Here's where he lost me. He said that--in the minds of the terrorists, they saw their actions as logical. He said that based on their beliefs, logic to the terrorists was different than everyone elses logic.
I disagreed and even looked the word "logic" up in the dictionary. According to the definition, it said 'logic--the science not of belief, but the science of proof and evidence.'
So I read the definition out loud to him, then I said, "Well, if we look at the natural process of life, we are born--we live--we die (naturally-not including murder/suicide/abortion). So it would make sense to draw the conclusion that--logically speaking--everyone has the right to live. So what the terrorists did was completely illogical."
My question though is...am I correct in my definition of logic? Did my explanation make sense? Am I way off base? Did I even hit the mark?
[My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:I tried to work on creating an ethical system based on pure logic, but let's say it failed miserably, since doing so would actually allow something to be both right and wrong at the same time, according to the same theory. I think it's kinda poetic that a logic-based ethics criterion would end up being illogical.
I'm not sure the logic on either side is that different apart from one glaring difference consequence & that is 3,000 died as a consequence of Bin Laden's 911 action & 25,000 Iraqi's & 1,900 US soldiers have died as a consequence of Bush's actions.StillPhil said:I got into a discussion with my Dad last night. I'll try to sum this up as best I can.
We were talking about Terror attacks. My Dad said that we have to see things from the terrorists point of view in order to understand why they would do something like this. Our example was 9-11.
I agreed with him on that count.
robin said:I'm not sure the logic on either side is that different apart from one glaring difference consequence & that is 3,000 died as a consequence of Bin Laden's 911 action & 25,000 Iraqi's & 1,900 US soldiers have died as a consequence of Bush's actions.
What has party politics got to do with this ?DivineComedy said:Robin, UNICEF blamed 500,000 deaths on your boy, but their moral cowardice wouldn’t let them say it, and then your boy claimed one million deaths, and those deaths are a direct consequence of your boy’s actions, which is all before the February 23, 1998 fatwa. The only problem is that you are as blind as our boy was at the time.
“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}
Take that logic and choke on it.
robin said:What has party politics got to do with this ?
Is 'my boy' supposed to be Clinton ?
Why's he 'my boy' ?
I think there are some questions to be asked of your logic.. or lack of it !
Clinton is my boy, "UK," and since you blame everyone but Saddam I just thought you were related.robin said:What me... Clinton's father :lol:
StillPhil said:My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?
I'd really appreciate a scientific response.
Thanks.
PHil
StillPhil said:I got into a discussion with my Dad last night. I'll try to sum this up as best I can.
We were talking about Terror attacks. My Dad said that we have to see things from the terrorists point of view in order to understand why they would do something like this. Our example was 9-11.
I agreed with him on that count.
Here's where he lost me. He said that--in the minds of the terrorists, they saw their actions as logical. He said that based on their beliefs, logic to the terrorists was different than everyone elses logic.
I disagreed and even looked the word "logic" up in the dictionary. According to the definition, it said 'logic--the science not of belief, but the science of proof and evidence.'
So I read the definition out loud to him, then I said, "Well, if we look at the natural process of life, we are born--we live--we die (naturally-not including murder/suicide/abortion). So it would make sense to draw the conclusion that--logically speaking--everyone has the right to live. So what the terrorists did was completely illogical."
My assertion has nothing to do with abortion issues, so please don't comment if you're only going to spout your rightousness on that issue.
My question though is...am I correct in my definition of logic? Did my explanation make sense? Am I way off base? Did I even hit the mark?
My Dad said that logic is subjective. I disagreed and said that the way I always understood logic was it was totally objective, not subjective. If you are relying of proof and evidence, then how can you draw a conclusion other than what I came up with?
I'd really appreciate a scientific response.
Thanks.
PHil
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?