Mister @tim wood, I have the utmost degree of respect towards you. It is an awesome feat to procure such a vast quantity of dissenters, while conserving the basic sense of your meaning. I say, keep it up.

It is an awesome feat to procure such a vast quantity of dissenters, while conserving the basic sense of your meaning. — Merkwurdichliebe

Is it? To what alternative weakness do you suppose most lesser mortals succumb? Losing the basic sense of their meaning in the face of dissent? Are you suggesting that most people no longer know quite what they mean when a large number of people disagree with them?

And this is a weakness? To be confronted by a large number of people all arguing against your position but to maintain it nonetheless, is a strength for you is it? Surely that depends entirely on the quality of the position. In which case you're saying little more than "I agree with you". If were to doggedly insist that the earth were flat in the face of the entire scientific community dissenting, would that be admirable?

Are you suggesting that most people no longer know quite what they mean when a large number of people disagree with them? — Isaac

Yes! Indeed, to the fullest.

And this is a weakness? To be confronted by a large number of people all arguing against your position but to maintain it nonetheless, is a strength for you is it? — Isaac

Actually it is a power, but yes.

If were to doggedly insist that the earth were flat in the face of the entire scientific community dissenting, would that be admirable? — Isaac

Absolutely. There is no measure by which I can judge your subjectivity. It is yours. But I, as "I", decide what is deserving of respect, or not. Please challenge me.

To what alternative weakness do you suppose most lesser mortals succumb? — Isaac

They succumb to the weakness of stupidity, qua. gullible. I think @Tim wood is making a great point, in a most ironic manner. Call it a paradoxical statement.

Are you suggesting that most people no longer know quite what they mean when a large number of people disagree with them? — Isaac

What is the criterion which justifies a unified concept???

I think Tim wood is making a great point — Merkwurdichliebe

...would have been a much quicker way to have this conversation.

everything must proceed as necessary, no?

No one here has dismissed Tim's argument out of hand. I disagree with Tim's argument because it's just a semantic confusion. It's counterproductive. It's more problematic to commit to the seemingly contradictory position of accepting that the law can be justifiably and acceptably broken, as in for example the case of Nelson Mandela, which Tim has strongly indicated his approval of, yet it's nevertheless immoral do so, as it is in every case according to him, than to reject that nonsense and opt instead for the more sensible position which most of the rest of us have taken, which is that the morality of breaking the law should be judged on a case by case basis, and that some of those cases are justified and morally acceptable, and therefore not immoral.

Yes, your ultra-conservatism is duly noted. It doesn't constitute an argument. — Isaac

I've said as much a few times previously. He's still not getting the message, it seems.

Characteristic ad hominem. How does your comment relate to the argument?
— tim wood

I'm commenting on your tone and attitude, exactly as you are doing with me here. — Isaac

He's got some nerve to say that, and very little self-awareness. I recall mention of the words "disgusting" and "troll" from him not too far back into this discussion.

It's a lesson to be learned, and not easy: you can't argue with ignorance, that requires education. And you can't argue with stupidity, period. Which is it? I left one out, the infantile - but I suppose that's a species of ignorance.
— tim wood

This is what a real ad hominem looks like...if you needed an example to help you use the term correctly next time. Instead of providing counter-arguments, you just label my position stupid, ignorant and infantile. — Isaac

He does this so often that it's to be expected. It's like he just can't help himself.

And yes, you're right about the constant straw men, too. What's worse, not only does he have these bad habits, he has an air of superiority about him, as though he actually believes that he's more intelligent, more virtuous, and more skilled at debate.

Sounds to me like you're cheering on the underdog, because he's the underdog, even though the underdog's "arguments" suck.

Sounds to me like you're cheering on the underdog, because he's the underdog, even though the underdog's "arguments" suck. — S

Wow. @Merkwurdichliebe's ramblings actually sound like something...anything...

You've done a better job than me of squeezing so drop of meaning out of them.

I had to go and have a lie down after reading them.

Premise - "here are some principles I think we all agree on, yes?"
Reasoning -"if you follow these principles to their logical conclusion they lead to this behaviour"
Conclusion - "anyone who holds the principles we started with (and follows my reasoning) would be advised to behave thus" — Isaac

Issue/question: Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?

Reasoning: Provided is the information that the drugs are illegal. The question goes to the morality/immorality of taking (doing) them. In as much as there is no other information about the drugs or why they're illegal, the question reposes itself as, is it immoral to break the law, on the reasonable assumption that taking them breaks the law.

Law is an expression of a social contract. Law, then, presupposes a social contract and a priori a society - a community.

Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done. Again presupposing a community.

Community is the coming together of people for mutual benefit and protection. Community understood as a state the better for it than for the lack of it.

In the community, one is either a member of the community or at least subject to it. In any case, as present in it, one benefits from it. In a simple sense, then, though not a legal sense, to be in is to be a member.

Law is about the benefit and protection of the community. There is, then, an a priori aspect to the law as law. Breaking it, then, harms the community. All of this, as a priori, is in consideration of only the law as law, not as to the content of any law.

Harming the community must be seen in and by the community as immoral - must be immoral.

Conclusion: breaking the law is immoral; eo ipso taking illegal drugs is immoral.

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close? — ZhouBoTong

Im impressed! Few could make such a succinct decision.

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close? — ZhouBoTong

I'd say you have it exactly backwards here.

Now, Janus came close:

I think Tim's argument is something like that in principle it is always morally wrong to break the law. But that principle is based on the idea that laws are in principle moral. — Janus


Almost. What Janus stumbles over here is in limiting his consideration of laws: "that laws are in principle moral." This imports a category error. Laws in themselves are not in principle anything: they are. But laws as laws comes out of the concept of law itself. And the law is not the same as the laws. — tim wood

But now you say this:

Law is an expression of a social contract. Law, then, presupposes a social contract and a priori a society - a community.

Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done. Again presupposing a community.

Community is the coming together of people for mutual benefit and protection. Community understood as a state the better for it than for the lack of it.

In the community, one is either a member of the community or at least subject to it. In any case, as present in it, one benefits from it. In a simple sense, then, though not a legal sense, to be in is to be a member.

Law is about the benefit and protection of the community. There is, then, an a priori aspect to the law as law. Breaking it, then, harms the community. All of this, as a priori, is in consideration of only the law as law, not as to the content of any law.

Harming the community must be seen in and by the community as immoral - must be immoral.

Conclusion: breaking the law is immoral; eo ipso taking illegal drugs is immoral. — tim wood

That seems to be saying that laws are in prinicple moral because they are an expression of a social contract which is the view of a community as to what should or should not be done; which is exactly what you say about morality: "Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done."

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Even you conclusion entails what you say I am "stumbling over': if breaking the law is in principle immoral then law must be based in principle on what is moral.

But nonetheless when it comes to actual laws that may or may not be based on moral considerations; it simply doesn't follow that breaking the law is necessarily immoral. To the contrary it follows that taking illegal drugs is not necessarily immoral. It must therefore depend on circumstance.

Mister tim wood, I have the utmost degree of respect towards you. It is an awesome feat to procure such a vast quantity of dissenters, while conserving the basic sense of your meaning. I say, keep it up. — Merkwurdichliebe

As Tim considers it beneath him, and you seem to understand his point...Can you explain to me why Schindler breaking the law to help people is immoral?

So you agree there can be situations where EVERY option open to the individual is immoral? What is the point of morals if they do not inform us as to how we should act?

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close?
— ZhouBoTong

Im impressed! Few could make such a succinct decision. — ernestm

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close?
— ZhouBoTong

I'd say you have it exactly backwards here. — Janus

My formal philosophy training is limited at best. Ernestm you might be making fun of me based on Janus' response? If not, then this is more for Janus.

Can either of you point me in the direction of something that would explain this? Dictionary definitions are largely identical. A quick google search suggested my understanding was correct, but as you philosophy people just throw those words around, I should be sure to understand them.

That seems to be saying that laws are in principle moral because they are an expression of a social contract which is the view of a community as to what should or should not be done; which is exactly what you say about morality: "Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done."
You seem to be contradicting yourself. — Janus

Where?

if breaking the law is in principle immoral then law must be based in principle on what is moral. — Janus

Do you think I'm being circular? Do you mean circular when you say "contradicting"? I don't see any contradiction, nor am I being circular. The law and morality are two different things. Morality is what you should do; the law is what you must do or face consequences. But the expression of what the community thinks ought be done or not done, morality, provides a basis for law. .

I think ethics is best defined as the study of how best to live. Of course, if you are a member of a community that will involve others, but it is not necessary that it does. For example you could be a hermit, but still be concerned with ethical issues. morality, on the other hand, would be irrelevant if you were not a member of a community.

As Tim considers it beneath him, and you seem to understand his point...Can you explain to me why Schindler breaking the law to help people is immoral?

So you agree there can be situations where EVERY option open to the individual is immoral? What is the point of morals if they do not inform us as to how we should act? — ZhouBoTong

If you have read any of the umpteen previous posts, I have argued that breaking any law anywhere is immoral. That is simply inherent in the quality of law as law. I mentioned nullification, and the idea of "revolution writ small." Did I write anywhere that this meant that no law should ever be broken? I have not. Any law anybody knowingly and deliberately breaks ought to be for a reason of greater morality - or reason - than the immorality of breaking it in the first place. Why is that so hard for the smart people here to understand? If that is wrong, if anyone is free to break the law, then there is no law, nor are they subject to it. What do you-all imagine law is?

As to "EVERY option," what does that refer to? No one has said every option open to an individual is immoral. And as to those that are immoral and at the same time allow of reasoned choice, it must be that the choice is of a greater and offsetting morality. If not, the choice is doubly immoral. Right?

What Janus stumbles over here is in limiting his consideration of laws: "that laws are in principle moral." — Janus

But the expression of what the community thinks ought be done or not done, morality, provides a basis for law. . — tim wood

I don't agree that laws are necessarily based on "the expression of what the community thinks ought be done or not done, morality..", but reading charitably I acknowledge that laws are that in principle. This means you are asserting that laws are in principle moral, but you seem to be saying I stumble insofar as I think that. If thinking that is in accordance with what you are claiming, then your saying I stumble over it is to contradict yourself.

I don't agree that laws are necessarily based on "the expression of what the community thinks ought be done or not done, morality..", but reading charitably I acknowledge that laws are that in principle. This means you are asserting that laws are in principle moral, but you seem to be saying I stumble insofar as I think that. If thinking that is in accordance with what you are claiming, then your saying I stumble over it is to contradict yourself. — Janus

Now, Janus came close:
I think Tim's argument is something like that in principle it is always morally wrong to break the law. But that principle is based on the idea that laws are in principle moral.
— Janus
Almost. What Janus stumbles over here is in limiting his consideration of laws: "that laws are in principle moral." This imports a category error. Laws in themselves are not in principle anything: they are. But laws as laws comes out of the concept of law itself. And the law is not the same as the laws. — tim wood

I had to look at this. Our problem here, that I'll own, is a lack of clarity and accuracy in my expression in keeping separate the separate ideas of law-in-principle and law. Offhand I do not think there is any such thing as a law-in-principle - I cannot think of any example. What I do affirm is that a law, to be a law, has to be a law, meaning it has to be enacted as a law and enforceable as such. That is, it's either a law or it is not a law, no middle. None of this to be confused with the Law, capital L.

"I don't agree that laws are necessarily based on "the expression of what the community thinks ought be done or not done," but reading charitably I acknowledge that laws are that in principle." I cannot think of any law that isn't. You?

The underlying/underpinning understanding is that breaking any law is an attack on the community. The particulars of the attack are a matter of law, the attack itself immoral. Example - maybe a stretch - the German's violation of the neutrality of the low countries in both WWI and WWII. Making war is certainly an attack on the community. Making it on a declared neutral was immoral. Any sense to this?

Premise - "here are some principles I think we all agree on, yes?" — Isaac

Any reason you missed this bit out? It seems like most of what you've put under 'reasoning' (which should be only logical relations) belongs here. Let me give you a guide seeing as you seem to be struggling with the definitions.

A premise is a fact about the state of affairs that exists which you hope is agreed upon by your interlocutor. If its not agreed on, there's no point in presenting your reasoning, because it reasons from a state of affairs your opponent does not agree exists. They take the form something like "x is...", or "it is the case that x..."

Reasoning is the application of some rule of thought to those states of affair. We simply presume we all agree with the rules of thought - logic, inference, perhaps abduction too. It generally takes the form "if x...and y... (both of which our premises have stated are states of affairs) then z..." where the connection should be via some logical inference.

The conclusion is then simply "therefore z".

You've listed a load of premises ("x is..." type statements),within your reasoning and I suspect this to be the nature of our disagreement.

Law is an expression of a social contract. — tim wood

I do not agree with this premise. You'll need to provide a mechanism for how this is the case. Law is a collection of proscriptions on behaviour. Those proscriptions can be legislated, or de-legislated by a government for whatever reason it sees fit. What mechanism ensures they do so to reflect the social contract? Or, if not a mechanism in individual laws, then what mechanisms ensures that when these laws are gathered into a corpus, they obtain this quality (reflecting the social contract) which was not necessarily present in each individual component?

Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done. — tim wood

As discussed at great length, I do not agree with this premise either. The arguments around this are long, but to simplify, communities could (and do) exist whose view of what should/should not be done can include things like murder of witches, owning of slaves, raping of war widows... All of which are clearly immoral.

Community is the coming together of people for mutual benefit and protection. Community understood as a state the better for it than for the lack of it. — tim wood

Agreed. We can continue to reason from this premise because we both agree with it.

In the community, one is either a member of the community or at least subject to it. In any case, as present in it, one benefits from it. In a simple sense, then, though not a legal sense, to be in is to be a member. — tim wood

Again, we agree here, so reasoning developed from this premise would be worth pursuing.

Law is about the benefit and protection of the community. — tim wood

As with your first assertion about law, you have not provided the mechanism by which this is ensured, and there are countless examples to the contrary. Tell me, in what way do you see the various laws of Apartheid in South Africa to have been about the "benefit and protection of the community"?

Harming the community must be seen in and by the community as immoral - must be immoral. — tim wood

Again we disagree for the reasons given to your assertion that morality is "the community's view of what should/ should not be done". It is possible for the community to hold immoral behaviour to be accepted practice and it may, in theory, be necessary to harm that community for a greater good.


It may be that it is simply impossible for you to argue in favour of your position from premises we agree on, but if so, then you'd have to accept that your position is a rather dogmatic one, by the standards of normal ethical discourse, as it contains a number of quite 'low level' premises (by which I mean premises far down the scale of generalisation).

There are, however, two premises there which we agree on, and that's a start. What I'd be interested to read is if you think you can support your more specific premises (about what 'law' is) to by reason.

Logical consequence: what Nelson Mandela did, for example, was immoral.

Your conclusion: breaking the law is immoral.
Fact: Nelson Mandela broke the law.
Conclusion: Therefore, Nelson Mandela's breaking of the law was immoral.

You do not seem to accept this logical consequence, given your earlier outburst. If so, you are inconsistent, which means that your stance is self-refuting.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

And calling someone disgusting for bringing up counterexamples to your bad logic, as you did earlier, is not a valid or reputable response.

I have argued that breaking any law anywhere is immoral. — tim wood

Therefore, what Schindler did was immoral.

But what Schindler did wasn't immoral.

Therefore, we should reject Tim's argument.

Refuted by a reduction to the absurd. We can all move on now. Show's over. Nothing to see here.

As with your first assertion about law, you have not provided the mechanism by which this is ensured, and there are countless examples to the contrary. — Isaac

Yes, that's a big problem: the counterexamples. It's a problem that can't just be swept under the rug or rambled away.

...then you'd have to accept that your position is a rather dogmatic one... — Isaac

Yes, that sums up his position more generally. He tends towards dogmatism.

Some claim cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, of which I'm not so sure — tim wood

Alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year. There are no established instances of cannabis causing death. Not that cannabis is without harm - it isn't - but compared to alcohol, the differences are striking.