Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 268
  1. #201
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, you've added another premise to the argument.

    P3: Your subjective beliefs dictate the objective truth in your nation (ie you are a dictator).

    And that premise isn't a subjective one, its an objective one.
    The Premises are all moral positions. P3 is not a moral position.

    But that aside, P1 and P2 ARE subjective moral premises and the scenario lead to objective law.

    So it is established that subjective moral positions can theoretically lead to law.

  2. #202
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The Premises are all moral positions. P3 is not a moral position.
    Could you define moral position in a logical structure sense? I'm not sure how this applies here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But that aside, P1 and P2 ARE subjective moral premises and the scenario lead to objective law.
    I didn't necessarily lead to that law without P3. Without P3 there is no reason to believe that the subjective premises could be applied objectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So it is established that subjective moral positions can theoretically lead to law.
    Just to be clear I didn't say they never can. I said we cannot derive a necessary objective conclusion solely from subjective premises.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #203
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just to be clear I didn't say they never can. I said we cannot derive a necessary objective conclusion solely from subjective premises.
    You can't actually make the law in reality without stepping into objective reality.

    But you can reach the conclusion that there SHOULD be a law against murder necessarily follows the premises.

    So if I were the dictator, P1 and P2 would necessarily lead me to the conclusion that I SHOULD make a law against murder. Based on that I would then, in order to adhere to my moral premises, take the action to create a law which would generate an objective law.

    Likewise in my actual reality I support laws that I morally agree with and oppose those I disagree with in my own small way (while I'm not a dictator I do have a small amount of political power as a US citizen) based on the moral premises that I subjectively hold. Now, the question is - Is there a problem with me doing this?

  4. #204
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You can't actually make the law in reality without stepping into objective reality.
    Which is my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But you can reach the conclusion that there SHOULD be a law against murder necessarily follows the premises.
    No, because you are simply burying the objective statement within a subjective conclusion. That doesn't really change the picture. Unless you can show why the subjective belief must become objective reality then you are still not at a necessary conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So if I were the dictator, P1 and P2 would necessarily lead me to the conclusion that I SHOULD make a law against murder. Based on that I would then, in order to adhere to my moral premises, take the action to create a law which would generate an objective law.
    Yes, that you are a dictator is the objective premise. So adding P3, you are a dictator, changes the argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #205
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which is my point.
    And is completely irrelevant to my point. We are talking about moral positions not what the law actually is.

    Again:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights
    C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder.

    So given that one holds P1 and P2, they will necessarily believe C.

    Whether they become a dictator or do something in physical reality to enact, or help enact, C is completely irrelevant to whether C follows the Ps.

    And if they subjectively hold the Ps then they will subjectively hold C.

    Do you challenge any of this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, because you are simply burying the objective statement within a subjective conclusion. That doesn't really change the picture. Unless you can show why the subjective belief must become objective reality then you are still not at a necessary conclusion.
    I don't say it must become objective reality. I'm saying it SHOULD become objective reality or to put another way, I would like it to become objective reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, that you are a dictator is the objective premise. So adding P3, you are a dictator, changes the argument.

    No, it goes like this:

    P1. I subjectively believe that people have the right to life
    P2. I subjectively belief that the government should protect people's rights.
    C. Therefore I subjectively believe that the government should outlaw murder.

    So C necessarily follows the Ps.

    THEN I physically become the dictator. And THEN I take my subjective belief (C) and make that into objective law. But all of the objective stuff (becoming a dictator and making a law) FOLLOWS the conclusion that C necessarily follows the Ps. So this scenario does not alter the fact that C necessarily follows the Ps or that they are ALL subjective.

    And the point of the dictator scenario was spelled out in the second section of my last argument and you did not respond to that. I don't know why you ignored it since it asked a question but it is the gist of my point so I'll just repost it.

    Likewise in my actual reality I support laws that I morally agree with and oppose those I disagree with in my own small way (while I'm not a dictator I do have a small amount of political power as a US citizen) based on the moral premises that I subjectively hold. Now, the question is - Is there a problem with me doing this?

  6. #206
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And is completely irrelevant to my point. We are talking about moral positions not what the law actually is.
    It is relevant when the moral position is that there should be a law or that something should be objectively applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Again:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights
    C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder.

    So given that one holds P1 and P2, they will necessarily believe C.
    Again, not necessarily. I've already pointed out scenarios where it is possible to hold the premises, but the conclusion not be valid. Therefore it isn't a necessary conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't say it must become objective reality. I'm saying it SHOULD become objective reality or to put another way, I would like it to become objective reality.
    Again, this is just burying the objective nature within the conclusion. It doesn't change the objection that an objective reality conclusion requires an objective premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, it goes like this:

    P1. I subjectively believe that people have the right to life
    P2. I subjectively belief that the government should protect people's rights.
    C. Therefore I subjectively believe that the government should outlaw murder.

    So C necessarily follows the Ps.
    No, because there is no reason to believe that your personal beliefs in this matter should be applied as law (the fact that you subjectively hold the conclusion not withstanding). There has to be a reason that your personal belief should applied as a law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Likewise in my actual reality I support laws that I morally agree with and oppose those I disagree with in my own small way (while I'm not a dictator I do have a small amount of political power as a US citizen) based on the moral premises that I subjectively hold. Now, the question is - Is there a problem with me doing this?
    No, because you hold the additional premise as true that your moral opinions can and should be placed on others.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #207
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, not necessarily. I've already pointed out scenarios where it is possible to hold the premises, but the conclusion not be valid. Therefore it isn't a necessary conclusion.
    Support please. Show me where you laid out a scenario where:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights

    Does not necessarily lead to:

    C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this is just burying the objective nature within the conclusion. It doesn't change the objection that an objective reality conclusion requires an objective premise.
    "C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder" is a subjective statement. Or at least it can be one. Regardless it is not an inherently objective statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, because there is no reason to believe that your personal beliefs in this matter should be applied as law (the fact that you subjectively hold the conclusion not withstanding). There has to be a reason that your personal belief should applied as a law.
    There is:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights

    If you accept those premises, logic dictates that you have to support laws against murder.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, because you hold the additional premise as true that your moral opinions can and should be placed on others.
    So there is no problem with subjectively holding that:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights

    And then taking objective action (such as voting for a law) to make those subjective moral positions into law. Correct?
    Last edited by mican333; April 22nd, 2013 at 11:07 AM.

  8. #208
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support please. Show me where you laid out a scenario where:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights

    Does not necessarily lead to:

    C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder.
    Any situation where my beliefs for 1 and 2 do not necessitate an objective application of my beliefs. For example if I believed that people have a right to speak and that the government should protect people's right to speech, but I also believed the government should act on the wishes of the majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    "C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder" is a subjective statement. Or at least it can be one. Regardless it is not an inherently objective statement.
    No, because you are saying that there should be a law absent everyone else's opinions. The fact that you are saying there should be something that objectively exists (a law) doesn't change as you change this language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    There is:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights

    If you accept those premises, then you have to agree that there should be a law against murder.
    You've changed the premise a bit. Remember P1 is still "I believe that people have a right to life."

    So we have a premise that says you personally believe that people have the right to life. And we have a premise that says you believe the government should protect people's rights. There is nothing in those premises that says your belief about A or B is applicable to the rest of society such that they should be subject to your beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So there is no problem with subjectively holding that:

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights

    And then taking objective action (such as voting for a law) to make those subjective moral positions into law. Correct?
    If you can support the unstated premise. That your moral opinion should be placed upon others.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #209
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Any situation where my beliefs for 1 and 2 do not necessitate an objective application of my beliefs. For example if I believed that people have a right to speak and that the government should protect people's right to speech, but I also believed the government should act on the wishes of the majority.
    So you mean that the government should protect the rights of the people unless it conflicts with the wishes of the majority? If so, then you are, on occasion, rejecting P2.

    So that is not a world where both Ps are consistently accepted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, because you are saying that there should be a law absent everyone else's opinions. The fact that you are saying there should be something that objectively exists (a law) doesn't change as you change this language.
    Objective is only about what actually exists. Saying there should be a law does not make a law and therefore it remains a subjective statement. In other words, it never leaves my head and therefore never becomes objective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You've changed the premise a bit. Remember P1 is still "I believe that people have a right to life."

    So we have a premise that says you personally believe that people have the right to life. And we have a premise that says you believe the government should protect people's rights. There is nothing in those premises that says your belief about A or B is applicable to the rest of society such that they should be subject to your beliefs.
    But that doesn't change the fact that I believe my thoughts SHOULD be applied to other people.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you can support the unstated premise. That your moral opinion should be placed upon others.
    That is inherent in P2. If one holds that the state SHOULD protect people's rights, then it's a given that the state SHOULD use whatever force is necessarily to achieve that goal.

  10. #210
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you mean that the government should protect the rights of the people unless it conflicts with the wishes of the majority? If so, then you are, on occasion, rejecting P2.

    So that is not a world where both Ps are consistently accepted.
    Fair enough.

    Any situation where the government is obligated to accept my belief in premise 1. Nothing about premise 2 says that the government should accept my belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Objective is only about what actually exists. Saying there should be a law does not make a law and therefore it remains a subjective statement. In other words, it never leaves my head and therefore never becomes objective.
    It is irrelevant if it leaves your head or not. The fact that the law would apply to everyone makes it objective. That is the problem. Nothing about P1 and P2 mean your belief should be foisted upon others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But that doesn't change the fact that I believe my thoughts SHOULD be applied to other people.
    But none of the premises support that. That is a wholly new premise added to the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That is inherent in P2. If one holds that the state SHOULD protect people's rights, then it's a given that the state SHOULD use whatever force is necessarily to achieve that goal.
    Not at all. Nothing about Premise 2 states that the government should accept your definitions or that it should accept it over others' definitions.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #211
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fair enough.

    Any situation where the government is obligated to accept my belief in premise 1. Nothing about premise 2 says that the government should accept my belief.
    But is says what I think the government should do.

    So regardless, since I think P1 and P2, I necessarily think C. So C necessarily follows P1 and P2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is irrelevant if it leaves your head or not. The fact that the law would apply to everyone makes it objective. That is the problem. Nothing about P1 and P2 mean your belief should be foisted upon others.
    P2 say that my beliefs should be foisted on other people. To say otherwise is to reject P2.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But none of the premises support that. That is a wholly new premise added to the argument.
    No it's not. Thinking that the government should protect people's rights mean that one thinks that the government should do what is necessarily to protect people's rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. Nothing about Premise 2 states that the government should accept your definitions or that it should accept it over others' definitions.
    What do you mean by "definitions"?

  12. #212
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But is says what I think the government should do.

    So regardless, since I think P1 and P2, I necessarily think C. So C necessarily follows P1 and P2.
    Because you personal think the government should do it does not mean that it should be a universal rule or that you even feel it should be a universal rule. Let me ask this question. The rights in P2, are they subjective rights or objective ones?

    Because I think the subjective part of that premise revolves around the government's obligation, not around the nature of the right itself. That is different than P1, where the nature of the right (its existence) is what is subjective.

    Now really there are only two answers to the question above, in both cases the conclusion doesn't follow, but for different reasons.

    P2 has objective rights: Then the existence of a subjective right in P1 doesn't connect with P2 to form a conclusion. Nothing about the argument implies that the government should protect your personal subjective right.

    P2 is subjective rights: Fine, then the conclusion doesn't follow because the belief that the government should protect a subjective right applies only to you. It is your subjective right, not everyone's. Therefore there is no reason to believe there should be a law protecting that right for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    P2 say that my beliefs should be foisted on other people. To say otherwise is to reject P2.
    No it doesn't, it says that government should protect rights. Not that government should accept your position on what rights are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No it's not. Thinking that the government should protect people's rights mean that one thinks that the government should do what is necessarily to protect people's rights.
    But that isn't what you said. You said "I believe my thoughts SHOULD be applied to other people." The fact that the government should protect rights is no the same thing as "my opinion applies to others." There is no premise offered that connects your opinion on a right and the government's opinion on a right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    What do you mean by "definitions"?
    That X is a right. Nothing about P2 says the government should accept your opinion that X is a right or not a right.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #213
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because you personal think the government should do it does not mean that it should be a universal rule or that you even feel it should be a universal rule.
    Right.

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights
    Therefore:
    C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder.

    Just because I hold C, it does not mean that anyone is obliged to agree with me so other people's actual obligation to agree with me or do as I wish is an irrelevant issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let me ask this question. The rights in P2, are they subjective rights or objective ones?
    While they can be held subjectively or objectively, I am holding them subjectively.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because I think the subjective part of that premise revolves around the government's obligation, not around the nature of the right itself. That is different than P1, where the nature of the right (its existence) is what is subjective.
    No. 1 can be subjectively held as well. If I personally hold that people have the right to life then it is a subjective position. And for the sake of argument, that is how I am holding it. Likewise the "world" where the Ps and the C are held are subjective, as in my head. And within that world (and as far as I know ANY world) the C follows the Ps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now really there are only two answers to the question above, in both cases the conclusion doesn't follow, but for different reasons.

    P2 has objective rights: Then the existence of a subjective right in P1 doesn't connect with P2 to form a conclusion. Nothing about the argument implies that the government should protect your personal subjective right.
    Then you are switching worlds and not showing a world where one holds BOTH premises.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P2 is subjective rights: Fine, then the conclusion doesn't follow because the belief that the government should protect a subjective right applies only to you.
    And that's because the "world" is me. In THAT (and all worlds where BOTH premises are held) C follows the Ps.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No it doesn't, it says that government should protect rights. Not that government should accept your position on what rights are.
    I don't see how that rebuts the fact that P2 DOES say that the government SHOULD act on my beliefs that rights should be protected (which logically includes enforcing this on people).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that isn't what you said. You said "I believe my thoughts SHOULD be applied to other people." The fact that the government should protect rights is no the same thing as "my opinion applies to others."
    But I didn't say "my opinion applies to others". I said "my opinions SHOULD be applied to others."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is no premise offered that connects your opinion on a right and the government's opinion on a right.
    And since C doesn't make that connection either, that's not a problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That X is a right. Nothing about P2 says the government should accept your opinion that X is a right or not a right.
    Yes it does. Saying the government should do something means that the government should do something. And P2 says the government should do something.

  14. #214
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right.

    P1 - People have the right to life
    P2 - The state SHOULD protect people's rights
    Therefore:
    C- Therefore there SHOULD be a law against murder.

    Just because I hold C, it does not mean that anyone is obliged to agree with me so other people's actual obligation to agree with me or do as I wish is an irrelevant issue.
    Unless you have a radically different view of what a law is than I do, you are proposing with that conclusion that you believe other's must be subjected to your beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    While they can be held subjectively or objectively, I am holding them subjectively.
    So the right the government must protect only applies to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No. 1 can be subjectively held as well. If I personally hold that people have the right to life then it is a subjective position.
    But in this case the right is objective right? That right applies to all people, everywhere regardless of their opinion on the matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Then you are switching worlds and not showing a world where one holds BOTH premises.
    This is untrue, in this world both premises are held subjectively as true. I am subjectively holding that the government should protect the rights that apply to all people. That is still a world where both premises are held as true and in that world the conclusion does not follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And that's because the "world" is me. In THAT (and all worlds where BOTH premises are held) C follows the Ps.
    Then by that logic the government is only you too. So who cares? You are free to propose a law that you personally pass and enforce on yourself, but that isn't what is being proposed elsewhere in this thread. Rather, what is being said is that your logical position is attempting to make an argument that you believe is true about the world around you.


    So we are left with the conclusion not following in both cases.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't see how that rebuts the fact that P2 DOES say that the government SHOULD act on my beliefs that rights should be protected (which logically includes enforcing this on people).
    No it doesn't.

    P2 is that the government should protect rights. Not that the government should act on your beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I didn't say "my opinion applies to others". I said "my opinions SHOULD be applied to others."
    Irrelevant distinction. The fact that the government should protect rights is not the same thing as "my opinions should be applied to others." Nowhere in either premise is the latter statement made or supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And since C doesn't make that connection either, that's not a problem.
    Again, you must have an odd definition of the word "law" here. Saying the government should have a law is to say that your opinion on rights should be made universal. That connection is unsupported by the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Yes it does. Saying the government should do something means that the government should do something. And P2 says the government should do something.
    Yes, it should. It should protect rights. But no where does that define that your opinion governs what those rights are.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #215
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Unless you have a radically different view of what a law is than I do, you are proposing with that conclusion that you believe other's must be subjected to your beliefs.
    No, I'm saying they SHOULD be subjected to my beliefs. I'm sorry but we seem to be going in circles and I don't want to keep repeating myself so let's nail some things down here. I am subjectively forwarding both Ps and the C. In ALL instances I'm saying "SHOULD" as in it is my desire that C happens. That in and of itself creates absolutely no obligation for anyone in the outside world to do as I want them to do.

    Now, for the time being I'm going to restrict the debate to my subjective perspective and not bother, for the time being, anything related to the outside world.

    Once it is concede that subjective C necessarily follows subjective P (or it's conceded by me that they don'f follow) THEN I will move on to application of these subjective notions to the objective world (such as influencing real people and actual laws and such).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is untrue, in this world both premises are held subjectively as true. I am subjectively holding that the government should protect the rights that apply to all people. That is still a world where both premises are held as true and in that world the conclusion does not follow.
    Why doesn't the conclusion follow?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Then by that logic the government is only you too. So who cares? You are free to propose a law that you personally pass and enforce on yourself, but that isn't what is being proposed elsewhere in this thread. Rather, what is being said is that your logical position is attempting to make an argument that you believe is true about the world around you.
    Once you concede that subjective C follows the subjective Ps, I will address this.

    If you won't concede at this point, then we need to focus on whether C follows the Ps. Even if you want to concede for the sake of argument (which allows you to challenge it later if you feel the need) that's fine as well. But I won't move on from this while it's still in contention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No it doesn't.

    P2 is that the government should protect rights. Not that the government should act on your beliefs.
    Isn't that just splitting hairs? When I subjectively hold P2 it means that it's my belief that the government should protect rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, you must have an odd definition of the word "law" here. Saying the government should have a law is to say that your opinion on rights should be made universal.
    Right. But it doesn't say the government has any actual obligation to heed my desire. It just says that I'd like the government to heed my desire.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, it should. It should protect rights. But no where does that define that your opinion governs what those rights are.
    The only relevant right to this issue is the right to life. And that is spelled out in P1.
    Last edited by mican333; April 23rd, 2013 at 10:17 AM.

  16. #216
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I'm saying they SHOULD be subjected to my beliefs.
    Yes, but subjectively forwarding an objective conclusion is still an objective conclusion.

    If your conclusion was likewise "The sky should be defined as blue" is still objective. You aren't saying that that opinion is related only to you, the word defined (like law) implies that you subjectively believe it should be an objective fact, ie the definition or the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Why doesn't the conclusion follow?
    Because there is nothing in the premise that connects my belief in that right with the government's definition of rights in P2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Isn't that just splitting hairs? When I subjectively hold P2 it means that it's my belief that the government should protect rights.
    Not at all, that is self-confirmation bias at play. Because I believe the government should protect rights does not mean I believe they should protect my particular belief of what that set entails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Right. But it doesn't say the government has any actual obligation to heed my desire. It just says that I'd like the government to heed my desire.
    I think you are confusing the conclusion again.

    The conclusion you seem to be discussing is "Therefore I prefer a world where X is law." Not, "The government should protect X with a law." The latter is a statement not about preference, but about moral obligation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The only relevant right to this issue is the right to life. And that is spelled out in P1.
    Not at all. P2's subjective nature revolves around whether the government has the obligation to protect things called rights. Your belief statement is about that aspect, not about how the set of things called rights is defined by the government. Really the way you should be writing P2 to conform to your statement is "I believe that government has an obligation to protect the set of things I define as rights."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #217
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, but subjectively forwarding an objective conclusion is still an objective conclusion.

    If your conclusion was likewise "The sky should be defined as blue" is still objective. You aren't saying that that opinion is related only to you, the word defined (like law) implies that you subjectively believe it should be an objective fact, ie the definition or the law.
    If its exists in reality, it's objective
    If it exists in my head, it's subjective.

    A law on the books is objective for it actually exists in the material world. My desire that a law exists creates nothing in the material world and therefore is subjective. The conclusion is a desire. It is subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because there is nothing in the premise that connects my belief in that right with the government's definition of rights in P2.
    Saying that the government should protect rights necessarily includes the notion that government should define rights as you say they are and protect them. And if you disagree then just assume that I extend P2 to describe exactly what I mean when I say "rights".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all, that is self-confirmation bias at play. Because I believe the government should protect rights does not mean I believe they should protect my particular belief of what that set entails.
    The only relevant right to this discussion is the right to life and P1 says it does exist. P2 says that P1 should be protected. And that necessitates C


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The conclusion you seem to be discussing is "Therefore I prefer a world where X is law." Not, "The government should protect X with a law." The latter is a statement not about preference, but about moral obligation.
    I'm saying "Therefore I would prefer a world where the government protects X with a law".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. P2's subjective nature revolves around whether the government has the obligation to protect things called rights. Your belief statement is about that aspect, not about how the set of things called rights is defined by the government. Really the way you should be writing P2 to conform to your statement is "I believe that government has an obligation to protect the set of things I define as rights."
    That's splitting hairs. I kind of assumed that you and I agreed on what rights are.
    Last edited by mican333; April 24th, 2013 at 10:45 AM.

  18. #218
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If its exists in reality, it's objective
    If it exists in my head, it's subjective.
    These are incorrect definitions.

    Objective claims exist independent of the individual arguing them. For example, if I were to say that X=3, that is an objective claim. It does not require my personal perception or opinion to be true or false. Subjective claims are relative to the person making them, "It is too hot in here." That is a subjective claim because its truth value is relative to who is making it. It is too hot in this room for me, it is not too hot in this room for the person who just turned on the heater. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#obje

    The fact that you are proposing a conclusion that should apply to all people makes it an objective conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Saying that the government should protect rights necessarily includes the notion that government should define rights as you say they are and protect them. And if you disagree then just assume that I extend P2 to describe exactly what I mean when I say "rights".
    You are incorrect that the premise "The government should protect human rights" includes the idea "The government should agree with my definition of rights."

    If you wish to include that, you need a separate premise and the support for that premise. P3: The government should accept my definition of rights as the definition for law making. That would be an objective premise that would allow for an objective conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The only relevant right to this discussion is the right to life and P1 says it does exist. P2 says that P1 should be protected. And that necessitates C
    No, that is why P2 says "rights" not "the right in P1." You are implying more meaning than is supported by the premise here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'm saying "Therefore I would prefer a world where the government protects X with a law".
    Ok, then that is a very different Conclusion than the one stated earlier. It is also not an objective conclusion, it is a subjective one since its truth value depends upon who is making the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That's splitting hairs. I kind of assumed that you and I agreed on what rights are.
    It isn't splitting hairs at all, we are talking about the fundamental nature of the premises involved and the meaning of the terms you have used. What you describe as the set of things defined as rights is different than what I define it as and different than what the government defines it as. You need a premise to connect those sets as equal. You do not have that in the stated premises.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #219
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    These are incorrect definitions.

    Objective claims exist independent of the individual arguing them. For example, if I were to say that X=3, that is an objective claim. It does not require my personal perception or opinion to be true or false. Subjective claims are relative to the person making them, "It is too hot in here." That is a subjective claim because its truth value is relative to who is making it. It is too hot in this room for me, it is not too hot in this room for the person who just turned on the heater. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#obje
    And both Ps and the C are relative to me so they are subjective.

    I am voicing my desire and beliefs.

    I personally hold that there is a right to life (P1)
    I desire that the government protect rights (P2)
    Therefore I desire that the government create laws against murder. (C)

    If I disappear both premises and the conclusion disappear with me so they do not exist independently of me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are incorrect that the premise "The government should protect human rights" includes the idea "The government should agree with my definition of rights."
    No I am not. When I say "rights" I do mean a certain definition of them and to disagree with my definition is to reject my premise. And to agree with my premise requires one to accept my definition. If I need to actually provide a definition of "rights" with in the premise, I will. So it says "the government should protect rights - rights being....".


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, that is why P2 says "rights" not "the right in P1." You are implying more meaning than is supported by the premise here.
    But that's irrelevant to whether P1 and P2 lead to C.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, then that is a very different Conclusion than the one stated earlier. It is also not an objective conclusion, it is a subjective one since its truth value depends upon who is making the argument.
    It is the same conclusion (just worded differently) and yes, it's subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It isn't splitting hairs at all, we are talking about the fundamental nature of the premises involved and the meaning of the terms you have used. What you describe as the set of things defined as rights is different than what I define it as and different than what the government defines it as.
    But we are talking about MY beliefs so MY definition is the only one that's relevant. Of course you can reject MY definition but then you are also rejecting MY premise and therefore you are not showing that ACCEPTING MY premises fail to lead to the conclusion.

  20. #220
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And both Ps and the C are relative to me so they are subjective....If I disappear both premises and the conclusion disappear with me so they do not exist independently of me.
    Your desire for laws is subjective, the fact that they would apply to others is not. The desire disappears, the nature of the law does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No I am not. When I say "rights" I do mean a certain definition of them and to disagree with my definition is to reject my premise. And to agree with my premise requires one to accept my definition. If I need to actually provide a definition of "rights" with in the premise, I will. So it says "the government should protect rights - rights being....".
    That "rights being..." is a separate, unstated premise. The category of "rights" can be different for different people. Since P2 only refers to the government and P1 is subjective there is no reason to believe those two views of the category are synonymous, unless you include a premise to make them so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But that's irrelevant to whether P1 and P2 lead to C.
    Of course it is relevant. If P1 and P2 are talking about two different sets of objects then the conclusion doesn't follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It is the same conclusion (just worded differently) and yes, it's subjective.
    Not at all. The original conclusion expressed a desire to establish a rule that applied to others, making it objective. This conclusion only expresses a preference for a rule and avoids the need to have an objective tie to the premises. There should be more ice cream is a different statement to I prefer ice cream right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But we are talking about MY beliefs so MY definition is the only one that's relevant. Of course you can reject MY definition but then you are also rejecting MY premise and therefore you are not showing that ACCEPTING MY premises fail to lead to the conclusion.
    And nothing in your premises says that if I accept that you are defining X as within the category of rights that the Government's definition of that category is the same. Nothing about saying "the government should protect human rights" implies or necessitates that they have to accept my particular view of human rights. You are getting confused by using a term for a set of things, "rights" twice, but in two different contexts. "Rights" in P1 refers to the set of things you are defining as human rights. "Rights" in P2 is referring to the set of things defined as rights to the Government. Unless you can equate the two sets with a premise then there is no reason to believe they are equal.

    Just as if I were to say, "P1: Polygamy is a human right."
    P2: Steve supports human rights.
    C: Therefore Steve supports polygamy.

    I could hold both premises subjectively (I believe both to be true), but that doesn't mean the conclusion follows, because Steve might well define rights differently than I do.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 05:11 AM
  2. Righteous Controversy
    By minorwork in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 19th, 2008, 10:55 AM
  3. Please solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 06:35 AM
  4. Solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 19th, 2006, 09:20 AM
  5. Which Branch Should Step In And Solve This Problem?
    By ophelia in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 8th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Members who have read this thread in the last 45 days : 1

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •