The Way things ought to be? really!?

@JFM phil,

JFM;158151 wrote:

Can anyone provide me with an ethical argument that doesn't commit the Naturalistic Fallacy?:perplexed:

Sure:

1. Murder is wrong.
2. You ought never to do what is wrong.

Therefore, 3. You ought never to commit murder.

@kennethamy,

But to say that murder is wrong is simply a judgement, not a fact.....so its seems you should first argue for for whether murder is wrong

and even if it is wrong....why should we refrain ourselves from commiting murder???

@JFM phil,

JFM;158157 wrote:

But to say that murder is wrong is simply a judgement, not a fact.....so its seems you should first argue for for whether murder is wrong

and even if it is wrong....why should we refrain ourselves from commiting murder???

But you asked me for an ethical argument that did not commit the naturalistic fallacy. The argument I presented does not, so far as I can tell, commit the naturalistic fallacy. Maybe there is something else wrong with it. But not that. Are you sure you know what the naturalistic fallacy is?

@kennethamy,

yea your right, you did present me an ethical argument that doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy

but i just wanted to see whats your argument for claiming that murder is morally wrong

@JFM phil,

JFM;158157 wrote:

But to say that murder is wrong is simply a judgement, not a fact.....so its seems you should first argue for for whether murder is wrong

and even if it is wrong....why should we refrain ourselves from commiting murder???

I think you are misusing "naturalistic fallacy"--which is something about claiming that something is good because it is natural. A moral argument based on the naturalistic fallacy would be something like "this is how we naturally behave, therefore this is how we should behave". Most moral arguments are arguing the opposite of that.

What I think you mean is, is there any moral argument that doesn't have human nature as its basis? For example, that murder is wrong because people want to keep on living. There are, for example people say it is wrong because god says it is. But that isn't even important, Because when you see that you are misusing the "fallacy" part, perhaps you will not mind morals being based on human nature. Why shouldn't they be? They are all about humans.

@JFM phil,

JFM;158161 wrote:

yea your right, you did present me an ethical argument that doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy

but i just wanted to see whats your argument for claiming that murder is morally wrong

Maybe I have this completely wrong but I would think that everyone would have a argument against murder being wrong. Example if I wanted to kill all of your family would you not have a argument for the murder of your family members to be wrong, or do you think that there could be someone in their right mind to be ok with it?:detective:

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;158166 wrote:

I think you are misusing "naturalistic fallacy"--which is something about claiming that something is good because it is natural. .

That would be an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. But it is not a definition of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is committed when an ethical conclusion is inferred from premises that are entirely non-ethical.

---------- Post added 04-29-2010 at 09:47 PM ----------

reasoning logic;158170 wrote:

Maybe I have this completely wrong but I would think that everyone would have a argument against murder being wrong. Example if I wanted to kill all of your family would you not have a argument for the murder of your family members to be wrong, or do you think that there could be someone in their right mind to be ok with it?:detective:

If by "argument" you mean "objection" then of course. But I don't think he means by "argument" an objection. He means a set of statements, one of which is the conclusion of the argument, the others of which are the premises of the argument, and the claim that the if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. The term, "argument" can mean a number of different things. He means "argument" in the sense that philosophers and logicians mean "argument". Not as it is meant in ordinary language, which is what you have in mind.

---------- Post added 04-29-2010 at 09:49 PM ----------

JFM;158161 wrote:

yea your right, you did present me an ethical argument that doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy

but i just wanted to see whats your argument for claiming that murder is morally wrong

Then you should have asked me that question, and not a different question.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;158153 wrote:

Sure:

1. Murder is wrong.
2. You ought never to do what is wrong.

Therefore, 3. You ought never to commit murder.

Thought USA was buysing murdering ppl in various countries atm, and even though they'r sooo christian and all.

@JFM phil,

JFM;158161 wrote:

yea your right, you did present me an ethical argument that doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy

but i just wanted to see whats your argument for claiming that murder is morally wrong

You don` t want to killing other people, because other people can kill you. Since, i would hope you do not want the latter, i suggest, you don` t do the former.

@JFM phil,

"i just wanted to see whats your argument for claiming that murder is morally wrong"

You want a meta-ethical explanation, not just an ethical one.
Ethics is the study of how one should behave, or in other words, right and wrong.
Meta-Ethics is the study of what makes something ethical.
For example, saying that God determines what is right and wrong is not an ethical conversation, but a Meta-Ethical conversation, as the core of the conversation would be in determining the nature of ethics.
Another example of Meta-Ethical discussion would be when you see people say something like: There is no right and wrong. Anything goes.
This is a meta-ethical definition that supposes that there is no objective moral truth.
Within that conversation then, you could have a conversation about ethics.

It would look like this...
MetaEthical foundation: There is no objective moral truth, therefore anything goes, as there is no right or wrong.
Ethical Dilemma: Since nothing is right or wrong, how should we behave within this moral framework? We should let reason guide us to make logical choices.

So, in response to your question, my answer would be:
There is no objective moral truth. Applied ethics in this world should be a case of obeying reason.
Therefore, murder is wrong because of the categorical imperative.

@JFM phil,

JFM;158157 wrote:

...why should we refrain ourselves from commiting murder???

I get your point, but perhaps you will admit this is more of a thought experiment than a serious question. I say this because I doubt that you yourself could not answer this same question.

I'm reminded of "nothing is true. everything is permitted." And I don't see some perfect logical refutation of this attitude. I think life is a refutation of this attitude. Murder is taboo because we don't like being murdered, or so we assume. Smile

And it's true that we prefer, in general, the committing of murder to the receiving of it. If you are known to have murdered, you have symbolically resigned your own "right" to live. If someone murdered someone you loved, or just a innocent stranger, how far out of your way would you go to protect them from the same fate?

Is morality logically justified? Probably not. But it has never needed logical justification. And logic is arguably a by product of morality, for culture seems to demand a certain measure of saftey in which to develop. (I'm thinking of Hobbes here. )

:detective:

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 08:20 PM ----------

Another thing occurs to me, if we look to logic as an authority on ethics, we are implying the ethical authority of logic, and manifesting an ethic. Or so it seems.

Philosophy Forum

The Way things ought to be? really!?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know