Science vs Ethics
So I'm going to post this here rather than my blog because thus far my blog seems to not have a great readership and I would like to hear people's 2c on this.
I consider science to be the method by which an objective truth may be studied, and in essence I would say each time a scientific study is done that this hypothesis is being tested implicitly. On the other hand as ethics is a question not of what is but rather what should be I rather absent mindedly just put in the category of 'not scientific'.
At this point I feel it worth pointing out that I don't think science doesn't have a place in an area of study like ethics. But, like in politics, it would be an informing rather than deciding status. That is if you consider A, B, and C to be good science or logic could aid in telling you wether or not to take action C, but cannot tell you if A, B or C are in fact ethical.
In doing some more reading about the topic I discovered that the naturalistic fallacy was originally applied by Moore to the people who attempted to define 'good' in terms of natural properties such as 'pleasant', 'healthy', 'happy', etc.
Related to this was Hume's is-ought problem who said
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it
The other argument I've seen runs along the lines of "most people think reduction of suffering is a moral good therefore it is an objective moral", but this seems to be a argumentum ad populum.
I've particularly found the fact that there are atheists/humanists in skepticsm who think an ethical system can be objective interesting. Because it seems that they are falling into the trap where because science is amazingly successful at answering some questions it therefor must be able to answer all questions. A sort of scientific imperialism I guess.
So, thoughts anyone?
I'd put ethics in philosophy,
I'd put ethics in philosophy, but it's a part of philosophy that interacts with reality and therefore science and logic(coming from a health care perspective where applied science is the norm, but applied ethics frequently intersects with this particular aspect of science). Science does deal with objective truths, because it's based in observation but cognitive science, sociology and psychology is part of that as well even though those areas of science can be fuzzier and less objective because they are about what people think and do. I'd think when you are looking at knowledge (epistomology) you'd have to not only address is-ought but the theory of justification of which scepticism is a part of. The thing is that justified beliefs are preferable to beliefs alone, because the justified belief can be based in truths and on a objective reality, based on inductive evidential support or deductive inferences. More simply, the beliefs are inferred from external supporting premises. Metaethics looks at where ethical principles come from, normative ethics looks at arriving at moral standards and then there are applied ethics. This can be fuzzy and difficult to assess, but ethics can also depend on harder ground, such as more general normative principles. These are things such as the right of self-determination and the right to life. You can use those as "tests" for determining the morality of actions. So there, if you use the example of abortion, you can have an justified moral judgement on the matter that a woman has the right of self-determination and self-rule and therefore it's allowable to let her determine what happens to her body. When you go the other way, it's hard (if not impossible) to justify removing those rights simply on the basis of what might or might not be the contents of her uterus. Similar to stealing a car, you can rightly justify that it is wrong on the basis it violates another's property rights.
Good ethics involves giving good reasons to support taking one course of action over another. The "Golden Rule" is an good example of an normative principle: do unto others as you would want done unto you. That way using general principles you can develop principles against which you can judge actions, this is the type of reasoning we see embodied in such things as the UN declaration of human rights or the Nuremberg codess. This is all rather different to relative norms which tend to not be justification based and rely on duty or rule based conduct. So when you look at normative principles and try and apply them to reality and real people they involve complex decision making looking at personal benefit to the individual, social benefits, benevolence, pateralism, "do no harm" principles, honesty, lawfulness, autonomy, justice and human rights. Some of these are conditional and can be relativistic, others are not. So I do think science and logic can inform us of what action to take, can help us work out if those subsequent actions are ethical or not. Definitely not scientific imperialism either, it takes it beyond that and looks at science as a human endeavour and how it impacts us. How we "know" something, how do we choose the best action to take.
but ethics can also depend on
But my problem is that these are somewhat arbitrary. I don't see the reason that these are necessarily good other than because everybody thinks they are. Don't get me wrong, since IMO, there's no objective ethics using a democratic system to decide them isn't a bad thing, it simply seems to be relative.
Why should the right to life be lesser than the rights of self-determination and rule?
However there are situations in which it could be the right thing to do. Such as someone's been in an accident and it's the only way to get them to hospital? In which case it would be relative to the situation, and also depend upon whether or not saving the other peson in such a situation was more ethical than taking the car plus probably other considerations I've overlooked.
Yeah, like I said above I don't have a problem in a democracy deciding such a thing is right, but to go from there to saying it's a universal moral, such as it is, seems to be an argument by popularity. Actually in a way you've made my point quite nicely here (and in a couple of other places). What I am saying is that science and reasoning can take some thing you consider ethical and tell you whether or not further things are ethical, but it cannot make that initial judgement as to whether, for example, rights are ethical. Your 'general princapals' seem to just be what most people think to be right.
Here I definitely disagree. The rights that are included in most ethics I would argue definitely come down to duty to your fellow man or to yourself and in that light do become rule based conduct.
Which of those are not conditional? Words like benefit are thrown around but how does one decide what is beneficial? What about things that come at great personal cost for a great social benefit or vice versa?
But it seem that the informing capacity is based upon what you consider initially to be ethics or rights and that it can't make the initial value judgement for you.
But the question I want to know in this case is 'how do we know what's best'.
"But my problem is that these
"But my problem is that these are somewhat arbitrary. I don't see the reason that these are necessarily good other than because everybody thinks they are. Don't get me wrong, since IMO, there's no objective ethics using a democratic system to decide them isn't a bad thing, it simply seems to be relative."
I disagree, although you could make the argument that it's all relative. Science is relative to what is observed after all. There are more objective standards that apply to all people at all times. That doesn't make them arbitrary, what you'd say is arbitrary is the practices such as human sacrifice, infanticide, cannibalism, slavery, being anti-homosexual because the bible tells you so and so forth. They have all been done at one time or another by groups of people, relative to their norms it was/is "right" morally to do so. Doing it democratically is even more relativistic, because it would be about people making value judgements and majority vote winning. That may not produce the best result. Using standards such as people acquiring some set basic rights does work and means irrespective of gender, race or whatever other characteristic a person has they are all valued the as the same.
"Why should the right to life be lesser than the rights of self-determination and rule?"
Well, you've wandered into a hornets nest there. Whose rights? The woman's or that of a non-viable embryo or foetus. You might notice that at 24 weeks (the age of viability) the foetus does acquire some rights, like a birth or death certificate, but not before. Then they acquire full rights at birth, dependent on adjustment for maturity. That's because of the conflict of giving an non-viable embryo or foetus that can't exist separately from the mother rights that effectively trump her rights which she's acquired because she is an already alive person, because they've been given the rights of personhood as if they were already an existing person. You'd end up with a number of results, such as if the mother was suffering a potentially lethal pregnancy complication that can only be fixed by ending the pregnancy such as HELLP syndrome at 16 weeks she, an already living person would have her rights to life and self determination diminished even though there is no hope for survival of the foetus outside of her body. If the mother has a car accident and loses the pregnancy even a 4 weeks she'd up for manslaughter at least - even if she didn't even know she was pregnant. Every miscarriage even though the pregnancy was never viable (often due to genetic defects) would require the same actions as when a living person who'd already acquired those rights died. There's plenty more examples, as I said, this can be fuzzy but you've got to try and assess using something to base making those decisions on, in this case I'm looking at consequences of a relative moral judgement being put in place.
