Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Prima facie logic and prima facie morality

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 7:20:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The full title would have been "intuitive prima facie logic and intuitive prima facie morality", but it didn't all fit.

It didn't take long for the Greeks to realize that trying to define everything eventually leads to circular reasoning, for you just end up essentially defining words with themselves. Thus they relied much on postulations, self evident facts that no-one would question the meaning of. For example that two points makes a line. Everyone would agree on that fact and no deductive reasoning is needed to prove it. What made me think is the explanation given that we intuitively derive these facts. Thus in the many sense perceptions we possess, we also have a logical intuition, in a sense. Many people have brought up the infinite regression problem in response for morality but I have for a while been thinking about how you could apply it to logic as well. Presented with a fact you can just keep asking why and the person will eventually commit circular reasoning or just get stuck and frustrated at your questioning "the obvious". No one bothers to question the self evident logical facts because everyone agrees on them. The Greeks used these self-evident facts to derive other facts. Thus the logic they devised was based all upon postulations. This brings me to my main point. Faced with the question, "is murder wrong?" People would view it as a self evident fact. And not to get mixed up with logic based morality, people view it as a self evident fact because of our moral intuition. Now of course there are plenty of moral nihilists and subjectivists who would not view this as a self evident fact, but that misses the point. It used to always be accepted that murder is wrong by basically everyone. People have for a while questioned the self evident facts of morality because they have discovered there is not much logical basing for them but they have ignored the self evident facts of logic because there just simply hasn't been as much reason to and it is harder to discover the intuitively derived facts. I think this supports the idea that morality is objective because it is in many ways categorically similar to logic, which we would all assume is objective.

(I found it pretty hard to get my point across but hopefully you get the idea.)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:43:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Before I respond I want you to know that I do get what you're saying, I want to preface that I am not a moral nihilist, and I want to recommend that you read Wittgenstein's Investigation's and Nietzsche's Genealogy.

Really before Wittgenstein the object of philosophy was to come up with elaborate systems that interpret the world as it is, or justify its existence, and etc. After Wittgenstein, and this was his real impact, philosophy became an activity rather than a profession. Recognize that the german doesn't translate exactly to english so let's not quibble over my choice of diction, but that's the basic essence of it. That meant that philosophy, however, became repurposed to describing, rather than interpreting. And while ‘Investigations' and ‘The Tractatus' are incompatible, the basic idea that does moderately overlap is that whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must not say. Basically, Wittgenstein was saying that we can't postulate on the metaphysical.

Nietzsche's Genealogy, however, is probably one of the most misunderstood works of philosophy ever written. The basic idea, in concert with the themes of Also Sprach, is that morality is fundamentally connected to human preferences. The overman acts on his desires, is self-actualized, etc. Therefore, the overman values social norms which reinforce that basic character. The "slave" -again, context is important, and slave is not used in the sense of the historical meaning that we would necessarily connote to slavery- however, values things that make his suffering easier, or justify his existence. So things like meekness, temperance, prudence and restraint become things to be valued whereas basic instinct is uncivilized. Slave morality, then becomes predicated upon the championing of those things which positively supports the slave's existence as a slave. Nietzsche basically argues that this entails a process of self-flagellation that is destructive to the human spirit. The slave develops this complex, however, because he is the only one upon which he can exercise his will to power. Recognize that this is a loose, very basic, and not at all sufficient explication on Nietzsche's variety of ethics, but it is, I think something to consider.

What Nietzsche basically said about morality is that all previous systems, beginning with the ancient greeks have in various capacities tried to justify morality, which Nietzsche regards as necessarily religious, in non-religious ways. To read into Nietzsche deeply, one can ostensibly find the well mustached philosopher's assaults on Kant, his contemporaries, and basically every system of philosophic morality either entirely too pretentious to be taken seriously, or entirely to serious to possibly be taken pretentiously. It's a tragedy that most denounce Nietzsche because they -stupidly, ignorantly and unjustifiably- connote his name with antisemitism, and a host of various other ills that if taken at only face value by an average person can reduce the credence of what he is saying. But basically, Nietzsche laughs at the idea of trying to justify, in any way, "slave" morality in secular terms, because it cannot be objectively done. I tend to agree with that assessment, which is why I laugh at teleological arguments, and basically all non-religious moral arguments because without God, there is nor can there be any morality. Most people don't like this idea, and are too close minded to realize it's truth, and subsequently just dismiss it outright because it doesn't feel good to think about. That, according to Nietzsche, could be the "last man," who lives in a world where true greatness is not possible. The last man has so richly ingrained slave morality that he is incapable of considering the alternative. This repulses Nietzsche, and for good reason.

Some things to think about...
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 4:18:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 3:30:13 AM, YYW wrote:
I really would have thought that this would be a more popular topic... how disappointing.

Intuitive truths and self-evident truths are very, very dull... it's at best a personal exploration (moreso than anything else I can think of).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 4:22:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 4:18:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/23/2012 3:30:13 AM, YYW wrote:
I really would have thought that this would be a more popular topic... how disappointing.

Intuitive truths and self-evident truths are very, very dull... it's at best a personal exploration (moreso than anything else I can think of).

Dull is subjective... but whatever.
Tsar of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:45:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see how your conclusion follows. Weren't you talking about you logic is ultimately circular? How is comparing morality to it supposed to make it objective, since we could then say the same of morality?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 1:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 11:45:06 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't see how your conclusion follows. Weren't you talking about you logic is ultimately circular? How is comparing morality to it supposed to make it objective, since we could then say the same of morality?

Me neither D=

This was me when I hadn't even read my first philosophy book.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)