To Punish or Not to Punish?
That is the question that was raised in another discussion topic. Let's explore that here...
|To Punish or Not to Punish?|
Concept of Equilibrium
Joined: Mar 29, 2012
Location: From the sky (above) and from the ground (below).
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 785
Posted Jun 14, 2012 - 11:00 AM:
As such, it would seem that morals and ethics are entirely subjective to the given social environment, and the normatives therein.
So is religion, but so is all fields of thinking and concepts. I'm sorry for offending ethical philosophy because in doing so also offends other fields of studies. I've wronged. Absolute objective logic doesn't entirely exist in humans because we are emotional beings. Not sure why I was chasing my own tail.
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 3885
Posted Jun 14, 2012 - 10:56 PM:
I don’t think many would appreciate to be asked to write ten pages of information just to show what their assertions are because it is assumed that the reader can figure out what these assertions are.
I know what your assertion are. I'm asking for the reasoning and justification for them. So far, you haven't provided any of this. If you think that it will take ten pages, then I wonder why think it might be self-evident to me in the first place - ten pages indicates some sort of complexity.
Where [do] you believe that I have stated that or implied that anything logical is about ethics I have no idea, and this leads us further and further into the wild.
I didn't, you did that. I said, "From all of your truths, anything can be considered ethical if it follows logical standards." You are putting words in my mouth and my statement isn't vice versa.
I have to officially admit here that I just cannot comprehend what it is that you are saying. I feel that (despite, honestly, lacking the words 'can be considered') that my statement is a pretty good summation of your statement, and definitely not the inverse, and I totally cannot figure out what reversal you could be speaking of and why it is that you think that my statement doesn't faithfully refer to yours.
Also, this thread is in the ethical section, so we assumed to be disregarding other types of logic that are in other fields.
You may have some unstated assumptions about the logic of ethics but that doesn't mean that they are universally or even generally accepted, and there is no way to know without you stating them. Nor do I know what type of logic from other fields you are referring to, and where you think these might have been referenced, nor how this relates back to any of your original statements.
You are asking me to do the impossible. I cannot logically prove that morality is entirely illogical if regarding to emotions is irrational and illogical because in doing so will have flaws of being non-logical.
You are saying that nothing can logically be proven to be invalid or shown to be illogical? I thought reductio ad absurdem was a well-accepted logical strategy.
To say one is evasive is saying that his or hers arguments are irrelevant or not following standards in some way.
It means that you didn't answer the question. I'm still stuck, for example, as to what statement of mine was considered an appeal to emotions and which emotions it was appealing to. You've said that premises that refer to emotions must be created using emotional reasoning, but haven't shown how it is that you determine that (maybe you just feel that?). When I question that, you suggested that a question of mine was an appeal to emotions, but you've not shown what emotion nor in what way it is appealing. When I asked about that you said that everyone here agreed that ethics was not entirely logical, but then didn't refer to anyone here to support that. That's what I mean about evasiveness - diverting the topic with addressing anything previous. It's not a matter of personal opinion about 'standards'.
(Either that, or I suppose that your claim that emotions are irrational is emotional reasoning and we should not be imagining that it has any logic to it at all.)
That’s more like my claim, but the claim seems petty now.
You've said that any logic referring to emotions must be irrational, but as such that renders your own statements on the topic irrational, which undermines the point. That's pretty fatal for an argument. I think that your initial assertion was false, but I'm not sure about 'petty'.
That’s ad hominem because the main purposes of this paragraph is attacking the person rather than trying to understand him or her.
I've certainly given direct responses to your posts outlining where I think they are successful or not, and asked you questions for clarification, and I certainly feel that that should indicate to you that I am seeking to understand your position (as well as getting you to review it). However, what I wrote in the last paragraph was directed directly at you as a person because it doesn't seem to me that you've been doing the same - you've been diverting and evasive rather than clarifying and direct. I don't feel it inappropriate to point that out to you.
Most of your conclusions in your posts are intending to attack my mind directly instead of the actual arguments
I hope you note that I have addressed the actual arguments and that I have made clear that I do not think that you have done the same. 'Attack your mind'? This is a very strange phrase to me, and as a few of your words seem either like malapropisms or related but incorrect word usages I am guessing that we either speak vastly different varieties of English or that English isn't your first language, in which case it is even more difficult to tell what is linguistic misunderstanding and what is conceptual disagreement.
It's impossible to logically prove that it's irrational to regard to emotions in ethical discussions if morality is entirely illogical and emotions are irrational!
If (bold mine) morality is illogical, then you've begged the question. If your claim is that emotions are irrational, that doesn't mean that they cannot have logical operations performed on them - again, that's conflating emotional reasoning with emotions themselves, which leads to a self-destructive statement.
|Recent Internal Replies|
|On Jun 14, 2012 - 9:19 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to BalanceofEquilibrium's I didn'....|
|On Jun 14, 2012 - 9:17 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to angslan's You've once agai....|
|On Jun 8, 2012 - 8:59 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to sheps's I've only just n....|