"Similar to stealing a car, you can rightly justify that it is wrong on the basis it violates another's property rights."
Again, it's that it can be fuzzy because different situations might mean that in that particular case, the ends justify the means. But I think in general most people would agree on property rights, and the right to not have those violated as a general principle, they've worked to acquire what they've got and gain those rights of possession so that if those are violated by someone stealing your car from your driveway just because they wanted to strip it for parts to sell there are actions you can take.
"Yeah, like I said above I don't have a problem in a democracy deciding such a thing is right, but to go from there to saying it's a universal moral, such as it is, seems to be an argument by popularity."
I think you have to careful here, for something to be fallacious it has to be used as a fallacy. True argument from popularity would involve something like anti-vaxxers stating many doctors agree with them or pointing to an internet opinion poll or petition for proof that many people agree with you. I'm actually talking about normative principles that cover people as a group, not arguing that many people have a particular belief. I already know that culturally, there are different norms. But just because millions of muslims might adhere to Sharia Law or the Koran doesn't make that right. Those normative principles and ethics are more practical and pragmatic than that, they are aimed at arriving at standards by which you can assess conduct.
Your 'general princapals' seem to just be what most people think to be right.
See above. It's not about what people think to be right, it's about a basic standard for treating all people. This seems to me to be getting quite similar to the religious argument against atheism that it gives you no reason to be moral or ethical in your dealings with people. That it's all conditional.I don't think it necessarily has to be.
"What I am saying is that science and reasoning can take some thing you consider ethical and tell you whether or not further things are ethical, but it cannot make that initial judgement as to whether, for example, rights are ethical."
My argument is that you can, that there is and are ways of using reason and logic to arrive at those first principles using proper justification, which means that the initial judgement is based on more than arbitrary ideas.
"The rights that are included in most ethics I would argue definitely come down to duty to your fellow man or to yourself and in that light do become rule based conduct."
True, in the sense that you have an obligation there to consider the effects on yourself and others. In the other sense of imposition of an relative principle which creates a specific duty or rule such as "you must always defer and be respectful to elders" not matter what it is a different sort of duty or rule. One imposed from without without reference to anything, much less the characteristic of that elder. What if he was physically abusive towards younger people? Looking at it in the obligation sense, your rights stop when they impinge on somebody else's, that means once they breach your bodily integrity you can assert your rights to protect yourself from that harm and do something like claim assault.
"Which of those are not conditional?"
Human rights, for a starter.
"Words like benefit are thrown around but how does one decide what is beneficial? What about things that come at great personal cost for a great social benefit or vice versa?"
I never said it was easy, but it is a lot easier if you can use some basic standards to reach a judgement on a more objective and justifiable basis. You can then judge the benefits (and drawbacks because those exist too) for the individual and balance them against the benefits or otherwise to society.
"But it seem that the informing capacity is based upon what you consider initially to be ethics or rights and that it can't make the initial value judgement for you."
I don't think so, I'm looking outside for justification not to pointing to just what I might consider as being right and how we should conduct ourselves and decide what is moral or ethical. That's the point of my argument, I'm not relying on me alone as the arbiter of all that is right. I've addressed how I think you can use basic principles to derive a justified initial judgement.
"But the question I want to know in this case is 'how do we know what's best'."
Well, you certainly don't just pull it out of your ass.
Science is relative to what
Agreed, and science as a method may exist in a vacuum without anything to apply it to, as happens in the formal sciences. But it's more than that, science is relative to what is observed which one can argue is factual, ethics would be relative to one's interpretation of a fact, and that is not under the same umbrella at all.
This is no more or less arbitrary to anything I've heard put under headings such as human rights. The only difference being the prevailing social norms that determine, to an extent, how those actions are interpreted (other possible determinants being psychology related), either at the time or in hindsight. In your quoted case I would say that the cause of those norms is the Bible, in many (but admittedly not all) cases people claim human rights as distinct from the above I would say arises out of emotivism
OK so let's compare it with say politics (which I do think to be an extremely similar situation - science informing but not determining and all that, additionally there is a scientific study of politics but that looks at how systems work, not which is the one true politics). There is no person or group that is objectively perfect for the job, rather who you want in will depend on what things are important to you. Democracy may not be perfect but since different people want different things (replace 'want' with 'think good' if you like) this will cater to the most people.
Not all abortions are due to embryos or foetuses being non-viable (I'm assuming you mean biologically).
So at some arbitrary age a collection of cells acquires a set of rights that you feel it should have, Gotcha.
So rights are assigned based on a 'who got there first' principal, do go on...
The consequences would that at the outset you would say 'I think these things are good, and my actions are based on these assumptions'.
Argument ad populum (not to mention various socialists and similar groups would disagree). Don't get me wrong. I would prefer you didn't steal what little crap I have, but I'm not going to say that property rights are necessarily a universal good, just a preference of mine. In fact it would in a way be directly counter to the philosophy behind open source (although that is more intellectual property rather than physical property).
However just because millions of people thing human rights are ethical doesn't make it so (also my internal voice says that as far as an ethical framework goes the Koran is probably inconsistent). Additionally your creating of normitive ethics or standards by which you assess others doesn't make them objective. To quote my fiance on this quote "my normative principles are better than yours".
So it's about these things, the causes of which are 'basic standards', that you've wantonly assumed to be good?
Uh relevance? Atheism doesn't give you any moral guidance, nor does science. That doesn't diminish either, just notes their limitations. The scientific study of politics doesn't tell you which one is the right one, it tells you what properties different systems will have. Finally in my opinion a scientific study of ethics wouldn't tell you which one is the right one, it would tell you what properties different systems had, be the point of research the initial assumptions, or the final outcome.
But that obligation comes either from myself, and will this be relative to what I think is right, or from society, and be relative to what the masses have determined is right via laws (or similar political structures).
why. are. these. good?
In which case 'good' can be measured relative to benefits to society and benefits to individual, but that still results in a relative ethical system. Relative to benefits to society and the individual and reletive to what you consider benefitial.
But that justified initial judgement occurs after you have used basic principles and interpreted certain things as being good.
Which as far as I can tell is what you are doing.
To quote what I said elsewhere on this topic: "Another concern I have [...] is that the moment humanists start saying that there is an objective ethical system and that they know what it is (or even some of what it is) it has become just another dogma and the only thing then separating it from any religion you care to name would be a mythic backdrop."
