Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

God and Argumentation are incompatible

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 12:06:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Logic is the intellectual configuration of humanity. It is the organized realization of what does and does not make sense to us. Therefore it is absurd to speak of logic as separate from and independent of our existence. And if evolution is true, the reasoning process we call logic must have emerged from the workings of the natural environment - making it an imperfect and contingent system. So to say that something is illogical is to say that our rational faculties do not account for it's occurrence or truth, not that it is impossible.

Upon that clarification, theists cannot argue that God IS logic or that it's simply nonsensical to speak of something unbounded by logic. The innate supremacy of a higher power implies that the our mechanism of rationalization cannot possibly account for him. And so with God logically inaccessible, there can be no logical proof of his existence - combined with the lack of physical proof - there can be no reason to believe in a God.

Remember that logic is nothing more than the way in which we make sense of things - which emerged from and is dependent on the natural exigencies of this microcosmic environment and scale. If the natures of quantum and astronomical environments start to evade our intuitive reach, then surely something postulated to be superior to those, must be inaccessible entirely.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm curious to know on what grounds you could hold this evaluation to be reasonable if you are calling into question the reliability of our very reasoning processes. Why state a rule if it must concomitantly must be its own exception?

I also think that you over-inflate the scope of logical reasoning when you characterize it as the embodiment of all human sense-making activities.

The scientific method, for example, is not a formula of logic; it is not even axiomatized. It's a practical model of forensic empiricism. In fact, the very procedure of cumulatively verifying a theory from its predictions by experiment is a gradual act of affirming the consequent of a hypothetical in order to infer the presence of a condition. In formal logic, this would generally be a fallacy.

But science does not, and need not, accord with formal logic, being a pursuit of an entirely different kind. It is also a way in which we seek to understand the world.

Your critique of theism sounds pretty good to me. But I'm not a theist, so my reaction might be the wrong scale to weigh it by.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:23:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:06:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Logic is the intellectual configuration of humanity. It is the organized realization of what does and does not make sense to us. Therefore it is absurd to speak of logic as separate from and independent of our existence. And if evolution is true, the reasoning process we call logic must have emerged from the workings of the natural environment - making it an imperfect and contingent system. So to say that something is illogical is to say that our rational faculties do not account for it's occurrence or truth, not that it is impossible.

Upon that clarification, theists cannot argue that God IS logic or that it's simply nonsensical to speak of something unbounded by logic. The innate supremacy of a higher power implies that the our mechanism of rationalization cannot possibly account for him. And so with God logically inaccessible, there can be no logical proof of his existence - combined with the lack of physical proof - there can be no reason to believe in a God.

Remember that logic is nothing more than the way in which we make sense of things - which emerged from and is dependent on the natural exigencies of this microcosmic environment and scale. If the natures of quantum and astronomical environments start to evade our intuitive reach, then surely something postulated to be superior to those, must be inaccessible entirely.

tl;dr: If Gawd is above logic, then what's the use of using logic to figure out if he exists?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:29:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:16:58 PM, Poetaster wrote:
I'm curious to know on what grounds you could hold this evaluation to be reasonable if you are calling into question the reliability of our very reasoning processes. Why state a rule if it must concomitantly must be its own exception?

I also think that you over-inflate the scope of logical reasoning when you characterize it as the embodiment of all human sense-making activities.

The scientific method, for example, is not a formula of logic; it is not even axiomatized. It's a practical model of forensic empiricism. In fact, the very procedure of cumulatively verifying a theory from its predictions by experiment is a gradual act of affirming the consequent of a hypothetical in order to infer the presence of a condition. In formal logic, this would generally be a fallacy.

But science does not, and need not, accord with formal logic, being a pursuit of an entirely different kind. It is also a way in which we seek to understand the world.

Your critique of theism sounds pretty good to me. But I'm not a theist, so my reaction might be the wrong scale to weigh it by.

I don't question logic in its applicable domain (under which my argument falls). Within logic we can find the limitations of logic - the same way someone in an enclosed dome can find its walls but cannot see the outside.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:34:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you think this point is related to yer issues with discourse ethics? I ask because the problems seem interrelated in this context.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:49:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:29:25 PM, 000ike wrote:

I don't question logic in its applicable domain (under which my argument falls). Within logic we can find the limitations of logic - the same way someone in an enclosed dome can find its walls but cannot see the outside.

Because you had said that logic was "the way" in which we make sense of things, I took this to mean "the way". This would have been exclusionary of all other means of ascertainment. Sorry to mistake you.

