Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)
From: Craig Franck (craig.franck_at_verizon.net)
Date: 07/31/04
- Next message: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Previous message: Owen Jacobson: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Shobe: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:49:12 GMT
"Albert" wrote
> "Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "Albert" wrote
> > > Strawman. You still haven't grasped what I was saying. I am
> > > making a statement of fact, an assertion, a axiom. I am not
> > > talking about a belief. I am talking about the facts of
> > > human behaviour. Anyone who took his own life *for no good
> > > reason* is considered by all people, at all times and in all
> > > places to be irrational.
> >
> > It is your belief that this is the case. I don't agree.
>
> Then you don't agree with current science regarding what
> psychologists believe.
There is some science behind your statement. But "no good reason"
and "considered by all people, at all times" are two phrases you would
never find in a competent, peer-reviewed scientific formulation.
> > I get the impression that you
> > know almost nothing about analytical philosophy.
>
> I get the impression that you know nothing about psychology.
> I also get the impression that you are just a contentious
> juvenile who has learned a few buzzwords but consistently scores
> low on reading comprehension tests.
I don't think there is any reason to get nasty, particularly when you
apparently don't even know what a psychological defense mechanism
is.
> > > I have introduced no such fallacy. What you are saying is
> > > logically unnecessary. It is assumed and obvious that my
> > > statements are directed at rational and sane people.
> >
> > Who you believe would be reading your post is irrelevant. A
> > logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy.
>
> That cinches it. You are just an illiterate juvenile.
This is my problem: when you define a term with a particular like you
have done, you are committing a logical fallacy. Honest to God, swear
on my mother's grave.
So we have this exchange:
> > > > The question here is whether the concept of rationality
> > > > should include suicide for no reason.
> > >
> > > I say no. Anyone who did so would be irrational.
> >
> > By definition.
>
> Yes.
The correct answer is no. Not by definition. A rational or sane person has
adequate reality testing skills. Judging the mental state of others is such a
skill. Judging a person who commits suicide for no reason as rational
demonstrates a lack of reality testing skill; therefore, they are irrational or
insane. The logical fallacy is removed. We can now discuss whether in
fact this chain of reasoning is valid since the "by definition" is removed.
Don't say this is a strawman.
I don't know why I can't get this across to you. (You can commit a logical
fallacy and still be correct in your conclusion.)
> > You are not trying to demonstrate that this is a true belief?
>
> It is a fact of science. Science has already demonstrated it.
> Just as you are now demonstrating your illiteracy.
That the facts of science are provisional is one of the first things you
should learn about science. Hypotheses can never be completely proven.
> > So not only am I irrational for not believing this, I am insane
> > as well. Wow. And you claim this is a scientific fact? It
> > appears I am more deluded for not believing this then the
> > person who took their life!
>
> Following your logic, it is obviously not irrational to do so.
> So, what's stopping you?
I get enjoyment from life? Epicurus used this line of reasoning:
Life should be enjoyable. If you do not enjoy your life, you owe it to those
who do not to be a burden. So you should commit suicide. This would
ensure the world was only filled by those who enjoyed their existence;
a practical utopia.
> > Look, this is a reasonable statement to make: "You are mistaken
> > in your belief that an individual in a rational state of mind
> > would kill themselves without what they considered adequate
> > justification. In fact, for someone to do so, they would be
> > diagnosed by any competent physician using DSM IV standards as
> > having a mental health disorder. This is in keeping with the
> > common sense notion of what constitutes mental illness."
> >
> > I think we could both agree with that statement.
> Strawman, totally irrelevant to my point.
Dude, it's not a strawman. We disagree. I thought we could find some
statement to agree on. This is often how people conclude conversations.
I'm not misrepresenting anything because it's not a formulation of your
argument. It's an argument from me that you may or may not agree with.
I'll stop here and see if this made any headway.
-- Craig Franck craig.franck@verizon.net Cortland, NY
- Next message: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Previous message: Owen Jacobson: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Maybe in reply to: Martin Shobe: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
