You wanted to approach the question rationally and you're throwing out logical fallacies.

They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. — Banno

That doesn't mean they're wrong. Hey, you're the one who wanted to employ reason. :lol:

I don’t think anything should be outlawed. — NOS4A2

Cool.

Therefore, it is wrong to kill a fetus. — NOS4A2

Is this something you think should be outlawed? Or are you just expressing your sentiment?

And one ring to rule them all...

Actually I still don't know what logical pluralism is supposed to mean. I'll continue trudging through the article.

But why? That's what I was asking.

That section then goes on to set out that construing "all" as broadly as possible may well lead to there being no valid arguments left — Banno

Would you want to flesh that out?

:up: :up:

The first objection is what passed through my mind as I was reading the definition of pluralism:

"One way to object to logical pluralism via cases is to agree that “case” is underspecified and admits of various interpretations, while rejecting the further step that those interpretations correspond to different relations of logical consequence. One way to do this is to insist on the largest domain for the quantifier “every” in the GTT. There is a tradition in logic that holds that for an argument to be logically valid, the conclusion must be true in unrestrictedly all cases in which the premises are true; if there are any cases at all—anywhere, of any kind—in which the premises are true and the conclusion not, then the argument is invalid. The One True Logic, then, is the one that describes the relation of truth-preserv is uyt[ation over all cases—where “all” is construed as broadly as possible." --SEP

The fly in the ointment: the Liar. Up next.

I went through the argument(s) for pluralism and it made no sense to me. It seemed the proponents are already using alternate logic, so my strategy is to move on to objections, hoping that will at least help me understand what pluralist are saying.

Yes, it’s the woman’s choice. Let’s hope she makes the moral one. — NOS4A2

But you don't favor legislating it, right?

My argument this whole time is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being (unless he deserves it or it is in self-defense), to deprive him of life. A fetus is a human being. — NOS4A2

But abortion is much older than you might think. Native American women knew which plants would bring about abortion. Anti-abortion is more a Christian thing and perhaps the ethics of a community that's trying to increase its numbers.

Women, burdened by gestation, birth, and child-raising, are the ones who should be deciding what's right for themselves and their communities. That's what I think.

The Russell article was over my head, and the PhilosophyNow article didn't have enough meat, so I'm going with the SEP article on logical pluralism.

First we look at case-based logical pluralism. This is the GTT:

Generalised Tarski Thesis (GTT):
An argument is valid-x if and only if in every case-x in which the premises are true, so is the conclusion.

Case based logical pluralism is saying that the terms in the GTT are not precise enough to rule out a plurality of meanings for "valid" and "case." Different senses of these terms will give us different logics.

I don't think this is actually the kind of logical pluralism I was thinking of though. This is just an issue with terminology. It's no threat to logical monism as far as I can see. What follows is arguments for and against it.

:up: :up:

All this talk about me is fun, but can we get back on topic? — Banno

I wasn't just talking about you. The pro-choice spokesperson said abortion is not a matter of morality, it's about the right to choose.

No, if someone is complaining that it's a moral issue, it's a moral issue. Meet them in that ground and tell them how you feel.

So far as your claim, you seem to think that reasons and arguments are irrelevant to moral decisions, — Banno

Very much so. Your own morality isn't based on arguments. It comes from the way you feel.

Are you trying to convince us that we ought not be having any discussions, by having a discussion? — Banno

No. I'm pointing out that you're building arguments that no one will hear but your allies. Your opponents aren't going to hear you because there's no mutual respect.

Abortion is a moral issue. Pro-choice ought to start with that. Let it be known that you're ok with ending the life of a fetus. Have the guts to say it.

So, on your own argument, frank, if we don't look to the wider picture but only our "feels", how are we to deal with disagreement? If you would rule out discourse, what would you rule in? But moreover, why? — Banno

What you're referring to as the "wider picture" is basically logic. How does logic have any force for you if you're a logical pluralist?

This type of ignorance can't be reasoned with. — AmadeusD

He's infuriating. It's by design.

The reason for analysing reasons is to track down inconsistencies and sources for those opinions. — Banno

That's important to you. I get it. My attitude about it comes from an event where I was listening to a pro-choice spokesperson and it struck me that she was repeating the arguments Southerners made to defend slavery. We have a right, they aren't human...

I won't try to explain to you how that affected me, except to say that since then I've felt strongly that mutual respect and a willingness to listen are important. If you want others to listen to you, you have to be ready to do the same.

