How do I know if something is true? I'm looking at, it's right there. How do we know the sun is really there? Because it is self-evidently emergent in the universe. — Garrett Travers

The only problem I have with this is that I have no way of knowing if I’m really looking at something that actually exists because I could be hallucinating or dreaming etc. I know we already discussed this and I don’t want to beat a dead horse. Plus this is a discussion devoted to an entirely different purpose and I don’t want to ignore that.

Is it rational to have compassion for mass murderers? — Garrett Travers

This is the same as the Hitler example.

If the mass murderer has a mental illness, it's rational to feel compassion for him.


Seeing the wild, deranged, shell-shocked eyes in the courtroom of that nutso Joker dude who shot up the Batman crowd in Colorado - my emotional systems responded with profound compassion.

Obviously, we have to hold mass murderers accountable for their evil deeds. But provision of inpatient mental health services seems far more rational to me than locking them up and throwing away the key.

Okay. So there's more room for compassion in your view than I originally thought.

Mental illness rates among the impoverished are about twice that of the rest of us. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I know, I've met them. Again, neither my view, nor Rands view are dismissive of natural inhibitors as far as compassion goes. Just that such does not ever make it my duty to provide for them. I'll explain that and Hitler below:

Hypothetical Syllogism

If humans are the source of reason, then they are the source of morality.
If they are the source of morality, then they are inviolable.
Humans are the source of reason, therefore the human is inviolable.

p>q
q>r
p
------
r

If a person is a mass murder, then it is irrational to have compassion for him/her.
If it is irrational to have compassion for him/her, then compassion for him/her is not moral.
Hitler is a mass murder, therefore it is immoral to have compassion for him.

p>q
q>r
p
------
r


Cognition: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience.
Reason: the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Ethics: the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

You'll notice the order of these definitions is provided to highlight the order in which they arise out of human cognition. They'll correspond to my syllogisms. Tell me what you think. You see if humans are the source of ethics, no action can be justified to to violate a human, as to do so would violate ethics. And when you're Hitler and you violate millions, I don't care about your mental illness.

This is the same as the Hitler example.

If the mass murderer has a mental illness, it's rational to feel compassion for him.


Seeing the wild, deranged, shell-shocked eyes in the courtroom of that nutso Joker dude who shot up the Batman crowd in Colorado - my emotional systems responded with profound compassion.

Obviously, we have to hold mass murderers accountable for their evil deeds. But provision of inpatient mental health services seems far more rational to me than locking them up and throwing away the key. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Let's not be silly. Defer to my syllogisms.

The only problem I have with this is that I have no way of knowing if I’m really looking at something that actually exists because I could be hallucinating or dreaming etc. I know we already discussed this and I don’t want to beat a dead horse. Plus this is a discussion devoted to an entirely different purpose and I don’t want to ignore that. — Average

Well, I'll tackle it one more time. You have no reason to suggest you aren't seeing it. What would constitute evidence of you having hallucinated something?

You have no reason to suggest you aren't seeing it. What would constitute evidence of you having hallucinated something? — Garrett Travers

Good question. I need to think about it.

Good question. I need to think about it. — Average

Yes, and while you do, think about all the stimulatory evidence you get every waking moment of your life that you are in fact not hallucinating. Then think about what constitutes empirical, scientific evidence, then compare what ever you come up with as hallucination evidence, with empirical evidence. Then get back to me.

your question makes me remember a logical fallacy. I think it might be a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Keep in mind that I’m not saying I am hallucinating just that I don’t know if I am or not.

Let's not be silly. — Garrett Travers

Not sure what's ringing silly to you but I'm certain nothing silly has been said. :smile:

I'm off work the next two days so I should have some time soon to look at your syllogism.

your question makes me remember a logical fallacy. I think it might be a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Keep in mind that I’m not saying I am hallucinating just that I don’t know if I am or not. — Average

Excellent thinking

The argument from ignorance fallacy: It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Now, there's an element to this fallacy that makes my statement to you not an argument from ignorance. What do you think that is?

Not sure what's ringing silly to you but I'm certain nothing silly has been said. — ZzzoneiroCosm

We'll go over it, my friend. It's pretty silly, but not stupid. Just.. Unfinished, as it were.

all I know is that you said “ You have no reason to suggest you aren't seeing it.” which seemed fishy but now you’ve got me curious. What is the element to the fallacy that makes this not an argument from ignorance?

It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. — Garrett Travers

Maybe the element is somewhere in here.

all I know is that you said “ You have no reason to suggest you aren't seeing it.” which seemed fishy but now you’ve got me curious. What is the element to the fallacy that makes this not an argument from ignorance? — Average

It's not a an argument from ignorance, because I have no burden of proof. I simply suggested to ask yourself what the evidence suggests, and to test the quality between the different types of evidence. Now, had you said: "I clearly hallucinated, or, I clearly did not hallucinate." And I asked for proof, this still wouldn't be the fallacy. The fallacy would only occur, if I said; "there you go, there's your answer." Either for, or against hallucination, based either on presence of evidence, or no presence of evidence.

