The death of critical theory/analysis?

[Whaleboy]

The foundation of a moral system

A flawed notion in itself. Such an idea is basically "I think you shouldn't do this", or "you ought not to have intercourse with a frozen chicken etc". Merely because I say so in that case. The problem there is the is/ought gap. For example, a man has a frozen chicken. He has intercourse with it, cooks it and eats it with no health problems. I think it wrong. These are all "is" propositions. A moral realist or cognitivist would say that these are sufficient to justify an objective moral statement "therefore he ought not to have intercourse with a frozen chicken". The moral irrealist would disagree, and I would go so far to say that to make the statement "ought", requires an infinite amount of "is". We are therefore required to default back to emotivism, and the whole thing goes round in circles there in a fairly obvious manner. This kind of thing lends itself to moral relativism.

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

Never! Democracy should be scaled back to only the degree required to prevent revolution, and a council of philosopher kings perform the function of government . Ok the latter bit is a little derivative , but seriously, the simple mind should be taken out of politics, especially since they have a nasty tendency to clump together and form wars, conservativism and spindoctors paychecks. This means less democracy, which means room for logic in government. Which is good imo.

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

TCO has my number

BTW, does your pvssy hurt?

Yes it does *Whaleboy eats yogurt*

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.

I think morality is logical within certain context, for example, telling me what to do in certain circumstances, but since that is a product of my emotional disposition, I suppose I have my own tailor made version of utilitarianism (Id) and virtue theory (superego) (I'm using the Freudian model as a simplistic illustration of course) that I use in real life, with a more complex philosophy on top for my logical purposes (relativism et al).

Whaleboy, does hatred of war sanction injustice?

I don't understand the question, but my hatred of war justifies nothing. The logic thereof, on the other hand, in an ideal world should justify lots of lots of lovely peace.

We just pretend it is to get girls into bed.

Does it work for you? I have to resort to a combination of adjectives and alcohol.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I think morality is logical within certain context, for example, telling me what to do in certain circumstances, but since that is a product of my emotional disposition, I suppose I have my own tailor made version of utilitarianism (Id) and virtue theory (superego) (I'm using the Freudian model as a simplistic illustration of course) that I use in real life, with a more complex philosophy on top for my logical purposes (relativism et al).

The problem with most students of philosophy is using periods.

My hatred of war justifies nothing. The logic thereof, on the other hand, in an ideal world should justify lots of lots of lovely peace.

Your hatred of war justifies inaction in the face of injustice.



Proposition: Morality cannot be illogical.

Disprove it if you can.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Ned
Proposition: Morality cannot be illogical.

Disprove it if you can.

Surely that rests on their being one, consistent moral system (which appears not to be the case)? I've got no problem designing a moral system that's illogical:

Premise one: One ought never to kill anyone
Premise two: Killing in self-defence is okay
--------------
Conclusion: One ought sometimes to kill someone

Premise one and the Conclusion logically contradict each other thus the system is inconsistent. *shrug*

I think proving all moral systems are illogical is a potentially more fruitful pursuit.

[Bereta_Eder]

Some badmouth post - modernism because of its allegended inherent pessimism and metaphysical aspect. In truth maybe they fail to see that it has incorporated an experience after modernism which actually enriched it.

[Bereta_Eder]

in short if madona was singing i'm a post modern girl she wouldn't care about jewelrly

[Saint Marcus]

post-modernism

[Ned]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed


Surely that rests on their being one, consistent moral system (which appears not to be the case)? I've got no problem designing a moral system that's illogical:

Premise one: One ought never to kill anyone
Premise two: Killing in self-defence is okay
--------------
Conclusion: One ought sometimes to kill someone

Premise one and the Conclusion logically contradict each other thus the system is inconsistent. *shrug*

I think proving all moral systems are illogical is a potentially more fruitful pursuit.

If a statement logically extended to its ultimate conclusion results in an illogical result, the statement is wrong in some fashion. But logic can demonstrate how it is false and can help limit or define the initial premise so that it is closer to the truth.

The initial premise given above is the premise of most pacifists. But it is illogical. Therefor, there is something very wrong with pacifism.

[Whaleboy]

Your hatred of war justifies inaction in the face of injustice.

Justice is a fallacy. A subjective way for us to say what we think is right. It does not necessarily hold with others. Another example of an emotive statement used to justify war.

Premise one: One ought never to kill anyone
Premise two: Killing in self-defence is okay

This is not necessarily a logically inconsistent statement nor a flaw in pacifism as Ned suggests. Consider a quadratic equation, y=ax^2+bx+c.
Where y may increase with x, one will reach a point where it will decrease, hence the quadratic curve. Using this analogy, one can have a coherent philosophy (the equation... a less complex logical construct of course but broadly the same thing), and different values of x. The point where y is maximum on the parabola represents a necessary logical barrier, after which it decreases. In the question of pacifism, be it individual or national, one can use those concepts as the barrier. For example, I am a non violent person but will use it to defend myself, as granted by a coherent pacifist philosophy.

This argument has demonstrated a problem I have with many philosophies, or rather, flawed (imo) interpretations of them by academics. That is, they are presented as objective and absolute, the author or interpreter obviously supporting them with an emotional furvour that would seem to preclude their own necessary subjectivity and limit of application and consistency.

For example, anyone who states that pacifism is total non-violence (inc self defence) has created imo an unworkable concept, and an oblique one at that. Same thing goes for those that assume total libertarianism to mean total rights. The two are not one and the same (see the quadratic example). Also consider the notion of democracy or the soviet style communism. Conceptually flawed and worse in practice, both have their place but neither shuold have total free reign as both would create a lame society when taken to the extreme. Taken as absolute, both create logically flawed systems imo, for example, the nobility of the masses (wtf).

The only absolute really should be the notion of thoughts, and that is absolute in our minds only, whose products must be bound by their own subjectivity lest they be proven ridiculous when taken objectively. My own first and second order philosophies are not magic bullets as others might have presented theirs, rather, they are merely and at once alternatives and expressive reflections of myself, sort of a literal conceptual art.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
The initial premise given above is the premise of most pacifists. But it is illogical. Therefor, there is something very wrong with pacifism.

No, pacifists would form them into one premise. It is wrong to kill except in self defence. If someone believes it is always wrong to kill, then that is what they believe. You are right that you cannot believe in both of those above as written, but its a question of semantics. Simply run them together and add an "except" to join them.

And hatred or war sanctions inactivity, not the injustice itself. Ie, a belief that the consequences of war are worse than the consequences of the injustice, but that the injustice is not desireable either. It is then logical to have inaction. People were not against the Iraq war because they liked Saddam, and agreed with his policies. They were against the war because they believed the injustice was not as bad as the war and the effects of that war.

A belief to go to war is making a statement not just that you think the actions of that other nation is bad, but that you think it is worse than the action of going to war against them. A belief not to go to war is saying that the consequences of war are worse than the consequences of the continued injustice, or the next best option (diplomacy for example).

[Ben Kenobi]

And please, not all pacifists run the two together. In fact I'd argue that it's much more sincere to go with the premise that it is always wrong to kill.

[Whaleboy]

A belief to go to war is making a statement not just that you think the actions of that other nation is bad, but that you think it is worse than the action of going to war against them. A belief not to go to war is saying that the consequences of war are worse than the consequences of the continued injustice, or the next best option (diplomacy for example).

Love vs logic. A logical case for not going to war of course, and its very easy to put that as a matter definition, but consider that my distaste for war outweighs in me any desire to do so. Not a reason for war or not but a cause of the psyche causing each argument.

And please, not all pacifists run the two together. In fact I'd argue that it's much more sincere to go with the premise that it is always wrong to kill.

See emotivism. An emotion, a distaste for violence that I share with all pacifists, yet I have forged a different logic to justify, and I dare say, a stronger one. Its the same until a point that we haven't experienced since 1940 and I rarely do due to the whole "deathly northamptonian bohemian that can kick your arse" look .

If you fail with words, try money, if money fails, you don't need to do it with a bullet

War is thus refuted.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd say that opposition to war ought to be based more on negative feelings.

[qute]
"deathly northamptonian bohemian that can kick your arse"
[/quote]

I prefer the approach of looking harmless, because it tends to disarm your opposition.

[Whaleboy]

I'd say that opposition to war ought to be based more on negative feelings.

Is/ought .

I oppose war (logically) due to its negative effects, and the independent positive effects of avoiding it in all but the most diabolically necessary circumstances (such that we havent experienced for 64 years). Hatred of war will not justify a logical case for not warring. Thats why we reason on top of our emotional disposition.

I prefer the approach of looking harmless, because it tends to disarm your opposition

I was kidding before, I do look harmless

[Odin]

Originally posted by 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.

Exactly, for example, I can never reason with creationists because the subject is so emotional and thier denial so strong.

[Ramo]

A flawed notion in itself. Such an idea is basically "I think you shouldn't do this", or "you ought not to have intercourse with a frozen chicken etc". Merely because I say so in that case. The problem there is the is/ought gap. For example, a man has a frozen chicken. He has intercourse with it, cooks it and eats it with no health problems. I think it wrong. These are all "is" propositions. A moral realist or cognitivist would say that these are sufficient to justify an objective moral statement "therefore he ought not to have intercourse with a frozen chicken". The moral irrealist would disagree, and I would go so far to say that to make the statement "ought", requires an infinite amount of "is". We are therefore required to default back to emotivism, and the whole thing goes round in circles there in a fairly obvious manner. This kind of thing lends itself to moral relativism..

I think you're confused. This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

The idea of a foundation of a moral system says absolutely nothing about the objectivity of morality.