can logic be used to form ethical principles? (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

no, it cannot. logic is a process by which you can reach a conclusion based on whatever premises you start with; however, you cannot use logic to find these premises.

here is the example I gave in another thread:

causing people suffering is wrong
torture causes people to suffer
therefor torture is wrong

this syllogism requires you to accept the premise that causing people to suffer is wrong, and the premise that torture causes people to suffer. while the latter is universally agreed upon, the former is not, and there is no way to prove it because it is a premise. if any of the premises are false, then the entire argument is unsound.

if you already have some moral principles, you can use logic to derive more specific subprinciples, however you cannot use logic to form moral principles alone.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

No, it cannot. Moral principles are based on absolutes endowed in every human being by their Creator. Should check out the book The Absolutes by James Robison.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...f=sr_1_13/102-5847845-2260108?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[Iriemon]

no, it cannot. logic is a process by which you can reach a conclusion based on whatever premises you start with; however, you cannot use logic to find these premises.

here is the example I gave in another thread:

if you already have some moral principles, you can use logic to derive more specific subprinciples, however you cannot use logic to form moral principles alone.

Interesting proposition. I'll have to think on that. I think you can use logic to make principals based upon an generally agreed premise, for example, we should optimize the common good (or whatever else you want to start with) but that is probably what you are saying.

I guess the question is, can you deduce what the initial premise is from logic. It could not be done individually, because everyone has a different idea about what the premise should be, but it is done on a societal level perhaps.

 

[Iriemon]

No, it cannot. Moral principles are based on absolutes endowed in every human being by their Creator. Should check out the book The Absolutes by James Robison.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...f=sr_1_13/102-5847845-2260108?ie=UTF8&s=books

The problem is that those "absolutes" change over time. The Creator in the Bible approves slavery, and for centuries it was viewed as an absolute right; in the last couple hundred years that "absolute" has changed radically.

 

[FallingPianos]

I guess the question is, can you deduce what the initial premise is from logic. It could not be done individually, because everyone has a different idea about what the premise should be, but it is done on a societal level perhaps.

it would basically be a majority rules system... similar to what we have now.

 

[FallingPianos]

The problem is that those "absolutes" change over time. The Creator in the Bible approves slavery, and for centuries it was viewed as an absolute right; in the last couple hundred years that "absolute" has changed radically.

that doesnt necessarily mean that absolutes dont exist. only that for most of our history we have been wrong in our interpretation of them, or that we are wrong now.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

What verse states that God condones slavery? Absolutes don't vary, maybe the way we interpret them do.

 

[Morrow]

Yes it can, but the way both you and Rosalie mean it no. For conclusion to be an absolute the starting point would have to be a mathematical proof. As of yet I am aware of no mathematical proofs that relate to ethics, which are by nature subjective. There has been a confusing between absolute logic and informal logic in that debate.

In the beginning, you state that you cannot create a logical argument, and then proceed to basis of informal logic, being:
“logic is a process by which you can reach a conclusion based on whatever premises you start with”

If you start with the premise that a human may not take the life another you can create a logical framework based on that. That is informal logic, and is the most commonly used logic in western society.

I believe this post is a response to Rosalies instance that her moral views are logically base on not relavist. She is right and wrong, her views are logical, and they are relavist. Keep in mind logic can be subjective, we just reject that as valid in our society, but that isn't true everywhere.

 

[Rosalie]

It can. If you accept the premise that something that causes an overall negative state to be "wrong", and an overall positive state to be "right". "Right" and "Wrong" are derivable as so because they MEAN "positive" and "negative", so all you're doing is applying those states to humans.

That's what just about every moral system is originally founded on, it's the golden rule found in most religions, in most cultures. It's intrinstic to the way we think, then all the religious and relativist pap get plopped on top of it, making a big mess.

It's "fuzzy" logic, but it's still logic, and it's still constant.

 

[Iriemon]

it would basically be a majority rules system... similar to what we have now.

Isn't that fundamentaly, ultimately the basis of a society's rules and mores?

 

[Iriemon]

that doesnt necessarily mean that absolutes dont exist. only that for most of our history we have been wrong in our interpretation of them, or that we are wrong now.

Perhaps to clarify -- absolutes as we believe them to be change over time. If there are absolutes beyond what societies create them to be, then you'd have to state the source of the absolute, and how we can know what they are.

 

[Iriemon]

What verse states that God condones slavery? Absolutes don't vary, maybe the way we interpret them do.

No work may be done by your slave (in the 10 commandments) Exodus 20:10

Exodus 21. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as a male slave does. Exodus 21:7.

If a man purchases a girl as a slave, and takes another wife, he shall not withhold from the slave her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. Exodus 21:10.

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies, he shall be punished. If however, the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus: 21:20.

Slaves, male and female, you may indeed posses, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. Lev. 25:44. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children …. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.

Taking a female captive. Deu 22:10. If you like a female captive, you may take her and marry, but if you later lose your liking, give her freedom (but you can’t sell her).

 

[Rosalie]

No work may be done by your slave (in the 10 commandments) Exodus 20:10

Exodus 21. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as a male slave does. Exodus 21:7.

If a man purchases a girl as a slave, and takes another wife, he shall not withhold from the slave her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. Exodus 21:10.

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies, he shall be punished. If however, the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus: 21:20.

Slaves, male and female, you may indeed posses, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. Lev. 25:44. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children …. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.

Taking a female captive. Deu 22:10. If you like a female captive, you may take her and marry, but if you later lose your liking, give her freedom (but you can’t sell her).

Oh boy. Owned.

 

[Mach]

No work may be done by your slave (in the 10 commandments) Exodus 20:10

Exodus 21. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as a male slave does. Exodus 21:7.

If a man purchases a girl as a slave, and takes another wife, he shall not withhold from the slave her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. Exodus 21:10.

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies, he shall be punished. If however, the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus: 21:20.

Slaves, male and female, you may indeed posses, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. Lev. 25:44. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children …. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.

Taking a female captive. Deu 22:10. If you like a female captive, you may take her and marry, but if you later lose your liking, give her freedom (but you can’t sell her).

I can own people and beat them if we get into a a country, or change a country, into a strict fundementalist christian theocracy? Man, they should use that more as a marketing tool....

-Mach

 

[Iriemon]

I can own people and beat them if we get into a a country, or change a country, into a strict fundementalist christian theocracy? Man, they should use that more as a marketing tool....

-Mach

Maybe the Iraq war would be worthwhile after all if we can take a few million of them as slaves.

 

[Mach]

no, it cannot. logic is a process by which you can reach a conclusion based on whatever premises you start with; however, you cannot use logic to find these premises.

Star, but your statement here, does not necessarily support the subject. Logic can, with premises, be used to form ethical principles (by my reckoning, which is up for debate). I don't think we established the requirement for ethical principles to be premises? Like the constitution, in a way is a set of premises, and laws as needed can be derived from it...with logic as the primary tool for derivation? You agreed with this I see when I re-read. So the real question is then, now that you are a part of some government with agreed upon principles as stated by your government (the people), can ethics then be derived using logic? Further, does the nature of of the universe and our evidenced mortality, and the apparently hard-wired desires/fears in our brain count as objective premises that we can then use logic to derive ethics from? In this case, by existing and discussing ethics, we by definition would have such "premises", and would then naturally use logic to help derive ethical principles to live and interact by?

-Mach

 

[Mach]

Maybe the Iraq war would be worthwhile after all if we can take a few million of them as slaves.

That's what I'm talking about. WMDs..who cares...free slaves for everyone via christianity!!

 

[FallingPianos]

It can. If you accept the premise that something that causes an overall negative state to be "wrong", and an overall positive state to be "right". "Right" and "Wrong" are derivable as so because they MEAN "positive" and "negative", so all you're doing is applying those states to humans.

1st, one must agree that improving the overal state is the basis for morality. utilitarianism is far from the only ethics theory out there.

2nd, one must agree on what constitutes an improvement. is it what makes everyone happier overall? what gives everyone the most freedom overall?

it is far from constant.

That's what just about every moral system is originally founded on, it's the golden rule found in most religions, in most cultures. It's intrinstic to the way we think, then all the religious and relativist pap get plopped on top of it, making a big mess.

It's "fuzzy" logic, but it's still logic, and it's still constant.

the golden rule is useful, but it is not constant, because not everyone wants to be treated the same way.

 

[FallingPianos]

Isn't that fundamentaly, ultimately the basis of a society's rules and mores?

not necessarily. it depends on the distribution of power.

 

[FallingPianos]

Star, but your statement here, does not necessarily support the subject. Logic can, with premises, be used to form ethical principles (by my reckoning, which is up for debate). I don't think we established the requirement for ethical principles to be premises? Like the constitution, in a way is a set of premises, and laws as needed can be derived from it...with logic as the primary tool for derivation? You agreed with this I see when I re-read.

we are basically saying the same thing in different ways.

So the real question is then, now that you are a part of some government with agreed upon principles as stated by your government (the people), can ethics then be derived using logic?

the problem is that there are very few agreed upon principles. there are a few rights outlined in the constitution, but not even those are actually agreed upon.

Further, does the nature of of the universe and our evidenced mortality, and the apparently hard-wired desires/fears in our brain count as objective premises that we can then use logic to derive ethics from? In this case, by existing and discussing ethics, we by definition would have such "premises", and would then naturally use logic to help derive ethical principles to live and interact by?

there are no objective premises precisely because they come from our desires/fears which vary from individual to individual,

 

[Rosalie]

1st, one must agree that improving the overal state is the basis for morality. utilitarianism is far from the only ethics theory out there.

That doesn't make them right; as these principles are further derived from the logical assumption that no man is inherently more equal or ha a greater right
to life than another. Which is honestly the only way you can have societal stability, therefore it IS objective.
I don't see how you can make a moral code based on anything but that.

2nd, one must agree on what constitutes an improvement. is it what makes everyone happier overall? what gives everyone the most freedom overall?

Most people have an idea whether they are happy or not, even if they're not expressly sure exactly what is making them happy.

It is ridiculous to suggest that there is no real way of distincting a depressed individual from a very well-off one.

the golden rule is useful, but it is not constant, because not everyone wants to be treated the same way.

But what gives them that right?

Again, you are proving relativism working from the primise of, relativism. Relativists always make the mistake of assuming relativism as fact(ironically meaning relativism is an objective constant in their view, which shows the logical flimsiness of relativism to begin with). Just because someone has an opinion, doesn't make it equally valid. That is the whole premise of objectivism, really.

 

[FallingPianos]

That doesn't make them right

its not about whether they are right or wrong. its about whether or not logic is a useful tool for determaining whether they are right or wrong.

as these principles are further derived from the logical assumption that no man is inherently more equal or ha a greater right
to life than another.

you'll have to demonstrate that, I dont see the connection.

but even so, assumptions by nature are not logical. unless there is agreement on the premise that all people are equal and have equal rights, logic will be useless. which brings you back to where you started.

Which is honestly the only way you can have societal stability, therefore it IS objective.

no. whether or not something leads to societal stability is not the measure of its objectivity.

I don't see how you can make a moral code based on anything but that.

you can make it based on individual rights instead of overall happiness or societal stability. read up on libertarian philosophy, its pretty interesting though I disagree with much of it.

2nd, one must agree on what constitutes an improvement. is it what makes everyone happier overall? what gives everyone the most freedom overall?

Most people have an idea whether they are happy or not, even if they're not expressly sure exactly what is making them happy.

It is ridiculous to suggest that there is no real way of distincting a depressed individual from a very well-off one.

I didn't ask whether people can determain whether they are happy or not, I asked if making people happy ought to be the goal of a moral system, and stated that there must be agreement on the goal before logic can be used.

But what gives them that right?

I'm not following you here, the right to do what?

Again, you are proving relativism working from the primise of, relativism. Relativists always make the mistake of assuming relativism as fact(ironically meaning relativism is an objective constant in their view, which shows the logical flimsiness of relativism to begin with). Just because someone has an opinion, doesn't make it equally valid. That is the whole premise of objectivism, really.

I'm not claiming that all opinions and premises are equally valid. I am claiming that logic is not the proper tool for determaining whether a premise is valid.

 

[Mach]

Logic is used to form any coherent discussion, be it ethics, or what to eat for lunch. But I don't think we "really" disagree there (yes the subject contradicts that, but subjects have to be short, I know!)

the problem is that there are very few agreed upon principles. there are a few rights outlined in the constitution, but not even those are actually agreed upon.

I think there are a lot of agreed upon principles, as in 80%+ agreement. Things like, as much as possible we should be:

- we should be free to live
- we should be free to think
- we should be free to communicate ideas
- we should be free to act

I think the constitution one ups that, they just say life, liberty, pursuite of happiness. (free to live, free, free to pursue their own desires).

there are no objective premises precisely because they come from our desires/fears which vary from individual to individual,

I think you are denying the individuals ability to objectively observe their fears and desires. If the individual can do this, in a group, through communication, they can poll their objectively derived fears and desires and arrive at a rough outline for rules in their society. Even better, they might forsee that if they can stick as close as possible to a small list of core premises, then it may serve future generations who might differ on the details, but still agree with the root premises. I think any discussion that invovles the word "objective" or "subjective", is bound for trouble, that's just an observation

-Mach

 

[FallingPianos]

Logic is used to form any coherent discussion, be it ethics, or what to eat for lunch. But I don't think we "really" disagree there (yes the subject contradicts that, but subjects have to be short, I know!)



I think there are a lot of agreed upon principles, as in 80%+ agreement. Things like, as much as possible we should be:

- we should be free to live
- we should be free to think
- we should be free to communicate ideas
- we should be free to act

I think the constitution one ups that, they just say life, liberty, pursuite of happiness. (free to live, free, free to pursue their own desires).



I think you are denying the individuals ability to objectively observe their fears and desires. If the individual can do this, in a group, through communication, they can poll their objectively derived fears and desires and arrive at a rough outline for rules in their society. Even better, they might forsee that if they can stick as close as possible to a small list of core premises, then it may serve future generations who might differ on the details, but still agree with the root premises. I think any discussion that invovles the word "objective" or "subjective", is bound for trouble, that's just an observation

-Mach

I'm not trying to claim that logic is not useful in ethics, or that premises must be rational in order to be valid.

my claim is that if there is an objective morality, logic is not the proper tool for finding the moral premises which we can then base our actions on.

or

if there is no objective morality, in a discourse between two individuals, logic is absolutely useless unless the premises are agreed upon.

society at large can still use logic. the 20% who dont agree with the premises are simply ignored because they have no power. however, then it becomes a matter of power rather than a matter of truth.

 

[Rosalie]

star, I think the problem is you have a very black and white view of objectivism. Most people seem to, and then use the "Oh you think in black and white!" against objectivists.

Something doesn't have to be 100% to be constant. It just has to be constantly occuring to a notable degree. It's hard to explain. But it's a "fuzzy" constant as morals are "fuzzy" to begin with. "Fuzzy" doesn't mean relative, though. I don't understand how "Relative" is opposite to black and white. Why can't there be Objective shades of grey? And how are Relative opinions shade of grey; wouldn't that imply there is ultimately a lighter and a darker(more right or more wrong) state?