Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:43 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:21 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:00 pm

I'd say we have minds, or minds are part of what we are.

At any rate, how do you believe that "we should have equal opportunity when it comes to life" follows from a fact such as "we are minds"? That seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. And why that non-sequitur rather than "We are minds, so we should not have equal opportunity when it comes to life"?

The fact that we are made of minds and bodies and given different lives because we have different fates. Life is a matter of fate, who are your parents, how do you decide, etc. Minds are similar though. So they deserver equity.

Again, "they deserve equity" doesn't follow from any fact.

It does. Minds are fundamentally similar.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:02 pm Not when there is a right solution for any situation.

You haven't really addressed the original question then...

How do we decide who gets to decide what "the right solution" to a situation is?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:19 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:02 pm Not when there is a right solution for any situation.

You haven't really addressed the original question then...

How do we decide who gets to decide what "the right solution" to a situation is?

I did address. The wisest.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:51 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:19 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:02 pm Not when there is a right solution for any situation.

You haven't really addressed the original question then...

How do we decide who gets to decide what "the right solution" to a situation is?

I did address. The wisest.

How do we decide who gets to decide who "the wisest" is?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:51 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:19 am
You haven't really addressed the original question then...

How do we decide who gets to decide what "the right solution" to a situation is?

I did address. The wisest.

How do we decide who gets to decide who "the wisest" is?

The one who has a reasonable solution to each scenario of abortion.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:51 am
I did address. The wisest.

How do we decide who gets to decide who "the wisest" is?

The one who has a reasonable solution to each scenario of abortion.

You are going in circles...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:19 am How do we decide who gets to decide what "the right solution" to a situation is?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:03 pm
How do we decide who gets to decide who "the wisest" is?

The one who has a reasonable solution to each scenario of abortion.

You are going in circles...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:19 am How do we decide who gets to decide what "the right solution" to a situation is?

There is no circle. The answer to this question is by asking the wisest. Who is the wisest? The one who has the right solution to a situation. Of course, the meaning of any word becomes cicular at the end but we know what we are talking about.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:56 pm There is no circle. The answer to this question is by asking the wisest. Who is the wisest? The one who has the right solution to a situation. Of course, the meaning of any word becomes cicular at the end but we know what we are talking about.

So if the right solution to a situation is to abort the baby, and the mother has that solution, then the mother is the wisest?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:02 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:43 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:21 pm
The fact that we are made of minds and bodies and given different lives because we have different fates. Life is a matter of fate, who are your parents, how do you decide, etc. Minds are similar though. So they deserver equity.

Again, "they deserve equity" doesn't follow from any fact.

It does. Minds are fundamentally similar.

Which implies nothing by way of normatives (shoulds/oughts)

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493073 time=1611838264 user_id=12582]
[quote=bahman post_id=493035 time=1611795770 user_id=12593]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493032 time=1611791036 user_id=12582]


Again, "they deserve equity" doesn't follow from any fact.
[/quote]
It does. Minds are fundamentally similar.
[/quote]

Which implies nothing by way of normatives (shoulds/oughts)
[/quote]

But it does. The similarity of our minds means that in similar circumstances people will share similar needs and desires. Shoulds are a means of acquiring those roughly universal requirements. To the extent we share the same needs, we share the same Shoulds because some ways of being are intrinsically more likely to lead to any given progressive aim than others.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:01 pm The similarity of our minds means that in similar circumstances people will share similar needs and desires. Shoulds are a means of acquiring those roughly universal requirements. To the extent we share the same needs, we share the same Shoulds because some ways of being are intrinsically more likely to lead to any given progressive aim than others.

To simplify: we all have roughly the same needs: therefore we should all have those needs met.

This is fallacious. Even if the (factual) premise is true, the (moral) conclusion doesn't follow. The one doesn't entail the other.

As usual, there's a missing premise - an assumption - that makes it a question-begging argument.

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=493082 time=1611843459 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493081 time=1611842497 user_id=15238]
The similarity of our minds means that in similar circumstances people will share similar needs and desires. Shoulds are a means of acquiring those roughly universal requirements. To the extent we share the same needs, we share the same Shoulds because some ways of being are intrinsically more likely to lead to any given progressive aim than others.
[/quote]
To simplify: we all have roughly the same needs: therefore we should all have those needs met.

This is fallacious. Even if the (factual) premise is true, the (moral) conclusion doesn't follow. The one doesn't entail the other.
[/quote]

"The nature of x", in this case morality, means how we use the word, not some previously existing thing we're tapping in to. The facts are that some type of actions tend to lead to certain types of results. The Should comes first from attaining our most universal goals (survival itself), then by mediating between resource disputes when people try to move beyond that subsistence. Morality is contingent.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:22 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:17 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:01 pm The similarity of our minds means that in similar circumstances people will share similar needs and desires. Shoulds are a means of acquiring those roughly universal requirements. To the extent we share the same needs, we share the same Shoulds because some ways of being are intrinsically more likely to lead to any given progressive aim than others.

To simplify: we all have roughly the same needs: therefore we should all have those needs met.

This is fallacious. Even if the (factual) premise is true, the (moral) conclusion doesn't follow. The one doesn't entail the other.

"The nature of x", in this case morality, means how we use the word, not some previously existing thing we're tapping in to. The facts are that some type of actions tend to lead to certain types of results. The Should comes first from attaining our most universal goals (survival itself), then by mediating between resource disputes when people try to move beyond that subsistence. Morality is contingent.

Same mistake: everyone's goal is to survive; therefore everyone should (be allowed to) survive.

The conclusion doesn't follow, which is why negating it doesn't produce a logical contradiction. Whatever fact or supposed fact or goal is the premise, it has no moral implication. And nor does the consistency of an action with a result. Try any combination you like, and you'll be up against the same incoherence. Factual and moral assertions have completely different functions.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:22 pm "The nature of x", in this case morality, means how we use the word, not some previously existing thing we're tapping in to.

The "Why?" precedes the "How?". Why are you using the word "morality?"?

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:22 pm The facts are that some type of actions tend to lead to certain types of results. The Should comes first from attaining our most universal goals (survival itself), then by mediating between resource disputes when people try to move beyond that subsistence. Morality is contingent.

It isn't contingent. It's anthropic.

You don't need morality to be alive, but you need to be alive to moralise.

Being alive is necessary for morality. Which is precisely the point you are making about "survival. It's the premise AND the conclusion.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493100 time=1611851869 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493083 time=1611843743 user_id=15238]
"The nature of x", in this case morality, means how we use the word, not some previously existing thing we're tapping in to.
[/quote]
The "Why?" precedes the "How?". Why are you using the word "morality?"?

[quote=Advocate post_id=493083 time=1611843743 user_id=15238]
The facts are that some type of actions tend to lead to certain types of results. The Should comes first from attaining our most universal goals (survival itself), then by mediating between resource disputes when people try to move beyond that subsistence. Morality is contingent.
[/quote]
It isn't contingent. It's anthropic.

You don't need morality to be alive, but you need to be alive to moralise.

Being alive is necessary for morality. Which is precisely the point you are making about "survival. It's the premise AND the conclusion.
[/quote]

Morality has nothing to do with enabling life, but in maintaining it. Life prior to or otherwise without it is mere existence at best.