Bridging the gap: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Bridging the gap » Bridging the gap

Bridging the gap
Is it possible to legitimately dissolve differences in values?

Page: 1 2 3

Bridging the gap

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/31/09 - 11:06 AM:	#11
Wosret wrote: Can you give an example of such a syllogism? Remember that its premises either must be uncontroversial or demonstrable themselves, and the inference can in no way rely on emotional or consequentialist appeals. Thanks. To shorten my explanation; to which syllogism you are inquiring?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/31/09 - 11:18 AM:	#12
James S Saint wrote: To shorten my explanation; to which syllogism you are inquiring? I thought that you said that it could be achieved through logic. What do you mean if not through logical argument?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:13 PM:	#13
Wosret wrote: I thought that you said that it could be achieved through logic. What do you mean if not through logical argument? Okay, I presume that by "it", you mean persuasion. Common today is the use of emotionalism (pathos) to persuade people, but that method has serious drawbacks and more often than not leads to erroneous thoughts. So to change the trend, it would be necessary to either use emotionalism in such a way as to authorize logical thought or to simply authorize it by direct ethos influence (be da boss). If for example, one were to have authority over a website and be capable of designing the forum architecture, one could simply proclaim that on his forum, logic is the rule in debate. Resolution debating is a procedure wherein the debaters seek resolution through logical analysis of each argument concerning any subject. A moderator acts as a logician in determining whether a rebuttal conforms to rules of logic but does not attempt to be concerned with truth value, merely logical form. In such a situation, each debater can no longer use emotional appeal, but must post only what is logically derived conclusion based on pre-agreed premises and definitions. Thus for any question raised and debated, a trail of logical argument leads to an undeniable conclusion assuming the premises are acceptable. If the premises are not acceptable to someone, then a new thread of debate opens. What is yielded from such an intrusion into the societal norm is that people begin to learn logic better, use logic more often, and believe what the logic yields. What anyone desires is based upon what they believe either consciously or subconsciously (emotionally). By significantly altering what is believed consciously, the subconcious becomes knowingly in error and eventually unsustainable in comiptetion with conscious thought. The subconscious begins to get exposed as it attempts what the conscious has already proclaimed to be in error. Eventually confidence in any emotional urge is reduced due to such exposure to the "light" (the vampire is disintegrated). The person becomes "disciplined". In addition and significant to the goal is that peer acceptance is a big portion of ethos authority. When everyone expects for a person to behave rationally, that person has a harder time not doing so. The website began a trend toward the expectation of logical (rational) behavior and thus innately enforces logic on an emotional level. The longer term result is that what is done, due to what is believed by the individual as well as the populous, overrides what was once desired. Desires and wants lose their hold on the individuals and the populous. Logic reigns, Ahdam is restored and sanity rules the land. All from a small website and a little authority to insist on logic being the guide and rule. Or in simple logical terms; 1) Logical thought is given authority to determine communication (the forum) 2) Desire is blocked from having authority in communication (the moderator) 3) Communication yields belief (the arguments) 4) Altered belief yields behavior modification (accuracy of thought over urges plus peer acceptance) 5) Behavior modification IS persuasion. 6) Thus, ethos authority given to logical communication yields persuasion.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 200

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:23 PM:	#14
I don't think one can exactly argue for any basic ethical position; after all I would say they are neccessarily subjective. But I don't think it's that great of a problem; most people in a given society will have the same general ideas about what is right and so on. With very few exceptions, we all value life, believe in the pursuit of happiness and whatnot. What ethical philosophy can do is to seek the most consistent, effective implementation of these values. And this can be argued - does the Categorical Imperative provide a better model of what we already hold is right, or does virtue ethics, and so on. But one can never argue that all should value life, or something similar.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:40 PM:	#15
James S Saint wrote: Okay, I presume that by "it", you mean persuasion. Yes, persuasion that doesn't involve consequences, or emotional appeals. What you present relies on decrees by fiat, and appeals to ethos, which both rely on values. If you rely on authority, then you assume that people value authority, or value posting on said forum, which merely exploits, and relies on the consequences one would not want to incur if they did not comply with the authority. Clearly ethos are all based on values and consequences as well.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:49 PM:	#16
To Mega Therion wrote: But one can never argue that all should value life, or something similar. But can we argue that someone should accept any value, at all?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:50 PM:	#17
Wosret wrote: Yes, persuasion that doesn't involve consequences, or emotional appeals. What you present relies on decrees by fiat, and appeals to ethos, which both rely on values. If you rely on authority, then you assume that people value authority, or value posting on said forum, which merely exploitsp, and relies on the consequences one would incur if they did not comply with the authority. Clearly ethos are all based on values and consequences as well. Then I have misunderstood your question. "Consequences" means "results of action". IF you are asking how one could be persuaded without revealing any results of the proposed change, then I would have to say that brute force is the only option available. People are persuaded by their perception of hope and/or threat. Those ARE the perceived consequences. If you are going to leave those out, then you are not persuading, but forcing. In the example above, I proposed that ethos force only be used to begin the trend. You have to actually DO something even if no one likes it. If they liked it to begin with, then you are not persuading or forcing, and you really aren't changing anything, but merely going along. So considering that you mean to remove all sign of hope and/or threat involved, then certainly you cannot merely persuade anything void of force.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 200

Posted 11/01/09 - 04:48 AM:	#18
Wosret wrote: But can we argue that someone should accept any value, at all? I take it you're asking if we can argue that people should have some set of values, regardless of the actual set? But I don't think we could do even that; a person without values would probably be... what? A robot? Dead? But even if the latter is true I don't think we could argue on that basis that someone should accept some set of values without implicitly assuming that life has a value. But, again, the question is mainly scholastic. Even the worst sociopaths usually value their own life at least (no, really, we do).

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:18 AM:	#19
To Mega Therion wrote: I take it you're asking if we can argue that people should have some set of values, regardless of the actual set? No, merely if there is a legitimate way to persuade someone to a specific value that they do not already hold -- if you held this value, and you wanted others to. What kind of legitimate venues of discourse are then open to you? If both you and me have diametrically different values, then what grounds do I have beyond emotional, and consequential to appeal to? The implication that I meant to give was that if we start appealing to emotions and consequence, then aren't we no longer giving arguments, and having intellectual discourse -- but rather have become emotive, play actors, attempting a convincing performance? But I don't think we could do even that; a person without values would probably be... what? A robot? Dead? They don't have to lack values, they merely have to have different values than the one(s) you're attempting to persuade them off. But even if the latter is true I don't think we could argue on that basis that someone should accept some set of values without implicitly assuming that life has a value. I don't understand how this makes sense? Why do you separate the value of life from the "set of values" you mention? Is this type of value somehow different than the other values that we hold?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 200

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:48 AM:	#20
Sorry, my ability to parse English sentences apparently died today, and I though you were asking a different question. As for your intended question, like I've said I don't think we can convince someone to accept a value they don't already hold by appealing to reason. After all, values have very little to do with reason; at least I can't think of any way to justify a value by reason that doesn't presuppose that the other side in the argument accepts at least some other value. The example with the value of life was meant the question I though you had asked, namely whether we could argue that a person has to have some values. The best I could come up with was that a person without values would literally have no reason to act, even in self preservation. But even that argument presupposed that the other side valued their life. I wasn't trying to give that particular value any special status. All in all, I think that the most we can do is point out if someone's system of values is inconsistent; for example if he values economic freedom and absolute economic equality at the same time. But all this can result in is that the person drops some of their prior values from their system; I don't think that we could influence which value the person drops, exactly; in my example the person can either become an economic libertarian or socialist. I hope that made more sense than my previous post.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.