So, which do you choose? Woman or cyst? And yes, I am obviously intentionally using extreme language, — Banno

I choose the woman, and yes, your language indicates that you have no respect for the other side. I think that's unfortunate. I really do.

The preference angle can ground the choice between the woman and the cyst. — Banno

Victor Frankl said that you can't compare one person's pain to another's. The pain in any being takes up all the available space.

The preference angle is just mumbo jumbo because for some odd reason one is resistant to saying "I value the mother's life over that of the fetus.". Just say it. You don't need to defend it. It's how you feel.

Likewise, your choice of calling it a cyst when I've already told you that most aborted material has a beating heart, is for what? Just call it a fetus. That's what it is.

:up: mañana

A cyst is just a cyst. — Banno

You know only part of the blastocyst becomes a fetus. The rest is a protective covering and the placenta.

But you can decide for yourself. — Banno

Right. The preferences-angle is BS. People decide for their own reasons.

Ok, if that is so, should we prefer the preferences of a cyst to those of Amber Thurman? — Banno

Why not?

Statements of opinion aren't true or false
— frank
Why not? "Frank thinks statements of opinion are neither true nor false" seems to be true... — Banno

That was in the PhilosophyNow article. We could do a read through.

Perhaps the logical monist says "this is how you ought think", the nihilist says "It doesn't matter what you think", the pluralist, "this is how we show if your thinking is consistent" — Banno

Russell mentioned that logical nihilists don't tend to measure up to the name. They do recognize the application of something like logical laws.

Nor does it have preferences — Banno

All life demonstrates preferences.

It looks like logical nihilism is going to hinge on the Liar.
— frank
I don't see why you would think that. — Banno

That's just the first example given of shooting down so-called laws of logic in G Russell's article.. The PhilosophyNow article focuses on what strikes me as word games. Statements of opinion aren't true or false, so bivalence is defied?

Logical monism claim that there are logical laws that hold in absolutely all case. Logical pluralism claims that no law holds in absolutely all cases. Logical nihilism holds that logical laws do not hold in any case. — Banno

Does the situation compare to moral nihilism? A logical nihilist recognizes that there are logical laws in play, but they hold by fiat? So there may not be a huge difference between nihilism and pluralism?

It just comes down to power. Where abortion is illegal, there are few doctors who will do it because they don't want to be punished.

If you want abortion to be legal, you'll have to get yourself some power. Logical arguments have zero to do with it.

Under Roman rule there were revolts to establish a free independent Jewish state — BitconnectCarlos

And that worked out really well for the Jews.

okey dokey

I feel so refreshed. Where's the paypal button?

@BannoQuick question:

It looks like logical nihilism is going to hinge on the Liar. It's supposed to be violating the LONC? I haven't seen other examples.

Am I understanding that correctly?

It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

That's true. This is why they use computer models to discover anthropogenic climate change. Pointing to today's weather is not the way to convince non-believers because we're always just one volcano away from cool weather than can last a decade.

Focus on the computer models. Not this year's weather.

Maybe time will tell.. — AmadeusD

yep

I suspect that the difference of opinion between Leontiskos and I is that he thinks of logic as an account of how we either do, or perhaps how we ought, to think. — Banno

With that guy, I'll note that

at time 1, he's opposed to x, while being as insulting as possible
at time 2, he's in favor of x, while being as insulting as possible.

There's no explanation for why he changed his mind. Something's up with dude.

So far as my previous posts on this page, I was making the point that we can talk about our utterances with greater lucidity that about our thoughts, simply because our utterances are public. — Banno

That may be true, but Frege was interested in thoughts. I think comparing and contrasting him to Wittgenstein would be a cool way to examine that.

One of the problems here is that focusing on Frege may give the false impression that his account remains paradigmatic for modern logic. It isn't. — Banno

That's fine. Frege remains fascinating. If I found a good article comparing and contrasting Frege and Witt on the issue of the world (...the world is all that is the case) would you be interested?

sock puppet?

Again I ask what motivates a person to go on like this? — John McMannis

Why not focus on the topic rather than on psychoanalysis?

Kuwait has been in the news recently because of the record temperature recorded from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station. A "staggering" 54°C. — Agree-to-Disagree

The last time I was in Las Vegas it was 52 C. So what?

Global-warming/climate change (GW/CC) fanatics have gone wild claiming that Kuwait has become "almost unlivable". In truth it has nearly always been "almost unlivable". — Agree-to-Disagree

I haven't heard anyone to talking about Kuwait. :razz:

Why did you bring up Kuwait?