A comic

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 09:31 pm
@TickTockMan,
Questioning the law of non-contradiction... that is a fun subject. There have been rather famous criticisms of the law. For a brief look, I suggest the Wiki.

For a more detailed look, there are two invaluable Stanford articles:
Aristotle on Non-contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As for morality - it depends on who you ask, you know? I would argue that the subjectivity of morality rests in the peculiar circumstances. Killing another human is a bit different, but let us imagine theft for an example. Generally, we can all agree that it is wrong to steal. It is wrong for me to walk into the corner store and steal a pack of gum; not awfully, Nazi wrong, but wrong.

However, imagine a fellow out in the streets with nothing to his name, "starving, hysterical naked". (Sorry, the Whitman quote from the Stanford article got me thinking about Ginsberg). Okay, man with nothing, starving. He comes across a bread stand run by a successful man. The bread stand owner will not be noticeably harmed if one loaf goes missing. Our starving fellow steals a loaf and, as a result, lives. Was our starving man wrong? I'm not sure that he is. I wouldn't hold it against him. This seems rational to me because 1) no real harm was done, and 2) a human being's condition was dramatically improved by the action.

We could go further. Imagine a father with nothing but a starving child. He comes across a milk stand (because, you know, all sorts of stands exist Smile). Again, the stand owner is successful and one missing bottle will do the owner no harm. If the poor father steals some milk for his poor child, is he wrong? I do not think so. In addition to points 1 and 2 from the first example, we can also note that the father does not steal for himself: instead, the father risks criminal prosecution for the sake of another human being's life. So, this act seems even more morally acceptable and reasonable.

If morality were purely subjective, or relative, then we might accurately say that both men are right or wrong - and there would be no way of determining if they are indeed right or wrong.

You bring up culture, and what is cultural relativism. I would argue that cultural relativism is not even an ethical theory because it fails to tell us how and when we should or should not act. But there are at least two other developed threads in which I explain this and other flaws of cultural relativism. If you have trouble finding them (they should be in the ethics section), just let me know and I'll track 'em down for ya.

As for killing, my personal view is rather cut and dry. No, I should not kill another in self defense. That would be selfish - it asserts that my life is, somehow, inherently and necessarily more valuable than my attacker's life. While I understand the urge for self-preservation, I have yet to see a rational argument that manages to support the notion that the assailant is somehow inherently and necessarily less valuable as a human being than the defendant.

Imagine - suppose a man tries to kill you, and you kill him in self defense, but what if that man would have, in the near future, reformed his violent ways and gone on to be the next Gandhi? I know I'll never be the next Gandhi - it would be far better for the world for that man to kill me one day, reform the next and so improve the world. That would be far more valuable than my life, I think. You might laugh, but recall what Gandalf said - "Not even the wise can see all ends."
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:25 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
Questioning the law of non-contradiction... that is a fun subject. There have been rather famous criticisms of the law. For a brief look, I suggest the Wiki.

For a more detailed look, there are two invaluable Stanford articles:
Aristotle on Non-contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Yes, I came across some arguments against non-contradiction dealing with hermaphrodites and photons, but I didn't spend a lot of time reading the material, as after awhile a lot of it comes across as semantic gymnastics.

Thanks for the links. I've only skimmed them thus far (sometimes us old guys have a hard time reading long passages of text on a computer screen), but I'm planning on printing them out tomorrow at work so I can spend some more time with them.

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
As for morality - it depends on who you ask, you know? I would argue that the subjectivity of morality rests in the peculiar circumstances.


This seems a bit like the idea behind cultural relativism . . . is there such a thing as circumstantial relativism?

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
Okay, man with nothing, starving. He comes across a bread stand run by a successful man. The bread stand owner will not be noticeably harmed if one loaf goes missing. Our starving fellow steals a loaf and, as a result, lives. Was our starving man wrong? I'm not sure that he is. I wouldn't hold it against him. This seems rational to me because 1) no real harm was done, and 2) a human being's condition was dramatically improved by the action.

We could go further. Imagine a father with nothing but a starving child. He comes across a milk stand (because, you know, all sorts of stands exist Smile). Again, the stand owner is successful and one missing bottle will do the owner no harm. If the poor father steals some milk for his poor child, is he wrong? I do not think so. In addition to points 1 and 2 from the first example, we can also note that the father does not steal for himself: instead, the father risks criminal prosecution for the sake of another human being's life. So, this act seems even more morally acceptable and reasonable.


I don't know . . . I'd have to have more information before I could make any sort of call one way or another on these arguments.

How did the man (either man from your examples) come to be poor? Circumstance? Bad choices earlier in his life? What led up to his having no money to feed himself or his child? Did he spend what money he might have had to feed his own drug addiction? In point 2 of your argument, what if the improvement in his condition was to give him the strength to go mug, and possibly injure, another human being so he could buy more drugs?

Doesn't it seem that we have to be very, very specific before we can rationally deliver a moral judgement? And at this point, couldn't we just circle back to your original statement of,
Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
Generally, we can all agree that it is wrong to steal
then drop the gavel and be done with it just to simplify matters?


Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
If morality were purely subjective, or relative, then we might accurately say that both men are right or wrong - and there would be no way of determining if they are indeed right or wrong.


Is this an argument against non-contradiction, or do I need to shut up my mouth until I thoroughly read (and comprehend) the material on the links you provided?

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
You bring up culture, and what is cultural relativism. I would argue that cultural relativism is not even an ethical theory because it fails to tell us how and when we should or should not act. But there are at least two other developed threads in which I explain this and other flaws of cultural relativism.


Having not read the threads you mention, I'm still going to take a risk and disagree with this. I would say that cultural factors do indeed tell us (or try to tell us) how and when we should and should not act. Here I will reference Joseph Campbell, who always insisted that the purpose of myths, which are inextricably tied to culture, is to tell us how to live as decent human beings. The when is there as well, as in various tribal rites of passage.

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
As for killing, my personal view is rather cut and dry. No, I should not kill another in self defense. That would be selfish - it asserts that my life is, somehow, inherently and necessarily more valuable than my attacker's life. While I understand the urge for self-preservation, I have yet to see a rational argument that manages to support the notion that the assailant is somehow inherently and necessarily less valuable as a human being than the defendant.


Are you asserting then that your life is less valuable than someone who has the capacity to kill another human being?

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
Imagine - suppose a man tries to kill you, and you kill him in self defense, but what if that man would have, in the near future, reformed his violent ways and gone on to be the next Gandhi?


Or, what if he kills you, doesn't reform, and goes on to kill the next Gandhi? Wouldn't the inverse of your logic be that by not killing him in the defense of your own life that it would be your fault if he went on to kill the next Gandhi?

And just by way of historical tribute:
Gandhi, Mahatma (1869-1948): Assassinated.
Gandhi, Indira (1917-1984): Assassinated.
Gandhi, Rajiv (1944-1991): Assassinated.


There are just way too many what ifs going on here. I'm not sure I like the Probabilistic undertones that I'm inferring from that.

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
I know I'll never be the next Gandhi -

Probably not. But you could be the first whoever you are when you're not being Didymos Thomas here on the forum. You should never doubt that.

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
it would be far better for the world for that man to kill me one day, reform the next and so improve the world.


Are you saying that if you were face to face with a chainsaw-wielding maniac, and you had a Colt model 1911 .45 auto locked and loaded and pointed at his center of body mass in the very picture of a John Woo choreographed standoff that you would lower your weapon and say, "Well, there's a possibility that you could reform and become a champion of goodness, so just go ahead and saw my head off because far be it for me to prevent you from fulfilling your destiny, even though I'm basing that premise of a future reformation based on utter b . . . " BBBRZZZZZZWHIRR Arrrrggghhhh!

Didymos Thomas;90778 wrote:
That would be far more valuable than my life, I think.


You would have been a good Samurai, I think.

Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts,
Tock
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:00 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;90804 wrote:

Thanks for the links. I've only skimmed them thus far (sometimes us old guys have a hard time reading long passages of text on a computer screen), but I'm planning on printing them out tomorrow at work so I can spend some more time with them.


Even us young cats have the same problem - I print my Stanford links.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
This seems a bit like the idea behind cultural relativism . . . is there such a thing as circumstantial relativism?


No - most ethical systems which are not relativistic make room for circumstance already. Mill's Utilitarianism is built for making decisions in different circumstances. Cultural relativism, on the other hand, simply asserts that X is just if and only if the society believes it to be just. Well, moral.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
I don't know . . . I'd have to have more information before I could make any sort of call one way or another on these arguments.


Sure, they were hastily built thought experiments.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
How did the man (either man from your examples) come to be poor? Circumstance? Bad choices earlier in his life? What led up to his having no money to feed himself or his child? Did he spend what money he might have had to feed his own drug addiction?


For the sake of the TE, let us imagine he lost his money in the Madoff ponzi scheme or something similar - that he was a decent, honest fellow who trusted the wrong investor and lost it all. Basically, that he was a decent guy who got screwed by a shrewd, vile man.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
In point 2 of your argument, what if the improvement in his condition was to give him the strength to go mug, and possibly injure, another human being so he could buy more drugs?


If he was stealing for the strength to go do harm to others, that would certainly eradicate point 2. But if we imagine him to be a decent fellow, with good intent, only trying to survive, I think we can save 2.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
Doesn't it seem that we have to be very, very specific before we can rationally deliver a moral judgement? And at this point, couldn't we just circle back to your original statement of, then drop the gavel and be done with it just to simplify matters?


I think the difficulty in judging others is exactly why very wise men have advised us over the centuries to not cast stones.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
Is this an argument against non-contradiction, or do I need to shut up my mouth until I thoroughly read (and comprehend) the material on the links you provided?


It is the basic criticism of moral relativism. Non-contradiction does not leave us with that gray area - ironically, many of the criticisms against non-contradiction is the fact that it leaves little or no gray area.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
Having not read the threads you mention, I'm still going to take a risk and disagree with this. I would say that cultural factors do indeed tell us (or try to tell us) how and when we should and should not act. Here I will reference Joseph Campbell, who always insisted that the purpose of myths, which are inextricably tied to culture, is to tell us how to live as decent human beings. The when is there as well, as in various tribal rites of passage.


Right, they do tell us when and how, but they have no basis other than "because it just is that way". Relativism, cultural relativism, derives an ought from an is.

Now, it is interesting that you cite Campbell, because he is quite right about myths. But the interesting thing about myths is that they provide the basis, the myths provide the necessary ethical premise to derive an ought from an is.

But pure cultural relativism lacks this premise. Because, remember, cultural relativism is not specific to a single culture - it is generalized about all cultures.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
Are you asserting then that your life is less valuable than someone who has the capacity to kill another human being?


No, that each human life is equally valuable regardless.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
Or, what if he kills you, doesn't reform, and goes on to kill the next Gandhi? Wouldn't the inverse of your logic be that by not killing him in the defense of your own life that it would be your fault if he went on to kill the next Gandhi?


But, of course, there is no way to know either way - again to the Gandalf quote, right?

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
And just by way of historical tribute:
Gandhi, Mahatma (1869-1948): Assassinated.
Gandhi, Indira (1917-1984): Assassinated.
Gandhi, Rajiv (1944-1991): Assassinated.


God bless them all.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
There are just way too many what ifs going on here. I'm not sure I like the Probabilistic undertones that I'm inferring from that.


Nothing probabilistic - just simply: each life is equally valuable, and I have no idea who or what my attacker will become, nor do I know who or what I might become - so, it is best for me to let them kill me if they must, otherwise I assert that my life is more valuable than their life.

Each life is equally valuable, and for me to kill my attacker is acting against that maxim.

TickTockMan;90804 wrote:
Are you saying that if you were face to face with a chainsaw-wielding maniac, and you had a Colt model 1911 .45 auto locked and loaded and pointed at his center of body mass in the very picture of a John Woo choreographed standoff that you would lower your weapon and say, "Well, there's a possibility that you could reform and become a champion of goodness, so just go ahead and saw my head off because far be it for me to prevent you from fulfilling your destiny, even though I'm basing that premise of a future reformation based on utter b . . . " BBBRZZZZZZWHIRR Arrrrggghhhh!


In practice? Probably not - I'm rather selfish. Ideally? Yeah, I should let 'em rip me up like that poor schmuck in Scarface.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 03:00 pm
@TickTockMan,
Nothing wrong with Scarface, don't be dissing me Scarface, it's just not on ok.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 03:16 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91029 wrote:
Nothing wrong with Scarface, don't be dissing me Scarface, it's just not on ok.


Oh, nothing at all wrong with that movie - it's one of my favorites.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 04:12 pm
@TickTockMan,
Yeah Al Pacino has always been a favourite of mine since I was about 15.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 04:57 pm
@Caroline,
Yeah, he has had some great roles; I'm not so sure about some of his more recent work, though. The DeNiro movie seemed a little forced, a sort of 'any script to get them together' kind of thing. They're both still favorites of mine.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 05:19 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;91056 wrote:
Yeah, he has had some great roles; I'm not so sure about some of his more recent work, though. The DeNiro movie seemed a little forced, a sort of 'any script to get them together' kind of thing. They're both still favorites of mine.


Heat is pure brilliance. On all counts. I haven't seen the latest with DeNiro though.

Thanks for the reply on my questions/comments Didymos. Once again, some great gaping holes have been revealed in my knowledge database (cultural relativism, non-contradiction, etc.). I should be used to that by now! It would appear that I have some reading to do.

I still have a few points on our differing viewpoints I'd like to explore, but things are exploding at work (not literally) and it may be a while before I can collect my thoughts.

Thanks again,
Tock
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:03 pm
@TickTockMan,
I love DeNiro, he was good in Meet The Parents, him and Ben Stillr made that film, it made me laugh so much my sides hurt. I can watch it all the time. I just love Scarface, one of my all time favs of course, I've seen lots of Al Pachino's films, he's a very good actor, another one of my heroes, like in the film Scarface too, coz he was tough and had morals ya know, to point.Very Happy
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 04:37:19