cause and effect is logic
logic is absolute
if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? logic is determined by matter, not by your thoughts.. you crazy person :)
you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect, absolute
if apples became poisonous today, and everyone was aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didnt want them to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples(morality)?
logic+(and)experience of it=(is)reason(the concept, mental simulation of logic)
Logic is not cause and effect.
Logic is based on the premise and on presuppositions relating to the premise, ie: I presuppose based on a set of established facts (or what I perceive as facts) that eating wild mushrooms could be hazardous to my health. If I knew a bit about mushrooms, I could apply a set of presuppositions to the mushroom in question, and deduce that it probably is or is not good for me based on things I might have learned, like the shape of the mushroom, or the length, color, etc.
Therefore, the action I took (if I ate it or did not eat it) is wholly based on my presuppositions. If I chose not to eat the mushrooms that would not have any say in whether or not the mushroom was poisonous. Logic decides if I eat it; If I do eat it, the cause and effect is a different process altogether.
My theory here can be proven by using this scenario:
Person A eats the mushroom because he has the wrong set of logical presuppositions and dies in the woods.
Person B applies the right set of logical presuppositions and deduces not to eat the mushrooms and therefore survives.
Cause and effect is a different process in this scenario – it determines the consequence of the choice.
The choice however, is determined by logical reasoning based on presuppositions. Pro also argues for this formula “reason+intent=morality”. That formula doesn’t hold up – I would argue that true, selfless morality isn’t based on logic at all. It’s not logical (in the Darwinian sense) to run back in a burning building to save a dog – but people do it all the time.
is it logical to give your kid a deadly poisonous mushroom if you do it to make him healthy?
if you switch the deadly mushroom with an apple, is it then logical?
“is it logical to do like person b? and if so why”
It may not be logical to Person A, but for Person B it is the logical conclusion. I claim logic is subjective and if it is subjective then it cannot depend on cause and effect. If you gave your kid a poisonous mushroom and didn’t know that it was poisonous, you still applied the logical reasoning that you subjectively had – unfortunately for you, the logical reasoning that you had wasn’t good enough. You had no way of knowing the cause/effect until you tried it.
The question is: if you had known for certain that the mushroom was toxic - and therefore didn’t give it to your kid, is that really using the powers of logical reasoning? Or is that simply being educated beforehand and thereby circumventing the necessity to apply logical reasoning in the first place?
The point here is that logic is not a universal standard – you can’t always apply it perfectly. So for one person one thing might be logical but for another it might not be. This is subjectivity in logic! This subjectivity then proves that logic can’t be built around cause and effect, because there are many people who use bad logic and are forced to feel the consequences to a bad logical choice.
I’d refer Pro back to the older arguments, most of which are unchallenged directly.
logic is matter, my old definition of logic was the implication of matter against matter
there is no your and my logic, is it illogical to help push me out from a Cliff so i can fly if i gained Supermans powers over night?
there is no logic in fantasy
I’ll argue that there is no absolute logic – that’s a myth. There are almost always multiple ways to logically assess any situation: some ways are stupid and some ways make “sense”. However, the logical conclusion for any situation is apt to change depending on the person who is thinking about it and how the person is thinking about it.
Again, my point would be that for you, me, and most people, giving a poisonous apple to a child would be illogical – unless the premise changes; if you were a person from Samoa or something and didn’t know what a poisonous apple looked like, then the logical process wouldn’t be the same, you can’t argue that his logical processing was flawed, just that he wasn’t equipped with the same logical presuppositions.
If we get totally fantastical – my point still holds up. If you were a paranoid schizophrenic, you might come to some conclusion based in superman’s powers, etc.
The idea here is that the cause and effect is related to the consequences made by the choice that each subjective logical presupposition thought up.
its not about whats logical, but logic itself
morality is intended, without intent there is no morality going on, like an accident
64bithuman forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|