It is an awesome feat to procure such a vast quantity of dissenters, while conserving the basic sense of your meaning. — Merkwurdichliebe
Are you suggesting that most people no longer know quite what they mean when a large number of people disagree with them? — Isaac
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
If were to doggedly insist that the earth were flat in the face of the entire scientific community dissenting, would that be admirable? — Isaac
Are you suggesting that most people no longer know quite what they mean when a large number of people disagree with them? — Isaac
I think Tim wood is making a great point — Merkwurdichliebe
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
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
Sounds to me like you're cheering on the underdog, because he's the underdog, even though the underdog's "arguments" suck. — S
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Where?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
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. .if breaking the law is in principle immoral then law must be based in principle on what is moral. — Janus
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
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. — 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
Premise - "here are some principles I think we all agree on, yes?" — Isaac
Law is an expression of a social contract. — tim wood
Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done. — tim wood
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
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
Law is about the benefit and protection of the community. — tim wood
Harming the community must be seen in and by the community as immoral - must be immoral. — 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. — Isaac
...then you'd have to accept that your position is a rather dogmatic one... — Isaac
Some claim cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, of which I'm not so sure — tim wood
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.