The death of critical theory/analysis?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro
Did they kill eachother?

I don't know. They killed other folk though. Haven't you seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

But the fact that certain values enable societies to survive is logically separate from whether or not they are good values.

You can't infer from

"These values have enabled this society to survive"

to

"These values are good ones"

without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

[Whaleboy]

No offense, but that doesn´t make sense. In that way, we simply should avoid any moral judgement. But I can make such judgements based on reason. It is absolutely reasonable to argue that murder should be morally wrong, because a society which sees murder as something morally good and desirable would end up exterminating itself. That I can say totally without making an emotional statement (at least as I´d understand it - driven purely by emotion).

Emotion leading to logic. A pre-determined conclusion as it were. It is of course largely a process governed by our own state of mind, which we cannot be aware of (I'm not massively well versed in psych). What you are doing there is making an ethical judgement, not a moral one (the emo distinction). For example, I hate war. I hate it with an unholy passion, almost to the point of obsession. It, along with insects, is the only thing I truly despise. Any philosophy of mine will incorporate that, and justify it with logic but don't be fooled by it, the premises were concocted to support my conclusion. However, that is nothing against my pacifist philosophy and you are not attacking any weakness in my argument by questioning the basis for its formation, instead of of its formation. This goes for any moral decision, think about it .

Keep this FIRMLY in mind. I'm not trying to put you down based on your age, don't get me wrong. But it would be a good idea for you to keep an open mind about things as your experience grows.

I like to think I do have an open mind. If someone presents me with a better argument, or a refutation I cannot counter, then I will gladly abandon what I have now and adopt it. That I have done frequently in the past and undoubtably will do in the future, however, I'm happy with what I have now and seek to challenge and augment it. What direction that takes me, I dont know but as I said, I speak what I have now. My age and experience is irrelevant. Your point is understood however, I know you are not making a personal attack.

EDIT: I'm not trying to create an army of robots here, no matter how cool that would be

EDIT II: Agathon . Its a question of "is vs ought" in this respect. So many Kantians.. so little time. *Whaleboy prepares for some hunting*

[Ned]

Whaleboy, does hatred of war sanction injustice?

[Ramo]

The foundation of a moral system cannot be fundamentally based on logic (since logic provides no initial premise besides the principle of noncontradiction - and that doesn't provide enough structure to create a moral system), thus the foundation of a moral system cannot per se be criticized on logical grounds. But the catch is that the human brain is a funny thing in that we manufacture logical rationalizations for more visceral emotions that most people generally share (say, killing is bad), so based on one's experience, from the same general premises one may conclude entirely different bases; an anarchist-inclined person might conclude "freedom is good" while a fascist-inclined person might conclude "order is good." So we have the capability to hold a view that might be emotionally unpleasant, but is nonetheless maintained because of the logical structures we've created.

So that essentially leaves two avenues for criticism: attacking the logic that leads from these visceral emotions to a moral basis, and attacking the logic that leads from the moral basis to details in a moral system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, very good point Ramo. It is hard to attack something based on emotional precepts by logic, if not impossible. Emotion will have to play some role in the critique.

[Ned]

Can morality be illogical?

[Agathon]

Guys, when Ben says he's an emotivist he doesn't mean that he supports murder or anything like that.

Emotivism is merely a theory about the meaning of moral statements. Cognitivists think that moral statements describe (or fail to describe) some facts about the world which leads to the obvious question of what these "facts" are.

Non-cognitivist metaethical theories hold that moral statements do not describe anything. Emotivism is a particular brand of non-cognitivism. It holds that moral statements are expressive rather than descriptive. So when I say that murder is wrong, I am expressing my distaste for it.

The chief proponents of emotivism were the Analytic philosophers A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson.

Of course you can accuse it of being subjectivist, but an emotivist is still bound by rules of consistency since it is inconsistent to feel different ways about the same kind of act. You can still mount fairly effective moral arguments against an emotivist.

The Later Wittgenstein has a similar theory about pain statements, they replace primitive expressions of pain, rather than describing "inner states".

[Kuciwalker]

Since when has politics had to do with logic? For that matter, since when has the average person been trained in formal logic? People are stupid - get used to it

[TCO]

Whaleboy, too bad you are too stupid to deal with real useful analysis and thinking and have to stick to philosophy instead.

BTW, does your pvssy hurt?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
Can morality be illogical?

Almost no one thinks that morality is a matter of logic. Then again, almost no one thinks that "water boils at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level" has anything to do with logic either.

Logical truths are tautologies and as such are uninformative.

[monkspider]

Man, and I always thought that philosophy was cool.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monkspider
Man, and I always thought that philosophy was cool.

We just pretend it is to get girls into bed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
But the fact that certain values enable societies to survive is logically separate from whether or not they are good values.

You can't infer from

"These values have enabled this society to survive"

to

"These values are good ones"

without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

I reject Moore's silliness.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I reject Moore's silliness.

Well there's still Hume's version and the ordinary fact/value version.

[Ben Kenobi]

I reject Moore's silliness.

Do you really believe that keeping all societies alive is a good thing?