1, If Gold is water, then if Gold is heated it will turn to steam
2. If Gold is heated it will not turn to steam
3. Therefore Gold is not water. — Bartricks
Either the collective agreement of moral thinkers is worthy of taking as sound (in which case you could reasonably refer me to them as evidence), or it is not (in which case you cannot and will have to argue your premise from prior axioms). If the former, then you'll need to explain why it is that these thinkers whose conclusions you have just declared trustworthy, largely do not agree with your conclusions. If the latter, then your argument fails as one of its premises has no justification. — Isaac
1, If Gold is water, then if Gold is heated it will turn to steam
2. If Gold is heated it will not turn to steam
3. Therefore Gold is not water. — Bartricks
Okay, that is valid in terms of the formal logic of it.
The problem with your argument above is with your second premise. Why should we assign "true" to "If something is morally valuable, then it is morally valuable irrespective of whether I value it"? — Terrapin Station
There is, for instance, little doubt that Himmler fully approved of gassing Jews and homosexuals. Indeed, so much so that he approved of gassing himself should he turn out to be either of those things. But that did not make it right for him to do those things, or good for him to do it. And so on. — Bartricks
So that it's your opinion that it's morally okay to hit someone doesn't imply that it's morally okay or not for you to hit someone independently of anyone's opinion. — Terrapin Station
Sure, it's only morally okay in his opinion. Other people disagreed with him. So they're not going to allow him to do that. — Terrapin Station
Premise 2 says "If I value something, it is not necessarily morally valuable".
Opinions have not been mentioned. And premise 2 is manifestly true. So the argument is sound.
You're confusing the opinion that something is the case, with it being the case. — Bartricks
No it isn't. It is self-evident that you cannot make an act right or good by either issuing a prescription to yourself to do it, or by just valuing yourself doing it. — Bartricks
You don't seem to understand. If Himmler's values are moral values, then if he values gassing Jews and Homosexuals it will actually be morally good for him to do so. It won't just be that he has the opinion it is good. It will actually be good. — Bartricks
Your response? You ask what evidence there is that 2 is true. I point out that it is a self-evident truth of reason. — Bartricks
moral value consists in what fosters social harmony and general well-being and happiness. — Janus
First, that would only be the case to an individual who values social harmony, general well-being and happiness. — Terrapin Station
So, to recap, you now accept that my argument is valid. — Bartricks
No, a person who didn't not value those things would not be a morally motivated person, by definition. — Janus
It is deductively valid and apparently sound. It has exactly the same form as my argument - the one you're trying to take issue with. — Bartricks
Tell you what, I'll just think you understand it, and then you will. That's how the world works according to Terrapin, isn't it? — Bartricks
Modus ponens is valid under traditional logic. If we ignore semantic problems with certain natural language formulations, and we retain the modus ponens relations, then sure, insofar as that goes, it's valid.
Of course, we shouldn't really ignore semantic problems once we start plugging in natural language, but that's an issue we've already discussed. — Terrapin Station
That's just wrong. there is a common definition of morality, that it is to be concerned with personal interrelations. To be unconcerned about social harmony, general well-being and happiness is to be unconcerned about personal interrelations. Using people for one's own gratification, for example, is a one way street, not an interrelation. — Janus
Why do you keep talking like you're an authority on these things? You thought my argument was invalid, didn't you? Be honest. And then you decided it was valid. — Bartricks
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.