It's not a an argument from ignorance, because I have no burden of proof. I simply suggested to ask yourself what the evidence suggests, and to test the quality between the different types of evidence. — Garrett Travers

I agree that you don’t have any burden of proof but what kind of test do you have in mind? I can’t think of any way to test for this kind of phenomenon.

I agree that you don’t have any burden of proof but what kind of test do you have in mind? I can’t think of anyway to test for this kind of phenomenon. — Average

That's because there's no way to. Which means the idea that it is a question in your mind, is as irrational as having the question of whether you've been to North Korea, or not in your mind. You can test for both equally. There's your proof. Not that there's no evidence, but you can't even search for it. It's a negative proof. There is no way to test it. And there never will be.

If they are the source of morality, then they are inviolable. — Garrett Travers

This premise needs support or fleshing out. As is, it doesn't make much sense; the second clause doesn't follow from the first.

If a person is a mass murder, then it is irrational to have compassion for him/her. — Garrett Travers

If a person is a mass murderer [and is not a person with mental illness] then it is irrational to have compassion for him/her.

You've already conceded that it's rational to have compassion for a person with mental illness.

If a person is a mass murderer [and is not a person with mental illness] then it is irrational to have compassion for him/her.

You've already conceded that it's rational to have compassion for a person with mental illness. — ZzzoneiroCosm

We'll get there, first I need to know if you accept the argument as valid. I don't mean true, I mean valid.

I'm not a logician but it looks valid to me.

I'm not a logician but it looks valid to me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No worries, I had to jump back into myself after dealing with jackass on the other thread. But, yes, it is valid. Now, even if it is sounds, as I would regard both mine and yours to be, a syllogism is really only predicated on its own variables. So, I can literally use one or the other to negate one or the other. Make sense?

So, I can literally use one or the other to negate one or the other. Make sense? — Garrett Travers

Seems to make sense. Have to see how it plays out.

Seems to make sense. Have to see how it plays out. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, it's easy:

If murder and mental illness are both factors in applying compassion, then neither can be asserted as the sole predicated in applying compassion when both are present in an individual.
Murder and mental illness are both factors in applying compassion.
Therefore, neither can be asserted as the sole predicated in applying compassion to Hitler.

p>-q
p
-----
-q

So, where do you think people go when logic fails as a definitive way to conclude something of this nature? As I have shown it does easily. Also quite simple:

If multiple factors for applying compassion exist, then a selective application of compassion is required.
Multiple factors for applying compassion exist.
Therefore, a selective application of compassion is required.

p>q
p
-----
q

Meaning, selective compassion is both a valid, and sound argument.

If murder and mental illness are both factors in applying compassion... — Garrett Travers

All that makes sense logically. But I don't agree that murder is a factor when applying compassion. To my view, all human beings, even all creatures, are deserving of compassion.


I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.

Rand

A person with moral guilt would be just as deserving of compassion as a person without moral guilt if there were such a creature. Happily, no person without moral guilt exists so Rand's argument is easy to reject. Rand's view above strikes me as cold-hearted.

For a taste of the obverse view, I'd suggest Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Frankl was a neurologist and psychiatrist who spent time in the Nazi camps. His book is considered a masterpiece of psychology, translated into 24 languages.

if consistent, then relativism is relative; if inconsistent, then relativism refutes itself) — 180 Proof

So the argument goes. If all truths are relative, then also relativism is relative. But relativism speaks *about* truths. About their nature. It doesn't speak about its own truth. It's an approach. Like absolutism.

All that makes sense logically. But I don't agree that murder is a factor when applying compassion. To my view, all human beings, even all creatures, are deserving of compassion. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right, which as we established, is irrational.

A person with moral guilt would be just as deserving of compassion as a person without moral guilt if there were such a creature. Happily, no person without moral guilt exists so Rand's argument is easy to reject. Rand's view above strikes me as cold-hearted. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's not cold hearted, it's simply not irrational. The thing about it is, we've established logically that such is irrational, and you simply hold to your emotional assessment of it. So, let's try a different application. DOes everybody deserve to have their minds free from the initiation of force?

For a taste of the obverse view, I'd suggest Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Frankl was a neurologist and psychiatrist who spent time in the Nazi camps. His book is considered a masterpiece of psychology, translated into 24 languages. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm incredibly familiar with him, he's among my favorites.

Right, which as we established, is irrational. — Garrett Travers

I don't remember establishing that. Where was it established?

I don't remember establishing that. Where was it established? — ZzzoneiroCosm

In the syllogisms:

If multiple factors for applying compassion exist, then a selective application of compassion is required.
Multiple factors for applying compassion exist.
Therefore, a selective application of compassion is required.

If multiple factors for applying compassion exist, then a selective application of compassion is required.
Multiple factors for applying compassion exist.
Therefore, a selective application of compassion is required. — Garrett Travers

I agreed that this syllogism was valid and then challenged its soundness by asserting that all human beings are deserving of compassion. That's where we are.

I can support my view that all human beings are deserving of compassion by asserting that all human beings are suffering creatures and all suffering creatures are deserving of compassion.

Is what relativism says "about truth" true or not? Is it an "approach" which matches truth-makers to truth-bearers or not? Is relativism a "relative approach" or not? :chin: