, why the qualification? Does your moral sense not reckon 'immoral' when contemplating his actions? (or Jack's, which is even more obvious if possible).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •