A Simple Moral Paradox
 Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM Posted: 3 years ago P.1 To be morally perfect is to meet all of one's moral obligations
P.2 Persons have no moral obligation to be what they cannot P.3 Persons cannot be perfect C.1 Persons have no moral obligation to be perfect C.2 Persons can meet all their moral obligations without being perfect P.1 and C.2 are at odds. "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) |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 2:45:20 PM Posted: 3 years ago P.3 is also at odds, by extension. If persons can meet all their moral obligations, then they can be perfect. But we only prove that humans can meet all their moral obligations by proving that humans can't by perfect. So you'd have to prove we can be perfect by assuming we can't be perfect.
"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) |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 2:53:29 PM Posted: 3 years ago I'm sure some would say my conception of moral perfection is wrong and that to be perfect you have to not only meet your obligations but to exceed them. So Jesus would be perfect, whereas the guy who only met the bare minimum requirements of doing nothing immoral would not be morally perfect, since he doesn't do anything that exceeds his obligations. If so, I could just exchange"perfect" with"being without moral blemish" or just define perfect to mean that, for sake of discussion. The paradox remains essentially the same.
"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) |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 2:54:05 PM Posted: 3 years ago I do feel like this is solvable though.
"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) |
 Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:06:39 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: There is no paradox. If moral perfection is achieved by meeting all of one's moral obligations, and if one does not have the moral obligation to be what one cannot (perfect), then moral perfection does not require that someone be "perfect". |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:08:17 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:06:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: That's not contradictory? "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) |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:12:23 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:08:17 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:06:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: No, you are equivocating terms. If persons CANNOT be perfect, then they can still be morally perfect, since moral perfection - by your definition- does not require that someone do what they cannot do. |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:16:07 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:12:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:08:17 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:06:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: You're defining perfect and morally perfect as two separate terms. I wasn't. "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) |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:20:43 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:16:07 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:12:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:08:17 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:06:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: You are actually. You define moral perfection as: "P.1 To be morally perfect is to meet all of one's moral obligations" You then go on to claim that: P.3 Persons cannot be perfect But then claim that: C.2 Persons can meet all their moral obligations (that is, can be morally perfect) without being perfect By your definition, someone can be morally perfect, but they cannot be perfect. They are being used differently. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:26:53 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: If persons cannot be perfect, that cannot take away from their moral perfection, since moral perfection does not require that someone be what they cannot. There is no paradox. It is at most contradictory, simply because of your definitions. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:43:11 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: I think you're confused because you think to not be perfect means you cannot be morally perfect.To be "perfect" means to be perfect in all respects, while moral perfection doesn't. The "paradox" is predicated on the idea that you can meet all of your moral obligations, while at the same time being predicated on the idea that you cannot be perfect. |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:43:39 PM Posted: 3 years ago C.2 is not a definition, it contradicts the original definition because it's a paradox. By the premises we can conclude that persons have no moral obligation to be perfect but that means persons can be morally perfect (meet their obligations) without being morally perfect (since being perfect isn't one of their obligations), that's why it's a paradox. Notice C.2 is a conclusion, not a premise and it flows from the other premises. Either show that one of the premises is false, or show how C.2 doesn't follow from the premises. It seems that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
You're basically saying P.1 and C.2 are at odds. Notice, that's what I also said. That's the point of the paradox. The premises lead to an absurd conclusion. Basically, if I meet all my obligations, I'm perfect. However, I can't meet all my obligations, so I can't be perfect. Since I can't be perfect, I'm not morally obliged to be perfect. That means the overall set of obligations that apply to me does not include perfection, so if I managed to meet all my obligations, I haven't actually achieved perfection (I'm not obliged to), which makes no sense since perfection, by definition, means I've met all my obligations. "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) |
 Posts: 29,018
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: Could we say then that, if persons have no moral obligation to be perfect, and if persons are perfect if they meet all their moral obligations, that person have no obligation to fulfill all of their obligations? I'm a Bish. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:47:03 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:43:39 PM, phantom wrote: That's not what a paradox is. A paradox is not just a contradiction, it is something which appears to be true and false at the same time. The contradiction follows from your definitions. For example, I can define X as a goldfish which is alive and dead at the same time. Is that a paradox? No. Basically, if I meet all my obligations, I'm perfect. However, I can't meet all my obligations, so I can't be perfect. Since I can't be perfect, I'm not morally obliged to be perfect. That means the overall set of obligations that apply to me does not include perfection, so if I managed to meet all my obligations, I haven't actually achieved perfection (I'm not obliged to), which makes no sense since perfection, by definition, means I've met all my obligations. |