Finally, I have a story. ^_^
If I were to spell the word 'socks' to you as an English speaker you would hear me spell out the word socks. If you were a Spanish speaker you would potentially here me say in Spanish 'I'm OK, how are you?'. It is in this realm that arts tends to have its focus. The thesis of postmodernism is that there is no objective way to interpret facts (not that there is no objective truth as it is sometimes misapplied) and I see no reason that there should be. How you perceive the sound will depend entirely on your psychology, knowledge and background. On the other hand this doesn't change the objective fact of the shape of the sound waves that travel through the atmosphere, and that is where science focuses it's attention. Now it seems to me that ethics should fall squarely into the former category as the question is not what actions are but how they should be interpreted.
Hi - just dipping my toe in
Hi - just dipping my toe in here, but there does not seem to be much of a problem:
Science makes predictions about objective/physical outcomes resulting from any given physical starting point.
Ethics identifies which outcomes are better than others. "Better" is inherently subjective.
"Objective ethical system" - if there is such a thing would seem imply no more than a system where objective consequences are identified and weighted against a preferred benchmark outcome to determine "right" from "wrong" ... or am I missing something?
Cheers
Paul King
I'm not sure, and I might be
I'm not sure, and I might be missing something too. :P
What is seemingly being proposed by people such as Michelle is that there is a universal set of ethical truths (ie human rights I think in her case) which are true no matter who you are.
You will likely have seen the words normative ethics in the above conversation and that is addressing how one should behave. But What I'm trying to understand is why a few humanists I've encountered recently believe that their normative system is in fact a universally true system, rather than one relative to their upbringing, psychology, and so on. The wikipedia article on meta-ethics does a pretty good job at describing the differences.
Wow, that Wiki article
Wow, that Wiki article suggests that an awful lot of people have spent an awful lot of time proposing & categorising arguments.
I wonder if at least the "universal" proponents if not others might be operating from a flawed premise though - there is a sense in there that ethics can be *founded* on abstract logic (as opposed to being explored via logic), and that they can be somehow detached from the physical context they arose in.
I would think that to a very large extent things like our distictions for "right" and "wrong" are intrinsically artefacts of our evolution - those of our ancestors who did not develop empathy (and act accordingly) were simply less useful and successful overall in a cooperative tribal context, & so had fewer offspring.
I am sure there are individual survival strategies not involving empathy - with corresponding variations on "right" & "wrong" - but where cooperation has a survival advantage overall, I would imagine that these would not prevail statistically against cooperative populations.
Surely systems of ethics are founded on evolved survival tactic impulses? Where we have simply found advantage in extending these in logically consistent ways so to more rapidly predict courses of action that would cause the least instinctive distress overall?
We can certainly test one paradigm against another for internal logical consistency, but ultimately the utility and acceptance/rejection of any given system would be assessed on the level of instinctive distress it creates in the observer.
Conduct involving widespread mayhem & suffering invokes for most a empathetic sense of insecurity & distress - so while systems of rules that propose such behaviour can be equally logical and consistent, the much fuzzier/statistical logic of evolution dictates that they are not equally preferred by most people on the Bell curve.
Cheers
Paul King
ArchPrime, I agree that this
ArchPrime, I agree that this is results from an evolutionary drive. Alone humans are extremely vulnerable, in a group they are much stronger. This drives acting altruistically and using empathy, even though there might be some loss to the individual vs the group. It's social behaviour, we do things like reciprocate where two people might mutually work to aid each other. Obviously, it would go further and groups would then develop systems for how the group works and lives together.
"Agreed, and science as a method may exist in a vacuum without anything to apply it to, as happens in the formal sciences."
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Not even the scientific method. If that was the case, there'd be nothing to theorise about, nothing to use it on. It's based on earlier knowledge, other disciplines within science and so forth. It's not working in isolation, it's a set of techniques meant investigate and acquire new knowledge.
"But it's more than that, science is relative to what is observed which one can argue is factual, ethics would be relative to one's interpretation of a fact, and that is not under the same umbrella at all."
Facts are facts. What exactly happens to them once ethics come into the picture? You seem to be arguing that once you look at what might be the best course of action under the circumstances, the facts fall away and become "interpretation". Not so, say you are looking at whether to prescribe a particular medication to a person and that always does have ethics impact on it. Medications have benefits in treating disease, but it has to be determined whether that particular medication is correct for that person and they also have side-effects, some of which may be serious. You have to weigh up what is the most appropriate course of action, and to do this you have to rely on facts. The fact that a particular chemical compound can be used. The fact that in studies, participants would experience and report a range of side-effects. There's more but those facts themselves don't come up for interpretation, they simply are factored in during the decision making process. The ethics come in where you determine that the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks for that individual and give them the information so they can make an informed decision. There's more, but suffice to say withholding a treatment that will help a sick person arbitrarily and saying "take this pill" are not considered ethical in prescribing.
"This is no more or less arbitrary to anything I've heard put under headings such as human rights."
Explain why setting a basic standard of human rights as a standard by which everyone gets treated is arbitrary. They sit outside of what the prevailing social norm is in any given society, as I pointed out many societies over time have had social norms that seem very different to what prevails today, some still persist today. Perhaps it's time to turn it around and look at something like slavery. Ethics isn't about what the prevailing social standards or laws might be, it's about discovering general principles that guide how we deal with situations. Say you've got a moral principle such as when possible, the well being of humans should be be pursued. To achieve this you break down that principle into irreducible primaries such as:
- Every human has the right to liberty.
- Every human has the right to life.
- Each human has the right to his own property.
- When you breach another humans rights, you give up your own.
This isn't any different from something like a scientist using the Law of Parsimony to determine which, of a set of likely explanations is the best one (it's the one that doesn't insert unnecessary entities). You set the basic principle (which is logical and has justification) and the rest is derived from there. It doesn't treat any one object of consideration as being over another. The list of principles and their corollaries is objective in the sense this does not benefit any person or society more than any other. It's once you insert needs and wants in there as moral considerations that it collapses, because that's where you start with the needs or wants of one human outweighing the rights of another human. This then violates the basic principles.
"Not all abortions are due to embryos or foetuses being non-viable (I'm assuming you mean biologically)."
The pregnancy is up to 12 weeks, when most terminations occur and many for weeks after. I should explain non-viable in the sense I'm using it is as not being able to sustain life independently. Any later ones are done for severe anomalies, like genetic defects like Trisomy 18 (universally fatal), renal agenesis (universally fatal) etc. In some cases some of those defects are not necessarily totally incompatible with life, but will have a big impact on what life they have.
"So at some arbitrary age a collection of cells acquires a set of rights that you feel it should have, Gotcha."
Wrong. It's the age that the foetus, if born, can be reasonably expected to survive and be able to sustain life (cardiac and respiratory function) albeit with medical assistance. It's moved to the point where you can say there is more than just potential there, if born there would be a living human being that's acquired personhood. It used to be 28 weeks back in the 1990's so it reflects scientific advance and that is the objective part. It's objectively possible to have an outcome that includes survival at 24 weeks. FYI "a collection of cells" is incorrect terminology, those cells are human cells and organised into different types of tissues. The terminology of embryo, foetus etc is the accurate description of the developmental stage.
"So rights are assigned based on a 'who got there first' principal, do go on..."
Wrong again, as I stated the woman is an already living person who has acquired rights. She already exists. If she is pregnant that can only be considered potential life, you cannot determine whether it will become a living person just on the basis there is a fertilised ovum in the uterus. The natural rate of miscarriage alone is estimated to be 1 in 4 pregnancies, and that is not considering losses due to natural reasons later on. It's not who got there first, it's the rights of an already living person who has acquired certain rights vs attributing rights to something that only has that potential. This in effect means that just for the virtue of an biological event occurring her rights are diminished, because the value judgement there is that the potential life has value even though it can't exist independently of her. Who wins?
I'm starting to feel like there are some distortions going on here.
"The consequences would that at the outset you would say 'I think these things are good, and my actions are based on these assumptions'."
No, again I'm not talking about just making up what is good or not. I'm not even talking about relying on what I think and feel.
"Argument ad populum (not to mention various socialists and similar groups would disagree)."
Wrong again, go back and reread what I said about the fallacious argument having to be used as a fallacy before you launch into calling someone out for using one. You've inadvertently proved my argument that as a general principle it's preferable that someone can't walk in there and take your possessions, that you want to assert your property rights. It's the same for you as it is for me. You need to address the argument in any case, just saying "fallacy" doesn't address the point. In this case, you'd have to show in some way that my argument is false.
"However just because millions of people thing human rights are ethical doesn't make it so."
That isn't what was said and in any case what we are talking about as *being* ethical is simply derived from those basic principles and standards which set how people are treated from the start.
"So it's about these things, the causes of which are 'basic standards', that you've wantonly assumed to be good?"
Wantonly? You're really determined to think I've just made it all up to suit myself. It's not, I'm talking about it being derived from a set of principles. They exist outside of what I might think or believe. Those 'basic standards' are not causes of anything, they are just the base for principle based ethics. The thing there is that if any of those principles are shown to be unreasonable, they should change. Which human rights do you think unreasonable?
"Atheism doesn't give you any moral guidance, nor does science."
That was relevant because that seems to be the type of argument you are making. That there is nothing objective or that you can look to beyond yourself to build upon to derive ethics from, it's all just made up. The religious would argue without their set of imposed morals and ethics, you have none. That's not true, it makes you work out your own path, own way of dealing with people and own way of making decisions.
"Finally in my opinion a scientific study of ethics wouldn't tell you which one is the right one"
You do realise that ethics is a subject of study in it's own right?
"But that obligation comes either from myself, and will this be relative to what I think is right, or from society, and be relative to what the masses have determined is right via laws (or similar political structures)."
Just to be clear, when you are talking about yourself, you never, ever base this on anything at all outside of being relativistic? You never use any basic principles to derive anything to determine what your obligation might be? What the masses determine isn't always correct or necessarily right for given situation, what if what the law says wrong and is harmful? Laws sometimes have unintended effects after all.
"why. are. these. good?"
Relevance to what I said? We were discussing things that were not conditional. That means they are not good or bad, they are neutral. They apply to everyone.
"In which case 'good' can be measured relative to benefits to society and benefits to individual, but that still results in a relative ethical system."
Keep in mind what ethics actually is, seem to be determined to muddy the waters by going "everything is relative" except for science, parts of which you seem to be able to fence off somehow. You're talking about the end result, not the process which is what ethics seeks to address. At some point you do have to weigh up those benefits and drawbacks and you do have to assess them relative to each other, there is nothing in this process of determination that is "bad" of itself which is what you seem to be implying.
"But that justified initial judgement occurs after you have used basic principles and interpreted certain things as being good."
Really? Did you miss the bit about using justification, you've used something other than just you to derive that. It's not about interpreting certain things as being "good" or "bad" but why they are that way. It's rarely the case in reality that you have such a clear cut determination, this about using some reasoning and not just relying on an interpretation of the situation to determine what you ought to do.
"Which as far as I can tell is what you are doing."
Your argument is not helped by statements like that, it would be helped by actually engaging in a true debate. That involves constructing an argument. "Going it's all relative" is not really engaging with the points I've made and after two posts you have to call it quits.
"To quote what I said elsewhere on this topic: "Another concern I have [...] is that the moment humanists start saying that there is an objective ethical system and that they know what it is (or even some of what it is) it has become just another dogma and the only thing then separating it from any religion you care to name would be a mythic backdrop."
An objective ethical system would be to me what I'm talking about, it's not about the consequences or outcomes it's about using objective set of principles that can guide a person to what course of actions might eventually be taken and form there determine what ought to be done. It's a method you can use, which enables you to look at why something might be "good" or "bad", and then general principles can be used, along with reasoning and judgement to determine something more important - what is right.
"Finally, I have a story. ^_^"
And? I'm not sure what the point is. The actual perception of sound or colour is not psychology, knowledge or background, that comes later after the person has received the "message" and they decode it. If you perceive the colour red, a certain wavelength of light has triggered the rods and cones in your eye, if you perceive sound waves, filaments in your ear get stimulated. Science focuses on this area too. The interpretation comes later, in the case you've described there are linguistic and cultural differences that mean that particular set of sounds is interpreted differently by each person. I suppose you are trying to say it's all relative again, but in a wordier way. It's true in this case, but looking at it objectively, the initial conditions are the same for both - the same sound waves entered their ears. That's more what I'm getting at with my argument, the initial conditions from which the rest is derived. In fact, it could be your argument that is arguably postmodernistic, you are the one emphasising things like motivations and interpretations and arguing there is no objective principles you can use. Ethics isn't about what the prevailing social standards or laws might be, it's about discovering general principles that guide how we deal with situations as I said before. It is about thinking, actions, outcomes not just what an interpretation of what the situation might be. You can act with good intentions but have a bad outcome. If you rely on rules, you might lose sight of what the outcome might be, and you have to make more and more of them to cover every situation.
Short replies today. in the
Short replies today. in the middle of moving house and city.
Whoa, hold the phone. Are you saying ethics are both the result of an evolutionary drive and objectively true? Do you not see the potential disconnect here?
Just... no. You can theorise about a method by which knowledge may be gained from an objective set of facts without having anything to apply it to. I guess in a way I'm talking about the epistemology of science. Also the formal sciences really can exist in a vacuum. In the formal sciences you assume whatever the hell you like and derive some new things based on those assumptions. Some assumptions are more helpful than others but you certainly don't need anything to investigate.
Yes... but neither the facts or science make the judgement for you. They inform the decision making process.
Yes but these are things you think to be good, there's no objective reason as to why they should be.
Except that in science you are studying objective facts.
The way you've used science to inform your ethical system? That argument what I've been making you mean?
If by incorrect you mean inprecise. A named collection of differentiated human cells is still a collection of cells.
That will very much depend on how you define life, or possibly in this case human life.
Or a healthy dose of snark.
Yeah... you're a human with an upbringing in the western world and I'm a human with an upbringing in the western world. Is that we have ended up with a similar set of ethics really all that surprising?
You said "most people think..." and then proceded as if that meant it was an objective fact. You want to assume that it's one that's upto you but in that case how many people think it is entirely irrelevant. Maybe we get get a 'philosophers consensus' on this so we have some informed people. But having had a similar conversation with them I have a feeling they'd all be fence sitters. XD
Of course the culture you've been bought up in and that you're a human and with that comes a certain psychology will have played a part as well.
None, I merely don't think they're objective, at all.
Really? No wai!
S'right. There are things I think to be right and proper for me. Thus I guess the basic principals I use would probably come under emotivism I guess.
Or do you mean the set of ethics derived from that of the masses conflicts with the things that you think are ethical?
Then the law should be carefully looked to see what any changes would result in. Certainly there are laws that aren't good for all situations and there is, I think, a problem of lawyers and the like adhering to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. But that's a rant for another day.
*Blinks* Huh?? If it's neither good or bad then it's not ethical.
If you prefer I can just say it? There is nothing that is inherently bad. There are things I consider bad and there are things a lot of people consider bad, that doesn't necessarily make it so.
This reminded me of the indian breatharian guy in the news somewhat recently in that there is a group researching why he is able to survive on solely air and sunlight with seemingly no thought as to whether or not he actually is.
Good thing it's not part of my argument. More a response to something you said that didn't help your argument.
Firstly: I don't ever have to call it quits. :P
Secondly: Eh? I understand the argument your making, it's why I think you're wrong. Thus far you haven't really contributed anything that I don't think was covered by the original post. What I feel I'm having real issues with is getting you to understand why I think you are.
Finally: my argument is it's all relative and whenever you have make a claim I've said why I think that particular situation will be relative. How is that not a rebuttal exactly?
Colour me unsurprised.
Tell me: Do you think I see 'red' as the same colour you see it? Do you know that what I see as red you would see as green? Do you think I see it as a colour in the sense you mean the word when you use it?
Yeah... it's a pity that's not the area I was talking about.
The sound waves (read 'actions' if you like) are objective fact. The decoding and assigning of values (or 'ethics' in the rest of this conversation) are not.
But the interpretation is a crucial part, and everything else may be objective but it's that one little piece that makes it not so.
Aren't I the one arguing there are no rules?
Whoops?
Hi Michelle - I think you may be mixing me up with the wrong post? I did not make any of the comments you quote - but to address the overall sense of your reply:
The implied difference I am seeing between an "objective ethical system", and just an "ethical system" is the assumption that there are universal principles or benchmarks for right and wrong out there that would apply, no matter what the species, evolutionary imperatives, outlook, priorities or objectives of the observer.
It seems to me that only if it is indeed true that all observers intrinsically share the same underlying benchmarks for "right" behaviour - such as "minimisation of harm to others" (differences in interpretation of the facts in any particular context aside) that one might claim universality.
It would take only one observer with a different benchmark for rightness to dispel this universality notion however. A sociopath for example genuinely cannot feel empathy, and so cannot genuinely believe in the value of minimisation of harm to anyone but himself. They may behave superficially as required to conform with the consensus view of right behaviour where it suits their interests to do so, but their conceptual benchmark for "rightness" is genuinely different. Socio paths make up between 1-4% of the human population (http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html), so there are anything up to 280 million people living amongst us who genuinely can not agree that harming others is intrinsically bad on any level.
It is quite conceivable that other intelligent species out there (who are particularly fecund, for example) may genuinely find that maximisation of harm to others is appropriate and necessary and a requirement for goodness - where their evolutionary path has dictated survival of the species is optimised through very intense competition and aggression.
I think it is an objective fact that most humans at least have reasonably similar ethical benchmarks because statistically, most of our brains are wired in reasonably similar ways - so you could argue for a consensus based human ethical system, but I think that is about as far as you can go with the idea.
Cheers
Paul King
ArchPrime, just to clarify I
ArchPrime, just to clarify I responding to your remarks in the post immediately before mine, then the rest was quotes from the other poster. I had them in quotation marks and thought that would show the source and make it clear.
As for the rest, I think what's happening is that you are taking this as being in the individual context, and how an individual might be affected by a number of variables, like you example of a person being sociopathic. Fact is some species are vicious brutes.
What I'm talking about is ethics as I've defined it as a system, a way of deciding those things. There will always be exceptions to the case at individual levels, and many people wouldn't have a clue what ethics are full stop. You can get bogged down in that, but it's kind of like missing the forest for the trees. That individuals might not behave ethically in some situations doesn't mean that ethics when applied as a system can't come from an objective base, one that is outside of what any one individual might believe or do and that gives everyone the same status at the outset. It's a method of active inquiry, and we can seek ways of making ethical decisions derived from an objective principle basis and have justification for making them.
happyevilslosh - "Whoa, hold the phone. Are you saying ethics are both the result of an evolutionary drive and objectively true? Do you not see the potential disconnect here?"
Why am I not surprised that you manage to mangle even this. The disconnect is imaginary. I was clearly talking about the development of systems for how people interact. Where the drive for developing what we call now moral or ethical behaviour first came about. The ones that we examine now, under the subject matter of ethics. Surely you're not going to argue now that people haven't developed morals and ethics and systemised them?
As I said, I'm not getting into this further. Didn't find the first post particularly coherent, and it's deteriorated from there. A tip: if someone quotes you and responds to a point you've made you have to take into account the original statement you made. It's why they said what they said. You don't take something within the reply and then argue some other point. It shows you are not really reading what they are saying and taking into account, you can't debate on that basis. That's why I said distortions, or even arguably strawman arguments as you are not making a coherent argument when you launch off on a tangent and don't engage what was actually said.
Example:
I said: "You might notice that at 24 weeks (the age of viability) the foetus does acquire some rights, like a birth or death certificate, but not before. Then they acquire full rights at birth, dependent on adjustment for maturity. That's because of the conflict of giving an non-viable embryo or foetus that can't exist separately from the mother rights that effectively trump her rights which she's acquired because she is an already alive person, because they've been given the rights of personhood as if they were already an existing person.
You then say in the next post as a response: "So at some arbitrary age a collection of cells acquires a set of rights that you feel it should have, Gotcha."
I respond: "Wrong. It's the age that the foetus, if born, can be reasonably expected to survive and be able to sustain life (cardiac and respiratory function) albeit with medical assistance. It's moved to the point where you can say there is more than just potential there, if born there would be a living human being that's acquired personhood. It used to be 28 weeks back in the 1990's so it reflects scientific advance and that is the objective part. It's objectively possible to have an outcome that includes survival at 24 weeks."
You say in the next post as a response: "The way you've used science to inform your ethical system? That argument what I've been making you mean?"
You tell me what you are doing there, because the statements you made aren't related to your original statements at all, and isn't related to any of my responses. It's a complete distortion of what I've actually said. I actually addressed your points, you didn't.
Your definition of science is extremely narrow. Saying it can work in a vacuum is wrong. What you are talking about there is speculation, not science. Those assumptions are based on something. Even the most esoteric theoretical physics is always based on current and past knowledge, observation and experiment. The scientific method if you will. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time, it wouldn't be based in observable reality and seek to explain why certain phenomena occur. Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering information, and you've got the natural sciences and social sciences. The social sciences are empirical, the knowledge gained in studying human behaviour, psychology and societies is an observable phenomena and capable of being tested and validated. It's an objective truth (such that it is) that humans have developed morals and ethics, we can legitimately study those truths and that reality and philosophise about them too, I might add. There is also considerable interface between ethics as a philosophy and science as well, you can use those ethics to inform and derive methods for practising science in an ethical way, with regards to the subjects of that study or where science is applied to real life.
I mentioned science as a human endeavour, the fact is the scientific method are based on tools and ideas we've developed so true objectivity doesn't really exist. The objective truths we seek are all looked at by subjective means but you can look for the true objective characteristics of things. Objectivity is more a collective subjective viewpoint where things can be agreed to exist independent of any individual opinion or perspective.
When you are looking at ethics and being objective, you are talking about where the rightness or wrongness of any moral judgement does not depend on the beliefs or feelings of any one individual or group. A ethical proposition is analogous to propositions about physics, chemistry and biology or even history - they describe an objective, independent reality. When you can describe it accurately, it is true irrespective of any one else's beliefs, and when they fail to be accurate it's correspondingly false no matter what. You can do something with that, I've tried to describe it as best I can (and seemingly failed).
What's being argued here is an extreme relativistic viewpoint, everything, every proposition has to be relative to everything else. Obsessive about everything being "good" or "bad" even the most basic, primary propositions that are in fact neutral.
Why am I not surprised that
I find this so ironic that's no longer funny, as you will see if you read the next paragraph.
Fail! No, my problem was with believing both, not one or the other.
Now I'm probably going to get myself into knots trying to explain this but here goes: Take for example a cat. Now a cat is a fact in the sense it exists, however its particular form is due to its ancestry and environment, one might even say... relative! However the form of a cat isn't an objective fact other than the fact it exists, that is evolution isn't driving towards a cat form more than anything else, it simply drives organisms towards the 'peak' of some sort of topology. The idea that there may be out there some 'perfect cat' of which all other cats are forms of reminds me of an idea that dates back to Plato known as the theory of Forms. Hopefully I won't have to connect the dots as to how this relates to the question of ethics.
I'm sorry I didn't realise you were having trouble understanding, you could've asked for clarification at any time. As to my coherency everything I posted I ran past my fiance first to try make sure it read OK and said what I wanted it to say. Admittedly her background is far more based in arts than in science, but then maybe to my detriment she's more comfortable dealing with such philosophical subjects and thus had an easier time than you understanding what I was saying.
That was not unintentional on my part. I generally found your posts to have a high noise to signal ratio or to be repetitive and so would try to take what was a good trade off between brevity and summary and use that to lead in to my response.
Rest assured I've read every word you've written.
OK fine, here's a blow by blow:
Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No.
Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No.
Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No.
Arbitrary in the sense that you have to decide at what point to give rights. Is it conception? Is it the age at which it can survive on its own? Is it birth? Is it ever? Which of those options you take will depend on which other things you consider to be ethical or otherwise and what priority you assign to your ethics.
So, as I responded, you've used science to inform your ethical system. Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No.
Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No.
See above response.
Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No.
As for all the other conversations, well I'm sure you get the idea.
Yeah, I'm doing this outrageous thing where I am acknowledging its limitations.
Oh, I think I see where you are getting caught up. You're stuck thinking of science as a result rather than also questioning about it as a method. You asked whether I knew that ethics was a subject in it's own right, do you know the philosophy of science is an academic field? Science may not work in a vacuum, but you can theorise about how science might work in a vacuum.
Irrelevant. As I said the formal sciences don't have assumptions that are based on anything. Try answering the point like you ask me to do. If you happen to not know what the formal sciences are wiki has a page devoted to it.
You may wish to be wary of including the social sciences in that as some of them don't actually use the scientific method. The reason they are called sciences is due to the etymology of the word.
At least the ones that use the scientific method are.
You're confusing a few things here I think. In particular the difference between studying the "objective truth that humans have developed morals and ethics" vs the supposed objective truth of said system. That ethics have been subject to a certain amount of convergent evolution also isn't surprising as the populations with ethics that aid the population result in certain ethics surviving whereas others fall to the wayside.
Eh, also largely irrelevant. The ethics you use are relative to what you (or the body that signs your pay checks and makes the laws) have decided.
Again you muddy the water. If I take a rock and talk about it's volume, that volume remains the same whether or not there is any intelligence to observe it. The problem in comparing this with ethics is that you have to argue 'goodness', 'badness' and whatever else you may want to include exists outside of human (or otherwise intelligent) interpretation.
This is really an somewhat inappropriate metaphor. Although the propositions you make may be analogous it doesn't then follow that both may be answered by the same methods or that because one is objectively true therefore the other one is.
Again not true. Every ethical one does, sure. However not every proposition has to be qualified as good or bad. But if you can't/don't assign such a value it's not part of an ethical system (this is what I meant when I said if something is neither good nor bad it's not ethical, I realised later how badly worded this was). You say primary propositions are neutral but I really don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Take any of your primary propositions: you are saying that this is how things ought to be and if that's the case (either due to the proposition itself or its consequences) then you are qualifying it as good.
Hi Michelle, I don't think
Hi Michelle, I don't think anybody is denying that an ethical system can be universally *applied* such that all behaviour is measured against it but the objective fact that individuals might apply such a system universally doesn't make the system itself in any way universally or objectively based.
There is a world of difference between the application of a system and the underlying basis for the system.
An objectively based system of any kind is one that is founded on facts that are objectively true - these by definition would be true no matter what any given observer believes.
Everyone in the universe can disbelieve in gravity for example, but that would not change it's objective reality one iota, or the physical systems that depend on it.
Ethics are dependant on and logically extrapolated from founding preferences that we use to benchmark desirability or goodness. These initial benchmarks (like "pain is bad") have no physical manifestation or cause other than selection by an observer or "subject" - (hence "subjective") and while one my logically explore or study the implications of these founding assertions objectively, one cannot derive or measure the basis of them objectively.
Because the founding assumptions are beliefs rather than objective properties of the physical universe, and because not all concious entities believe the same things, any ethical system can only ever be based on the subjective preference of those proposing it - even if it represents the subjective values of a large number of concious entities.
And, again by definition, while more than one ethical opinion exists in the universe, no ethical system can be said to be universally held.
Carrying on the same vein I
Carrying on the same vein I see. It's not that I don't understand, I actually understand what you are saying (if I work hard to string it together) but I can't argue misrepresentations of my points based on ignoring the substantive portion of what I've written and focusing in taking part of it and then misrepresenting that (rinse, wash, repeat). It's just taking it further and further away from the original topic. You can't ever give me clarification for that, because you are not responding to the same thing I am, but something different.
It's like the tip, yes, you've done a fantastic job of hacking my demonstration of what you are doing apart and then bizarrely replying to it (again). Then at no point do you address the question I asked or that the responses you made were not related together. You haven't addressed what is there when you look at the statements and the responses, that they are not addressing the point, that they have nothing to do with what either of us said at the start. "Does this affect whether or not rights are relative? No." has nothing to do with those points I made and certainly nothing to do with the original reason why I made that particular comment.
"That was not unintentional on my part."
So it's deliberate and you are not just making a poor argument. You cannot dodge this by complaining about my posts or style or that you were using any kind of "trade off". You either address the points made by the other person and take into account why they've said it (*your words*) or you don't. It then becomes that you are using a straw man argument, because you're attacking either something I didn't say or a misrepresentation of what was said. I'd be ashamed to do this in any way intentionally to other people, especially in this forum. It's a shame, because the topic could have been a good discussion but you've set it up so that you are not following a single line of reasoning through the comments and responses. That's what I mean by a coherent argument BTW.
It's not rocket science to note that you've ignored my substantive point about rights in that example and where they apply in that situation and focused on the first sentence. Often that does mean that the other person didn't bother reading further, despite protestations otherwise. Not only do you misrepresent my points (that the foetus does acquire some legal rights after a certain age of gestation) but you say that this is arbitrary and based on what rights I feel it should have. Clearly this is not arbitrary or an emotive argument based on what I feel. Pointing to the law as it exists is not emotive. Pointing to the law being based on and following an objective scientific standard (expectation of survival) is not emotive. These are objective observable facts. The law exists, the science that supports it exists and do not rely at all on what I might personally think, feel or believe about the matter.
I've said the same thing about human rights, those ethical primaries or basic propositions. They exist and are codified and can be objectively verified and to be so, same as scientific propositions. They exist outside of what I think or feel, or even what you feel. I know you won't get it but they are neutral propositions, they don't assign different value judgements to different people so can result in "good" or "bad" outcomes. It simply does not benefit one person over another. Doubt if you'd get this now, like how you managed to conflate two sets of statements made discussing two different things and then come up with this "Fail! No, my problem was with believing both, not one or the other." despite my response reinforcing what my statement was in the original context. Then you've got cats and forms in there now? Of course I can talk about both, I wouldn't have a clue why you'd preclude also being able to discuss ethics as we understand it now and whether it can use objective principles that are independent of what an individual or society might believe or practise. That may well have the effect of them being "objectively true", that is, not the result of any subjective judgements made by any one person. "Objectively true" in science means the same, it's not the result of any subjective judgements made by any one person. A rock exists independent of the observer and so is objectively true. The failure there then is to ring-fence off science and say it can only ever happen there and you can never have objective truths or anything approaching that in any other circumstances. In fact I think you are even saying you can never be objective *at all* outside of science.
The strange thing here is the concept of science and the scientific method are something that humans have created and do and yet you can't seem to cope with the idea that other ideas and concepts humans have created and do can be the same, can be derived from an point that is objective and are not merely "interpretation" or subjective. At the start you say "I've particularly found the fact that there are atheists/humanists in skepticsm who think an ethical system can be objective interesting. Because it seems that they are falling into the trap where because science is amazingly successful at answering some questions it therefore must be able to answer all questions." and that can only be that way if you operate from a set assumption that science is the only context where you can be objective and that means it's science that's answering the question. But it's not that they are saying that science can answer those questions, it's that they are saying you can achieve objectivity in other areas such as ethics and then develop an ethical system from that objective viewpoint.
And please sort out what you are doing with logical fallacies. At the moment you've got argumentum ad populum set up so that if someone argues it like a anti-vaxxer pointing to many doctors they claim support them it then ends up that if the poor skeptic pipes up, calls them out and says most doctors actually support it, you'd have them as having committed a logical fallacy too. That's despite that unlike the anti-vaxxer their premise is supportable. They can in fact point out that most of those so-called doctors are not medical doctors, and even if they do they don't often have anything to do with children's health. That there are multiple medical societies, and doctors that support vaccination. It's the same with me saying in general, many people would agree with property rights, it could be argumentum ad populum but I'm not using it in a fallacious way. I can in fact point to the provable fact people own property, homes and cars and so on (evidence for this is rates rolls and so forth) and I can also prove that people do assert their property rights and call the police if they are breached as there are burglarly stats I can use for support. I've got a solid justification for that premise, I'm not just claiming it.
Does this affect whether or
It's good to see you realise this. The original question is whether or not rights/ethics are relative. Who is not really answering the question here?
Yes that's exactly what I meant.
I wasn't trying to dodge it. My comments were essentially peer reviewed and I generally found your replies to not be clear.
I'm not going to take points if I feel they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. And frankly it's not the first time you've done this. In another post you made you decided to back up your argument using anecdotes. You may have noted I didn't reply to those either. You're posting on a skeptical site, you should know better.
K seriously, read my responses. I've replied to this numerous times.
*Sigh* Not relevant to whether or not they are relative.
And there are other categories by which relative ethics exists that this does fall into.
No, but I'm not saying all relative ethics are emotivisms. In this case they would be culturally derived.
This doesn't make the law right, or exist outside of human interpretation. Making any decision that is informed by science doesn't make that decision objectively true. etc etc.
Just so you know repeating something again even after I've replied to it isn't suddenly going to make it true.
Objectively verified by what? I mean here again you completely miss the point. They are verified in the sense that you look at the results and qualify them as good or bad. The system is something you can look at objectively the results aren't
Again, not all relative ethics are emotivisms. Nice strawman.
Yeah but that sentence nicely summed up what preceded it. You completely misinterpreted what my problem was, constructed your own strawman of what you thought it might be then attacked that. Rather than doing the somewhat more rational thing and actually finding out what my problem was before attacking it.
OK srsly, read my replies. Take the example of cats and replace it with ethics, that answers the first bit. Secondly you can explore ethical systems scientifically but you can't determine which is better than another without starting with some ethical judgements.
You've got this round the wrong way, I'm saying that because a rock is an objective fact you can scientifically study it, not that because you can scientifically study a rock it is an objective fact.
Yeah in a way this is true, although again your implication is around the wrong way. Science is useful for determining facts about objective truths. And without science how do you determine what is true from what you want to be true?
Again inappropriate metaphor. Science is a way of gaining knowledge about objective facts, and can be shown to be successful. Because this one thing has that property doesn't mean that other things that people have come up with. And in fact I would even go so far as to say that if humans did come up with something that enabled knowledge about objective facts then that would be included in science.
As someone pithily once said 'if alternative medicine worked it would just be called medicine' I'm willing to say 'if a method of gaining objective knowledge about the universe existed it would be included in science'.
Yeah... I'm guessing you've never looked at epistemology right?
Somewhat irrelevant. Without a method that has been formulated to extract information from objectively true systems (such as science) even if a system is objectively true you may never be able to get that information out of it.
I think this is my favourite comment from you so far. If someone said that doctors say it's non-harmful therefore it is that would be a logical fallacy. You can say it's probably OK cos of scientific consensus and because you aren't someone who is an expert in the field you're choosing to trust the experts, but you can't unfallaciously use that as the reason it's OK.
Yeah so maybe concentrate on that rather than how many doctors believe it.
Edit: And actually the knowledge of the harm and things like herd immunity can inform whether or not it's a good decision to use them but cannot make it for you.
This doesn't suddenly make vaccination OK though. It's OK because the scientific studies have some knowledge of any harm it causes. The doctors have informed opinion as to why they think it's right.
Either you are saying because a lot of people agree with it it's right, which would be, or you're saying it's right regardless of that in which case it doesn't matter how many people think it. And again in the case of ethics this doesn't point to objectivity, it could just as easily lead to (and I hesitate to use an evolutionary psychology argument) a conclusion that some equivalent to property rights have lead to success in human population in the past thus that ethic has been selected for but for you to consider this an ethical truth you first have to consider success in the human population as a good thing.
Which premise are you arguing for though? That people utilise property rights as a way to get ahead in life, or that property rights are an objectively good thing to have.
ArchPrime - I might address
ArchPrime - I might address your points in a stand alone post.
I'm responding to this because you've posted in another thread a snarky comment. Don't.
"Yes that's exactly what I meant."
Fine. Derail the discussion you said you wanted opinions on, instead of providing a solid argument. Reminds me of all the times I've debated (using the term loosely here) creationists. You get this weirdness popping up all over the place like this "This doesn't suddenly make vaccination OK though. It's OK because the scientific studies have some knowledge of any harm it causes. The doctors have informed opinion as to why they think it's right." We were not discussing vaccination, I used it as an example to support a point. How you can't get that, I don't know but then as you say you are doing this deliberately so I suppose that has to suffice as an explanation.
LMAO at this:
"You either address the points made by the other person and take into account why they've said it (*your words*) or you don't."
"I'm not going to take points if I feel they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. And frankly it's not the first time you've done this. In another post you made you decided to back up your argument using anecdotes. You may have noted I didn't reply to those either. You're posting on a skeptical site, you should know better."
Here's what I actually posted:
Here's another couple of examples: A Saudi Arabian father forced his 10-year-old daughter to return to her 80-year-old husband Sunday, after she was found hiding at the home of her aunt for 10 days, Arab News reported. The young girl's husband, who denies he is 80 despite family claims, accused the aunt of violating the terms of his marriage, allowed by Sharia Law. "My marriage is not against Sharia. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he told a local newspaper. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,543060,00.html
"He married his first wife when she was 11. He forced his oldest daughter to marry last year when she was 12. His next daughter, age 7, is scheduled to wed next year."...."Experts on Islamic law say the Koran does teach that a girl can be married as soon as she can conceive..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/i...
Definition of "anecdote": a short, free-standing tale narrating a curious and biographical incident, often related to a topic.....An anecdote is always presented as based on a real incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, usually in an identifiable place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote
Great, you've got news articles defined as anecdotes now. If I said I knew a 13 year old that was sold into marriage to a much older man blah, blah, blah that's an anecdote. A news article is not. You can't just make up your own definitions of things.
Yes I know what you actually
Yeah... I know, and I was explaining in this example where the scientific method was informing ethical opinion and the links between scientific consensus and argumentum ad populum. The former being a case of the latter if you are arguing something is right because of scientific consensus (cf luminiferous ether).
Edit: Actually I wonder if in this case it's because you're making a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent with regards to the relation between scientific fact and scientific consensus.
As to your news reports yes I know what you actually posted. But the issue I was trying to get a handle on in that case was what the best course of action to get rid of FGM was and whether the AAPs new suggestions were worth considering, in which case the undeniably horrific stories are not really relevant. Maybe anecdote wasn't the best word and something like red herring would've been more appropriate.
Although TBH I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to call a news article an anecdote, even given your wikipedia linked definition. The difference is that it's an anecdote from an international news organisation instead of your next door neighbour.
I see. Still responding to
I see. Still responding to what you think is said, not what was said. That you've explained that it was what you were doing doesn't alter a thing, it has nothing to do with the point I was making and you can't have a rational, coherent discussion based on that.
I have no idea what you are talking about (again) this was in the "Draw Muhammad Day" day thread that you, yourself, linked too.
Specifically this point: "As usual, the governments in those places have difficulty is stamping child bride-squicking because they have to pander to the sensitive religious sensibilities of their constituents. Just raising the minimum age of a bride from zero to 17 or 18 is "un-Islamic". That seems to me good evidence that it's not just a few fundamentalist nut burs, but very many."
You can't possibly have bothered reading the post or the thread at all, let alone the articles I helpfully cut and pasted here to elucidate. One of the obvious conclusions that can be made from this is that it's a blatant ad hominem based in the hope that nobody would bother reading the post above or link you made and seeing for themselves. It's quite clear both the newspaper articles I pasted above involve young women being forced into marriage, not FGM or "undeniably horrific stories" related to that whether anecdotally or reported in the media.
I see. Still responding to
Well, other than attacking my form of argument rather than the argument itself, that was unclear. Are you referring to my saying
and
Cos if so you may wish to consider that in the second paragraph I'm saying I specifically don't tend to answer things that I feel are off topic. In particular if what the person said is irrelevant I can take it into account all I want but it doesn't mean there's anything within the discussion that I can reply to and, in general, I'm not interested in following tangents.
That was blancmange and I'm really not sure what the relevance is here...?
Because for someone to come to a different conclusion to you clearly the only option is that they aren't as bright or well read as you?
Yeah my bad on the FGM thing, I was thinking of a different conversation with a different crazy I think. Rereading the thread (rather than lazily trying to remember what it was talking about) I see that in fact it seems you were bring up horror stories to support your assertation that there are universal ethics and in that case I feel totally vindicated calling it anecdotal evidence. Returning to a point I've made so many times now if you want to assert that you think 'unnecessary harm' (or words to that affect) are 'bad' that's fine, go for your life I don't disagree. However that doesn't make it a universal ethical truth, just one that most (possibly all?) people would agree with, in particular the young brides in the anecdotes you linked.