Like you say, we can detect the limitations and boundaries of a logic system, but, unlike what you say, I think that this is because we are outside of it, not trapped within it. In any case, I agree that we are not bound by logic; for example, I can contradict myself (no I can't).
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:06:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Logic is the intellectual configuration of humanity. It is the organized realization of what does and does not make sense to us. Therefore it is absurd to speak of logic as separate from and independent of our existence. And if evolution is true, the reasoning process we call logic must have emerged from the workings of the natural environment - making it an imperfect and contingent system. So to say that something is illogical is to say that our rational faculties do not account for it's occurrence or truth, not that it is impossible.

Upon that clarification, theists cannot argue that God IS logic or that it's simply nonsensical to speak of something unbounded by logic. The innate supremacy of a higher power implies that the our mechanism of rationalization cannot possibly account for him. And so with God logically inaccessible, there can be no logical proof of his existence - combined with the lack of physical proof - there can be no reason to believe in a God.

Remember that logic is nothing more than the way in which we make sense of things - which emerged from and is dependent on the natural exigencies of this microcosmic environment and scale. If the natures of quantum and astronomical environments start to evade our intuitive reach, then surely something postulated to be superior to those, must be inaccessible entirely.

While the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, qualities, and purpose. It is a worldview that provides a sense of orientation and it is certainly more comprehensive and logical than your constricted vision of reality.

There is no logical reason to believe in the cognitive integrity of just one of the distinct and disparate cognitive structures that work together in the brain and body to generate the result that we call mind. There is nothing rational, logical, or scientific about the belief that human beings are completely defined by the rational and logical modes of thought, that is a strictly faith based belief that is not derived from science, and it is not based on logic, reasoning, or experiential evidence. It is a strictly metaphysical belief based on faith. Neither science or logic contend that reality can be reduced to a single ontological level.

Many here deem themselves "more intelligent" while attempting to reduce reality to a surface level of "objective" understanding and it makes me wonder if the reality of the situation is the real truth is that they simply can't understand more than that.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:49:08 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/20/2013 2:29:25 PM, 000ike wrote:

I don't question logic in its applicable domain (under which my argument falls). Within logic we can find the limitations of logic - the same way someone in an enclosed dome can find its walls but cannot see the outside.

Because you had said that logic was "the way" in which we make sense of things, I took this to mean "the way". This would have been exclusionary of all other means of ascertainment. Sorry to mistake you.

Like you say, we can detect the limitations and boundaries of a logic system, but, unlike what you say, I think that this is because we are outside of it, not trapped within it. In any case, I agree that we are not bound by logic; for example, I can contradict myself (no I can't).

When I say that we are bound by logic, I mean that the facts surrounding our existence and our properties are consistent with the way we make sense of things, not that we are physically incapable of acting in a manner that's illogical. So while you can physically contradict yourself, you can't exist and not exist simultaneously. This consistency arises out of evolutionary familiarity with the nature of events that occur on this particular scale. So when we leave this scale of events and approach an evolutionarily unfamiliar environment, the events that occur and the nature of the things in it will be incomprehensible. This is why God can't be rationally proven.

I guess using the word "bound" is very inaccurate. Really we're not bound by logic, and god is not "unbound"...it's just that logic is symbiotically linked with the present environment (because it arose from the present environment) and therefore has no linkage with environments with radically different properties.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:33:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 7:39:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:06:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Logic is the intellectual configuration of humanity. It is the organized realization of what does and does not make sense to us. Therefore it is absurd to speak of logic as separate from and independent of our existence. And if evolution is true, the reasoning process we call logic must have emerged from the workings of the natural environment - making it an imperfect and contingent system. So to say that something is illogical is to say that our rational faculties do not account for it's occurrence or truth, not that it is impossible.

Upon that clarification, theists cannot argue that God IS logic or that it's simply nonsensical to speak of something unbounded by logic. The innate supremacy of a higher power implies that the our mechanism of rationalization cannot possibly account for him. And so with God logically inaccessible, there can be no logical proof of his existence - combined with the lack of physical proof - there can be no reason to believe in a God.

Remember that logic is nothing more than the way in which we make sense of things - which emerged from and is dependent on the natural exigencies of this microcosmic environment and scale. If the natures of quantum and astronomical environments start to evade our intuitive reach, then surely something postulated to be superior to those, must be inaccessible entirely.

While the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, qualities, and purpose. It is a worldview that provides a sense of orientation and it is certainly more comprehensive and logical than your constricted vision of reality.

There is no logical reason to believe in the cognitive integrity of just one of the distinct and disparate cognitive structures that work together in the brain and body to generate the result that we call mind. There is nothing rational, logical, or scientific about the belief that human beings are completely defined by the rational and logical modes of thought, that is a strictly faith based belief that is not derived from science, and it is not based on logic, reasoning, or experiential evidence. It is a strictly metaphysical belief based on faith. Neither science or logic contend that reality can be reduced to a single ontological level.

Many here deem themselves "more intelligent" while attempting to reduce reality to a surface level of "objective" understanding and it makes me wonder if the reality of the situation is the real truth is that they simply can't understand more than that.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

I think it's problematic to think of logic as this set "mode of thought" we use at will. No. Logic is whatever it is we use to simply make sense of things. So it will forever be completely ludicrous to sit here and say "you're using too much logic to approach God." That's tantamount to, "you're thinking too much."

And you do the same thing with science. The scientific method isn't something you can isolate and claim that you need to suppress in order to be religious. Science is whatever we use to investigate and understand the nature of the universe. To say you oppose science is to say you oppose learning about the world around us.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:34:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
How do you think this point is related to yer issues with discourse ethics? I ask because the problems seem interrelated in this context.

I don't see how they're related. Discourse ethics reveals a logical inconsistency, but I've yet to see what it has to do with morality - which is exclusively associated with "you ought not do xyz because IT'S WRONG", rather than "you cannot logically do xyz because it doesn't make sense" Perhaps you want to reform the definition of morality -- but that would be like me attempting to reform the definition of science to include the belief in deities. Why not just pick a new word? What part of the existing conception of morality makes discourse ethics fit in?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:56:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:39:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/20/2013 2:34:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
How do you think this point is related to yer issues with discourse ethics? I ask because the problems seem interrelated in this context.

I don't see how they're related. Discourse ethics reveals a logical inconsistency, but I've yet to see what it has to do with morality - which is exclusively associated with "you ought not do xyz because IT'S WRONG", rather than "you cannot logically do xyz because it doesn't make sense" Perhaps you want to reform the definition of morality -- but that would be like me attempting to reform the definition of science to include the belief in deities.

How so? I fail to see where the analogy sticks.

Why not just pick a new word? What part of the existing conception of morality makes discourse ethics fit in?

We already discussed this here [http://www.debate.org...]

I said:

At 5/29/2013 6:55:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
...However it also deals with the conditions upon which defensible axioms (or reasons) having to do with our action may be drawn from. This is the "ethical" sense of it. I see no reason why the former is more important than the latter in calling something an ethic or not.

The methodology of discourse ethics is different than most other ethical studies but the contentual nature of the focus (human will, choice, axioms of action, etc.) is the same. That's what makes it 'ethical' in scope.

I seem to remember yer only objection after that was that people could just renounce reason altogether; which I showed was both (a) non-unique to discourse ethics and (b) that sticking to rationality isn't what gives discourse ethics the edge. Rather it's the fact that one *needs* reason to intersubjectively validate or defend choice in the first place.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 3:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:56:33 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:39:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/20/2013 2:34:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
How do you think this point is related to yer issues with discourse ethics? I ask because the problems seem interrelated in this context.

I don't see how they're related. Discourse ethics reveals a logical inconsistency, but I've yet to see what it has to do with morality - which is exclusively associated with "you ought not do xyz because IT'S WRONG", rather than "you cannot logically do xyz because it doesn't make sense" Perhaps you want to reform the definition of morality -- but that would be like me attempting to reform the definition of science to include the belief in deities.

How so? I fail to see where the analogy sticks.

Why not just pick a new word? What part of the existing conception of morality makes discourse ethics fit in?

We already discussed this here [http://www.debate.org...]

I said:

At 5/29/2013 6:55:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
...However it also deals with the conditions upon which defensible axioms (or reasons) having to do with our action may be drawn from. This is the "ethical" sense of it. I see no reason why the former is more important than the latter in calling something an ethic or not.

The methodology of discourse ethics is different than most other ethical studies but the contentual nature of the focus (human will, choice, axioms of action, etc.) is the same. That's what makes it 'ethical' in scope.

I seem to remember yer only objection after that was that people could just renounce reason altogether; which I showed was both (a) non-unique to discourse ethics and (b) that sticking to rationality isn't what gives discourse ethics the edge. Rather it's the fact that one *needs* reason to intersubjectively validate or defend choice in the first place.
I'd like for you to explain more about this "contentual" nature that's the same as that of every other ethical system. If focusing on choice, will, and axioms of action (which I'm presuming refers to the logical pretenses forwarded by performing an action) made something contentually ethical, then determinism would be considered a form of morality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 3:43:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 3:15:54 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'd like for you to explain more about this "contentual" nature that's the same as that of every other ethical system. If focusing on choice, will, and axioms of action (which I'm presuming refers to the logical pretenses forwarded by performing an action) made something contentually ethical, then determinism would be considered a form of morality.

Not really. Determinism makes ontological claims about the nature of the world as a whole. If one were to extrapolate ethical claims *from that* (which have by no means been universal) than the contentual nature of *those* statements would be ethical.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 5:53:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 3:43:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 3:15:54 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'd like for you to explain more about this "contentual" nature that's the same as that of every other ethical system. If focusing on choice, will, and axioms of action (which I'm presuming refers to the logical pretenses forwarded by performing an action) made something contentually ethical, then determinism would be considered a form of morality.

Not really. Determinism makes ontological claims about the nature of the world as a whole. If one were to extrapolate ethical claims *from that* (which have by no means been universal) than the contentual nature of *those* statements would be ethical.

My point is that determinism and discourse ethics both concern existential truths about the universe - the former with regard to physical events, and the latter with regard to logical rules. In short, they are both descriptive, explaining only what IS. There IS a contradiction between engaging in discourse and defending force, but it's silent on whether or not there ought to be a contradiction. Morality is a restrictive system designed to regulate what human beings do with their "freewill." In this manner, morality sets a preference for one action among OPTIONS and then justifies (or at least attempts to) that preference. Telling me that I'm contradicting myself by saying that the government can steal your money doesn't set a preference for anything. Nothing has been valued. Nothing has been judged.

This is the clearest I can explain why discourse ethics just doesn't come across to me as something that can be called morality. When you and even Cody_Franklin explain why it is morality I get the sense that this whole philosophy derives cogency out of manipulating the ambiguity behind specific words and then uses those words to sneak through preferential ethics from a purely descriptive system (smoke and mirrors for argumentation).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 7:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:33:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/20/2013 7:39:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:06:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
Logic is the intellectual configuration of humanity. It is the organized realization of what does and does not make sense to us. Therefore it is absurd to speak of logic as separate from and independent of our existence. And if evolution is true, the reasoning process we call logic must have emerged from the workings of the natural environment - making it an imperfect and contingent system. So to say that something is illogical is to say that our rational faculties do not account for it's occurrence or truth, not that it is impossible.

Upon that clarification, theists cannot argue that God IS logic or that it's simply nonsensical to speak of something unbounded by logic. The innate supremacy of a higher power implies that the our mechanism of rationalization cannot possibly account for him. And so with God logically inaccessible, there can be no logical proof of his existence - combined with the lack of physical proof - there can be no reason to believe in a God.

Remember that logic is nothing more than the way in which we make sense of things - which emerged from and is dependent on the natural exigencies of this microcosmic environment and scale. If the natures of quantum and astronomical environments start to evade our intuitive reach, then surely something postulated to be superior to those, must be inaccessible entirely.

While the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, qualities, and purpose. It is a worldview that provides a sense of orientation and it is certainly more comprehensive and logical than your constricted vision of reality.

There is no logical reason to believe in the cognitive integrity of just one of the distinct and disparate cognitive structures that work together in the brain and body to generate the result that we call mind. There is nothing rational, logical, or scientific about the belief that human beings are completely defined by the rational and logical modes of thought, that is a strictly faith based belief that is not derived from science, and it is not based on logic, reasoning, or experiential evidence. It is a strictly metaphysical belief based on faith. Neither science or logic contend that reality can be reduced to a single ontological level.

Many here deem themselves "more intelligent" while attempting to reduce reality to a surface level of "objective" understanding and it makes me wonder if the reality of the situation is the real truth is that they simply can't understand more than that.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

I think it's problematic to think of logic as this set "mode of thought" we use at will. No. Logic is whatever it is we use to simply make sense of things. So it will forever be completely ludicrous to sit here and say "you're using too much logic to approach God." That's tantamount to, "you're thinking too much."

Yeah, that would certainly be ludicrous, and of course it isn"t what I said, this is a non-sequitur.

