Time For Martial Law...

[seer]

No that isn't Munchhausen trilemma's conclusion. The conclusion isn't that all logic is circular. That would be a ridiculous conclusion. The conclusion is that all deductive logic is based either on arguments that are based on other conclusions (regressive arguments), or are based on axioms (axiomatic arguments) or is circular logic.

Circular logic is always fallacious.

Axioms aren't dogmatic assertions. They're simply the basic points of deductive reasoning. However deductive reasoning isn't the only kind of reasoning we have. If we were only able to reason deductively we wouldn't be able to deduce much of anything useful at all and we would be nowhere. Deductive arguments however are a good tool for both exploring what presumptions exist in a conclusion, and what can be concluded from something, or whether a particular argument contains fallacies. That's why it is useful.

The kind of logic I proposed derives deductively from some axioms which are entirely reasonable to hold, and from that makes conclusions about morality. The question then is whether I have good reasons for holding these conclusions, but again, that isn't a circular argument. It would only be a circular argument if I used the conclusion to support the conclusion.

I asked you about Bahnsen and Van Till. Because they became very obsessed with something they called 'golden circular logic', though ironically their arguments aren't circular at all (some of their apologetics were). And since Van Till so insisted on 'circular logic' and Bahnsen being his disciple never said anything that contradicted Van Till, and both of them were highly influential, there's a lot of garbage floating around about circular logic being valid. Even though it in no way is inherent to the kind of argumentation that Van Till laid out, which is basically the transdendental argument for God.

Leonhard, you missed the point. But let's focus, present a moral truth that doesn't beg the question.

[Leonhard]

Leonhard, you missed the point. But let's focus, present a moral truth that doesn't beg the question.

No seer, you're the one missing the point. I've done so already. I've asked you to point out where I'm begging the question, so far you haven't done that. All you need to do is where in naturalistic morality I'm using a conclusion in order to support an answer. I haven't done that, ergo I'm not begging the question.

[Leonhard]

I've asked you about Bahnsen and Van Till, are they the ones you've been reading lately? It's a simple yes and no answer seer. I'm just curious where you've gotten this stuff about circular logic into your head, and I know that Van Till is infamous for that part.

[seer]

No seer, you're the one missing the point. I've done so already. I've asked you to point out where I'm begging the question, so far you haven't done that. All you need to do is where in naturalistic morality I'm using a conclusion in order to support an answer. I haven't done that, ergo I'm not begging the question.

Which post? I did not see a deductive argument. I mean you seem to be arguing for a moral system that is conducive to human survival - but why is human survival a moral good? If this is your main premise I don't see how you get there without begging the question.

I've asked you about Bahnsen and Van Till, are they the ones you've been reading lately? It's a simple yes and no answer seer. I'm just curious where you've gotten this stuff about circular logic into your head, and I know that Van Till is infamous for that part.

I haven't read them since the late 90s. Mostly I get this from debates I have been in. So can you restate your argument? Perhaps put it in a syllogism?

[Charles]

And you seem to think "A is wrong because God says it is wrong" would be better in some way while you still insist (in error as pointed out by Leonhard) that all reasoning on this erea must be circular. However, it seems you still do not understand that if you say something is circular, you are simply saying you have got absoulutely nothing at all apart from what you presuppose yourself. You might as well say: "I presuppose this, there is no reason at all for you to agree because all I have got is what I presuppose myself." And I know your answer is going to be "what have you got that is not circular?" which 1) has been answered 2) even if it had not it would not make the fact that you have got nothing any less of a problem.

[JimL]

Which post? I did not see a deductive argument. I mean you seem to be arguing for a moral system that is conducive to human survival - but why is human survival a moral good? If this is your main premise I don't see how you get there without begging the question.



I haven't read them since the late 90s. Mostly I get this from debates I have been in. So can you restate your argument? Perhaps put it in a syllogism?

Seer, do you think that morals, no matter what the source, are based on reason, or do you believe they are just arbitrary laws with no ultimate purpose behind them?

[seer]

Seer, do you think that morals, no matter what the source, are based on reason, or do you believe they are just arbitrary laws with no ultimate purpose behind them?

Jim, that is not what we are discussing, but whether any moral argument ends up begging the question.

[Charles]

Jim, that is not what we are discussing, but whether any moral argument ends up begging the question.

If you want to talk beyond the level of just believing what you yourself presuppose (thus admitting you do so with no reason at all) it is an important question.

[JimL]

Jim, that is not what we are discussing, but whether any moral argument ends up begging the question.

Well, of course, it's an argument that can't be proven. That morals have any existence in and of themselves is begging the question.

[Leonhard]

Which post? I did not see a deductive argument.

Deductive arguments are not the be all, end all of rational argumentations. They are one tool in a big array of means that we come to know truth. In fact deductive arguments are be nature extremely limited in what you can conclude from them. It takes more logic, for instance, than deductive logic to derive math. Deductive logic is a tool in doing that, but it is not the only one employed.

Beyond deductive reasoning, analytical reasoning (math - going beyond deductive logic but equally certain), you have inductive reasoning (reasoning about future expectations based on past ones), abductive reasoning (reasoning to simplest/best explanation based on an insufficient data set), transdental argumentation (arguments based on what is needed in order even to be able to have an argument), abstracting from the concrete (basically trying to figure out what something is based on having many examples of it), empirical observations (observing things), deconstructive (understanding way your own perception of something affects the way you understand something).

And that's a short list. All of those are the kinds of reasonings we humans can employ.

I mean you seem to be arguing for a moral system that is conducive to human survival - but why is human survival a moral good? If this is your main premise I don't see how you get there without begging the question.

This is a closer analogy. It still isn't the kind of moral philosophy I support. Human flourishing for instance is a bit vague, so depending on what is meant by human flourishing by you I'd agree or disagree. But lets say we were in agreement about human flourishing. That this is the natural state that human nature aim towards. What is circular about that point? It is closer to being axiomatic, but it is not a postulate that is given without reasons. If you wanna continue down the line of 'why do you believe this' -> 'why do you believe that' -> 'why do you believe that x 2' etc... you'd get down to pretty much basic atomic beliefs like 'my faculties are reasonably reliable', 'the world exists', etc... Beliefs that cannot be broken down any further, and cannot be derived.

I'm not a foundationalist though. I just approach things based on empirical observation: We see humans wanting to flourish, i.e we have certain ends: survival, procreation, truth, and we seek those. In the kind of virtue based moral philosophy I support, the ought isn't really the problem because as a scholastic I consider final causes real. We begin with the oughts we already perceive human to have, and then from that we derive the kinds of virtues (means of acting) that correspond to those ends. Basically the whole 'ought/is' problem only arises when do you away with final causes.

It is completely empirical in its approach. I think the only thing used that is the sticking point are final causes, but even there scholastic philosophers have plenty of ways to argue for them.

I haven't read them since the late 90s. Mostly I get this from debates I have been in. So can you restate your argument? Perhaps put it in a syllogism?

I was just curious, it wouldn't have changed my arguments, except perhaps how I angled them.

[seer]

This is a closer analogy. It still isn't the kind of moral philosophy I support. Human flourishing for instance is a bit vague, so depending on what is meant by human flourishing by you I'd agree or disagree. But lets say we were in agreement about human flourishing. That this is the natural state that human nature aim towards. What is circular about that point? It is closer to being axiomatic, but it is not a postulate that is given without reasons. If you wanna continue down the line of 'why do you believe this' -> 'why do you believe that' -> 'why do you believe that x 2' etc... you'd get down to pretty much basic atomic beliefs like 'my faculties are reasonably reliable', 'the world exists', etc... Beliefs that cannot be broken down any further, and cannot be derived.

I'm not a foundationalist though. I just approach things based on empirical observation: We see humans wanting to flourish, i.e we have certain ends: survival, procreation, truth, and we seek those. In the kind of virtue based moral philosophy I support, the ought isn't really the problem because as a scholastic I consider final causes real. We begin with the oughts we already perceive human to have, and then from that we derive the kinds of virtues (means of acting) that correspond to those ends. Basically the whole 'ought/is' problem only arises when do you away with final causes.

Leonhard, I not asking you for an infinite regression of explanations. I asked one simple question: why is human survival a moral good. Everything you said above begins with the premise that human survival or flourishing is a good whether that premise is stated or not. And that is where the circularity comes in. This question is independent of what humans may or may not subjectively want.

[Leonhard]

Leonhard, I not asking you for an infinite regression of explanations. I asked one simple question: why is human survival a moral good. Everything you said above begins with the premise that human survival or flourishing is a good whether that premise is stated or not. And that is where the circularity comes in. This question is independent of what humans may or may not subjectively want.

[seer]

Leonhard that does not answer the question. What humans subjectively want is not the point or what constitutes human nature. If you can not show that human survival or flourishing is a moral good then you are just using an arbitrary starting point to avoid the question.

[Charles]

I was reminded of this rather old post when I read the latest posts:

The actual consequences if there is no moral realityNo one decides
A misunderstanding of subjectivity

[JimL]

Leonhard that does not answer the question. What humans subjectively want is not the point or what constitutes human nature. If you can not show that human survival or flourishing is a moral good then you are just using an arbitrary starting point to avoid the question.

To human beings, their survival is "a good" whether you call it a moral good or not.