Since moral imperatives have no truth value — jancanc
Do you mean that these imperatives are instructions rather than statements? Like ''open the door''? — TheMadFool
For the purposes of argument let's say we have a moral principle that states:
1. One ought to always be honest and one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
there are 2 moral imperatives in this principle.
Since moral imperatives have no truth value, is it technically right to say that the principle is still contradictory? — jancanc
Your example does not contain imperatives, it contains two statements.
These are imperatives, and therefore cannot have truth values:
Always be honest.
Lie to protect the innocent.
These are statements, and therefore can have truth values:
One ought to always be honest.
One ought to lie to protect the innocent. — Herg
Well, you can't actually do both. — Wosret
Neither really is the Pinocchio one, as I don't believe that it is ever stated that it is impossible for his nose to grow unless he lies. All because every time he lies his nose grows, doesn't mean that it is impossible for his nose to grow at all otherwise. That's a hidden premise that is required. — Wosret
Both of those are problems with living your statements. Though I would solve the first with Bill and Ted's excellent adventure rules, where they could just magic events or objects to themselves at their whim, as long as they maintained that they would later use their time machine to make it happen, so that the consequences of their future facilitation were reaped right there in that moment. Plato could say "okay, fine" and let Socrates cross, and then throw him in the water ten years later on a whim, when and where he'll do it isn't actually qualified, or made mutually exclusive.
As I said, the Pinocchio one is sourced, and if you're just going to reinvent the rules as they suit you, then it isn't about Pinocchio, nor a dilemma that he could be said to find himself in. It becomes fan fiction at that point. — Wosret
Plato could maintain that statements that predict the future are indeterminate, or undecidable, like Schrodinger's cat stuff, and reject it entirely, as it can not at this time be determined to be true or false, and the rules require a true or false statement. — Wosret
1. One ought to always be honest and one ought to lie to protect the innocent.
there are 2 moral imperatives in this principle.
Since moral imperatives have no truth value, is it technically right to say that the principle is still contradictory?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.