And you do the same thing with science. The scientific method isn't something you can isolate and claim that you need to suppress in order to be religious. Science is whatever we use to investigate and understand the nature of the universe. To say you oppose science is to say you oppose learning about the world around us.

What nonsense, I certainly never said I oppose science; this is another non-sequitur.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 3:38:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 5:53:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/21/2013 3:43:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/21/2013 3:15:54 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'd like for you to explain more about this "contentual" nature that's the same as that of every other ethical system. If focusing on choice, will, and axioms of action (which I'm presuming refers to the logical pretenses forwarded by performing an action) made something contentually ethical, then determinism would be considered a form of morality.

Not really. Determinism makes ontological claims about the nature of the world as a whole. If one were to extrapolate ethical claims *from that* (which have by no means been universal) than the contentual nature of *those* statements would be ethical.

My point is that determinism and discourse ethics both concern existential truths about the universe - the former with regard to physical events, and the latter with regard to logical rules. In short, they are both descriptive, explaining only what IS. There IS a contradiction between engaging in discourse and defending force, but it's silent on whether or not there ought to be a contradiction.

Why is this relevant? All yer doing is repeating yer own conception of what ethics should be without taking into account my own points for a higher inclusion of other types. Yer saying ethics is so and so. I ask why and why should it be?

Morality is a restrictive system designed to regulate what human beings do with their "freewill." In this manner, morality sets a preference for one action among OPTIONS and then justifies (or at least attempts to) that preference. Telling me that I'm contradicting myself by saying that the government can steal your money doesn't set a preference for anything. Nothing has been valued. Nothing has been judged.

So what? I'm showing that arguments in defense of coercive actions (among others) are impossible to be justified. Do you really not see how this puts an onus on certain types of behaviors?

This is the clearest I can explain why discourse ethics just doesn't come across to me as something that can be called morality. When you and even Cody_Franklin explain why it is morality I get the sense that this whole philosophy derives cogency out of manipulating the ambiguity behind specific words

Which words specifically?

and then uses those words to sneak through preferential ethics from a purely descriptive system (smoke and mirrors for argumentation).

I don't deny that discourse ethics is in large part descriptive. That isn't the whole picture though and yer ignoring the effects that clarification of discourse ethical claims has on justification for certain types of behavior.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 3:38:15 PM, Noumena wrote:

Why is this relevant? All yer doing is repeating yer own conception of what ethics should be without taking into account my own points for a higher inclusion of other types. Yer saying ethics is so and so. I ask why and why should it be?

So let me get this straight. You don't think that morality sets a preference for one action over another? And you don't think that valuation is necessary for the establishment of preference? I'd like for you to answer these questions directly so the conversation remains clear. If you answered yes to those questions, I'd like for you to explain your criteria for something to be considered an ethical system - if it doesn't set a preference for one action over another or if value is not necessary for preference.

So what? I'm showing that arguments in defense of coercive actions (among others) are impossible to be justified. Do you really not see how this puts an onus on certain types of behaviors?

There, that's it. The word "justified". That's the word that's being brutally exploited. In the manner you're using this word, you're arguing that certain actions cannot be argumentatively defended. But you're using the vague connotation of ethics in the term "unjustified" to extrapolate morality. The proposition "All squares are circular" is unjustifiable according to you - at what point do we make the leap that it is perverse to speak those words? Surely that statement can't be justified in the same manner that punching someone can't be justified. So would you venture to say that the statement (like violent actions) is immoral?

I don't deny that discourse ethics is in large part descriptive. That isn't the whole picture though and yer ignoring the effects that clarification of discourse ethical claims has on justification for certain types of behavior.

That term, "justification" is, again, the word being exploited here and it is the source of the smoke and mirrors. So long as you keep using it, your argument will sound valid. Explain discourse ethics without the word "justified." And if you find another nebulous equivalent, I'll point it out as well.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:21:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 4:02:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2013 3:38:15 PM, Noumena wrote:

Why is this relevant? All yer doing is repeating yer own conception of what ethics should be without taking into account my own points for a higher inclusion of other types. Yer saying ethics is so and so. I ask why and why should it be?

So let me get this straight. You don't think that morality sets a preference for one action over another?

I don't think it must be. I already distinguished between normative and non-normative ethics in the previous thread we discussed this in.

And you don't think that valuation is necessary for the establishment of preference?

Perhaps valuation. Though that would err on the side of discourse ethics given that there's not really any way not to value rationality. As Chomsky once said, "There are no arguments that I know of for irrationality."

I'd like for you to answer these questions directly so the conversation remains clear. If you answered yes to those questions, I'd like for you to explain your criteria for something to be considered an ethical system - if it doesn't set a preference for one action over another or if value is not necessary for preference.

The crtierion is contentual. Though that doesn't mean preference or value has no place, as I pointed out above. A theory of action examining and critiquing certain choices that one can physically make cannot be considered non-ethical imo.

So what? I'm showing that arguments in defense of coercive actions (among others) are impossible to be justified. Do you really not see how this puts an onus on certain types of behaviors?

There, that's it. The word "justified". That's the word that's being brutally exploited. In the manner you're using this word, you're arguing that certain actions cannot be argumentatively defended. But you're using the vague connotation of ethics in the term "unjustified" to extrapolate morality. The proposition "All squares are circular" is unjustifiable according to you - at what point do we make the leap that it is perverse to speak those words? Surely that statement can't be justified in the same manner that punching someone can't be justified. So would you venture to say that the statement (like violent actions) is immoral?

Saying all squares are circles doesn't denote any choice of action. Saying force can be justified does. See the contentual difference?

I don't deny that discourse ethics is in large part descriptive. That isn't the whole picture though and yer ignoring the effects that clarification of discourse ethical claims has on justification for certain types of behavior.

That term, "justification" is, again, the word being exploited here and it is the source of the smoke and mirrors. So long as you keep using it, your argument will sound valid. Explain discourse ethics without the word "justified." And if you find another nebulous equivalent, I'll point it out as well.

You already know the word justified isn't necessary but I'll humour you. Discourse ethics looks at actions and choices. Certain actions and choices go against implicit prescriptions of discourse and rational thought. Those actions and choices may be termed 'unethical' in that they go against a preferred value system that is both universally necessary and impossible to coherently deny.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:12:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those actions and choices may be termed 'unethical' in that they go against a preferred value system that is both universally necessary and impossible to coherently deny.

seriously noumena? After deying that preference had anything to do with it. I'll just go ahead and ignore the first part of your response in which you claim that preference is not necessary and take this one instead.

Is the final premise of your argument "that which is unjustifiable is unethical"? Yes or no? You've admitted that value is required for any ethical system, so in this case, value on rationality is necessary for a rational action to be preferred over an irrational one. This means that the same way you'd declare violence immoral solely because it is irrational, you must declare that statement about circular squares immoral as well.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:23:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:12:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
Those actions and choices may be termed 'unethical' in that they go against a preferred value system that is both universally necessary and impossible to coherently deny.

seriously noumena? After deying that preference had anything to do with it.

Yer going off of semantics here. The term 'preferred' obviously has no bearing on the point given what comes after e.g. universal necessity.

I'll just go ahead and ignore the first part of your response in which you claim that preference is not necessary and take this one instead.

Is the final premise of your argument "that which is unjustifiable is unethical"? Yes or no? You've admitted that value is required for any ethical system, so in this case, value on rationality is necessary for a rational action to be preferred over an irrational one. This means that the same way you'd declare violence immoral solely because it is irrational, you must declare that statement about circular squares immoral as well.

I already responded to this regarding the contentual difference in the propositions. Respond to that.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 5:30:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 5:23:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/22/2013 5:12:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
Those actions and choices may be termed 'unethical' in that they go against a preferred value system that is both universally necessary and impossible to coherently deny.

seriously noumena? After deying that preference had anything to do with it.

Yer going off of semantics here. The term 'preferred' obviously has no bearing on the point given what comes after e.g. universal necessity.

I'll just go ahead and ignore the first part of your response in which you claim that preference is not necessary and take this one instead.

Is the final premise of your argument "that which is unjustifiable is unethical"? Yes or no? You've admitted that value is required for any ethical system, so in this case, value on rationality is necessary for a rational action to be preferred over an irrational one. This means that the same way you'd declare violence immoral solely because it is irrational, you must declare that statement about circular squares immoral as well.

I already responded to this regarding the contentual difference in the propositions. Respond to that.

That wasn't a response. Essentially what you did was say that force denotes a choice of action and my contradictory statement didn't (which was obvious) without explaining why that mattered. And you never answered my question: Is the final premise of your argument "that which is unjustifiable is unethical"? Yes or no? because so long as this is the final premise of your argument, word for word, you have no reason not to treat the contradictory statement as an unethical statement. And if this is NOT your final premise, then what is? What bridges the gap between irrationality and immorality?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault