Time For Martial Law...

[Leonhard]

No Leonhard, I said that if not circular you would have to fall on one of the other horns... That answer will either be circular in nature or a mere assertion.

Munchhausen was a philosopher who argued that knowledge was impossible, even within mathematics. His trilemma however is still famous, mainly for the truisms it tells about arguments that they lead back either to a fallacy (circular reasoning), or to a premise or further justication.

To be honest I don't see what the problem is with that, or why you term it 'falling on a horn'. I disagree that premises are impossible to interrogate and are mere assertions. You might believe that, but I'm sorry seer, then you've given up entirely on reason or knowledge. If any truth that isn't circular, or justified by deductive arguments is a mere assertion, equally valid as all the others. Then there is no such thing as objective knowledge, or at least any kind of knowledge that can be proved. This at least was Munchhausens belief.

As for what specfic horn I "fall on" it would be both horns that aren't circular. Some knowledge is axiomatic (though how the mind arrives at the knowledge of axioms is an interesting question in its own right), other bits of knowledge come from experience and from the mind abstracting greater understanding from that experience, and those experiences go on so far back that no one can trace their origin, not even for themselves, and are in practice infinite.

Beyond that, I haven't argued that I can prove what I believe, merely that I can demonstrate it to be true and worthy of belief. A rational person could be using this moral philosophy consistently. I can give reasons of various types, and not merely deductive reasons either for holding the premises I believe in. If I can do that, and you should know of some of them if you did in fact read Ed Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics, then you'll know that such reasoning exists. It proceeds first from experience, as is typical with scholastic arguments.

So what is the problem? Regardless of whether or not you agree on me with regards to the metaphysics of final causes, or to human nature, what would you have against this moral philosophy? What is your objection? "It has premises in it" isn't a very strong objection.

[seer]

Munchhausen was a philosopher who argued that knowledge was impossible, even within mathematics. His trilemma however is still famous, mainly for the truisms it tells about arguments that they lead back either to a fallacy (circular reasoning), or to a premise or further justication.

To be honest I don't see what the problem is with that, or why you term it 'falling on a horn'. I disagree that premises are impossible to interrogate and are mere assertions. You might believe that, but I'm sorry seer, then you've given up entirely on reason or knowledge. If any truth that isn't circular, or justified by deductive arguments is a mere assertion, equally valid as all the others. Then there is no such thing as objective knowledge, or at least any kind of knowledge that can be proved. This at least was Munchhausens belief.

As for what specfic horn I "fall on" it would be both horns that aren't circular. Some knowledge is axiomatic (though how the mind arrives at the knowledge of axioms is an interesting question in its own right), other bits of knowledge come from experience and from the mind abstracting greater understanding from that experience, and those experiences go on so far back that no one can trace their origin, not even for themselves, and are in practice infinite.

Beyond that, I haven't argued that I can prove what I believe, merely that I can demonstrate it to be true and worthy of belief. A rational person could be using this moral philosophy consistently. I can give reasons of various types, and not merely deductive reasons either for holding the premises I believe in. If I can do that, and you should know of some of them if you did in fact read Ed Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics, then you'll know that such reasoning exists. It proceeds first from experience, as is typical with scholastic arguments.

So what is the problem? Regardless of whether or not you agree on me with regards to the metaphysics of final causes, or to human nature, what would you have against this moral philosophy? What is your objection? "It has premises in it" isn't a very strong objection.

So human survival being a moral good is an axiomatic truth?

[Leonhard]

So human survival being a moral good is an axiomatic truth?

[seer]

I didn't think you would answer it. As far as I know, no, observations are not axioms. Unless something is self-evident - wouldn't it be self-evident by observation? You know Leonhard my question is pretty straight forward, and I think you using this scholastic thing to muddy the waters.

[Leonhard]

I didn't think you would answer it.

As far as I know, no, observations are not axioms. Unless something is self-evident - wouldn't it be self-evident by observation? You know Leonhard my question is pretty straight forward, and I think you using this scholastic thing to muddy the waters.

Good, I just want to get you out of that deductive logic bubble, and see that humans have other ways of arriving at truth. Deductive logic is extremely useful but is also very limited. Most truth we arrive at is not arrived at through pure deductive logic. If the only thing you will accept are syllogisms then it would be impossible.

With that in mind, no the statement you gave in the previous post is not an axiomatic truth.

[JimL]

I think you're asking the wrong question, seer. Morality has to do with what people do, not with what happens to them. Morality has nothing to do with, it's neither right nor wrong of, an individual to die, to not survive. What's immoral is murder, is the taking of anothers life. I think you're confusing survival with being an aspect of morality itself. Morality, that which is right or wrong, lies with the actor, not with the victim. Human survval is neither right or wrong in and of itself, to live is neither right or wrong, to die is neither right or wrong. It's not immoral to die, it's not immoral to have been robbed, what's immoral is the act of taking ones life, what's immoral is the act of stealing ones property.

So, I think that to ask "is human survival a moral good", is asking the wrong question.

[seer]

Leonhard how about we do a real world exercise. Why is rape morally wrong? I say because, primarily, it violates the law of God - God says it is wrong. What do you say?

[seer]

I think you're asking the wrong question, seer. Morality has to do with what people do, not with what happens to them. Morality has nothing to do with, it's neither right nor wrong of, an individual to die, to not survive. What's immoral is murder, is the taking of anothers life. I think you're confusing survival with being an aspect of morality itself. Morality, that which is right or wrong, lies with the actor, not with the victim. Human survval is neither right or wrong in and of itself, to live is neither right or wrong, to die is neither right or wrong. It's not immoral to die, it's not immoral to have been robbed, what's immoral is the act of taking ones life, what's immoral is the act of stealing ones property.

So, I think that to ask "is human survival a moral good", is asking the wrong question.

Jim, this is about whether most moral questions are answered by circular reasoning or mere assertion.

[JimL]

Jim, this is about whether most moral questions are answered by circular reasoning or mere assertion.

Well your argument is one of circular reasoning, because your premise, i.e. that morals have an objective reality the source of which is god is in need of proof. The argument that morals are based on human reason is not circular, because morals are obviously based on reason whether they are objective realities or not. You are trying to prove an objective source, which you can not do, I'm only trying to prove that morals are based upon reason, which I think is obvious, whether they have objective reality or not.

[seer]

Well your argument is one of circular reasoning, because your premise, i.e. that morals have an objective reality the source of which is god is in need of proof. The argument that morals are based on human reason is not, because they are obviously based on reason whether they are objective realities or not. You are trying to prove an objective source, which you can not, I'm only trying to prove that morals are based upon reason, which I think is obvious, whether they have objective reality or not.

Then Jim tell me why rape is wrong with out ending up in a circular justification or a mere assertion.

[JimL]

Then Jim tell me why rape is wrong with out ending up in a circular justification or a mere assertion.

Because the rapist is violently causing harm to and stealing that which belongs to another. Not necessarily a violation of an objective existing law, but wrong based on reason such as is ascribed in the adage "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

[seer]

Because the rapist is violently causing harm to and stealing that which belongs to another. Not necessarily a violation of an objective existing law, but wrong based on reason such as is ascribed in the adage "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

But why is harm wrong? Especially if harming another brings one gain or pleasure?

[Cow Poke]

But why is harm wrong? Especially if harming another brings me gain or pleasure?

You can be a "nice" rapist - saying please and thank you, and being otherwise non-violent.

[JimL]

But why is harm wrong? Especially if harming another brings one gain or pleasure?

Why would it be wrong to you if you were the victim?

[seer]

Why would it be wrong to you if you were the victim?

Of course I would subjectively not want to be raped. Now what? Remember you need to make a non-circular argument for why that fact should prevent one from rapping another.