|
Posts: 29,018
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:48:36 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: Would that logic not reduce "moral obligations" into optional "moral directives?" I'm a Bish. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:51:17 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:43:39 PM, phantom wrote:
You're equivocating terms that you're using differently. That's why you're coming up with an absurd conclusion. |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: I suppose. "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) |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: No, we cannot. You are, by definition, obliged to fulfill your obligations. If not, then they are not your obligations. |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:01:01 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 3:47:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:43:39 PM, phantom wrote: Such as, "to be perfect is to meet all of one's moral obligations" and "persons can meet all their moral obligations without being perfect". That's easily paradoxical. The contradiction follows from your definitions. For example, I can define X as a goldfish which is alive and dead at the same time. Is that a paradox? No. This not even slightly similar. Do you agree with the below premises and conclusion (I excluded C.2)? P.1 To be morally perfect is to meet all of one's moral obligations P.2 Persons have no moral obligation to be what they cannot P.3 Persons cannot be morally perfect C.1 Persons have no moral obligation to be perfect Your accusation of semantics can't apply to this argument, yet C.2 flows directly from it. If you accept the above, C.2 will follow directly. If you deny the above, you have to attack the truth of its premises not my definitions. Basically, if I meet all my obligations, I'm perfect. However, I can't meet all my obligations, so I can't be perfect. Since I can't be perfect, I'm not morally obliged to be perfect. That means the overall set of obligations that apply to me does not include perfection, so if I managed to meet all my obligations, I haven't actually achieved perfection (I'm not obliged to), which makes no sense since perfection, by definition, means I've met all my obligations. "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) |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:03:19 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: I know. It's supposed to be paradoxical. "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) |
 Posts: 14,495
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:03:33 PM Posted: 3 years ago P.1 To be morally perfect is to meet all of one's moral obligations If these are true, then P.3 is false (if you're using "perfect" in P.3. to mean moral perfection). You're assuming that you can't be morally perfect. If you don't assume that, doesn't the rest of the argument fall apart? #StandWithBossy |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:07:05 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:01:01 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:47:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:43:39 PM, phantom wrote: That's not a paradox, that's a contradiction in terms. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:08:03 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:03:19 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: Once again, it's not paradoxical, it's contradictory. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:14:51 PM Posted: 3 years ago I'll reiterate:
The "paradox" is predicated on the idea that you can meet all of your moral obligations, while at the same time being predicated on the idea that you cannot be perfect. Either these terms are being used differently, or they are defined as a single, contradictory concept (in which case, who cares?). |
|
Posts: 29,018
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:20:04 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: Therein lies the true paradox, IMO. P1: Perfection is when one meets all one's moral obligations P2: No one is obligated to be perfect P3: No one is obligated to fulfill all one's moral obligations Voila! we have a contradiction in terms. Either, (a) we concede that moral obligations are rather moral directives (thus disavowing the notion of moral obligations altogether) or (b) we argue that everyone has an obligation to be perfect--which itself is problematic I'm a Bish. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:22:30 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:20:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: You need to learn the difference been a paradox and a contradiction. If producing a paradox were as simple as defining something to be contradictory, then why would it matter that he "found" one? |
|
Posts: 29,018
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:26:43 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:22:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:20:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: "A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true." [1] "A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true." [2] "A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true." [2] I think this scenario fits the definition of a paradox. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - http://www.merriam-webster.com... I'm a Bish. |
|
Posts: 13,697
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:31:38 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:26:43 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:22:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:20:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: Then you'd be wrong. As I've already pointed out, the "paradox" is simply the product of equivocation. It is not perhaps true. |
|
Posts: 29,018
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:40:12 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:26:43 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:22:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:20:04 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 4:00:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:52:37 PM, phantom wrote:At 6/7/2014 3:46:57 PM, bsh1 wrote:At 6/7/2014 2:42:20 PM, phantom wrote: The scenario fits with what the NATURE of a paradox is; i.e., when two seemingly true statements contradict. Insofar as P1 and P2 seem true on face, yet they force an absurd concldusion, P3, they form a paradox. The VALIDTY of the paradox is questionable (e.g. "is it true"), but I disagree that the NATURE of whether or not this is a paradox is debatable. I'm a Bish. |
|
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
6/7/2014 4:48:01 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 6/7/2014 4:14:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote: The paradox leads to the conclusion that you can meet all of your moral obligations while at the same time not being perfect. It's not predicated on it. I've explained it, but you just ignored most of my last post and focused on semantics.
"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) |