Thursday, July 2, 2009

Watch the Whole Thing

13 comments:

  1. You can't argue pro-life until you learn what makes life meaningful. BS about "well what about the beauty around you" that's not objective.

    Step 1: What's the meaning of life? Don't know it? Then don't argue for it for most likely there is none.

    Step 2: Figured out the meaning of life? Awesome. Now defend it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can imagine a lot of ways to "argue pro-life".

    How about "murder is wrong" for starters?

    Why assume one has to get the meaning of life all figured out just to understand this?

    Also, your "step 2" shifts the burden of proof in a really annoying way. Why should a pro-choice be the default?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well murder is wrong is definitely not an answer because you haven't answered what makes life important? By saying murder is wrong you assume what you have to prove.

    It's not a burden of proof; the proof lies in proving something, not assuming it (life is meaningful).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry if my demands come off as a little strong; I promise I'm not trying to troll.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Or I could say that "murder is wrong" is false since it is not always wrong (no other option, perhaps?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, anyway, I was going to try to make you argue that life has meaning which you wouldn't be able to do; then, I would try to make you see that "life has meaning" is an opinion and therefore any arguments based off of "life has meaning( /doesn't have meaning)" shouldn't be taken as fact or even as significant in the set of all arguments in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Or I could say that "murder is wrong" is false since it is not always wrong (no other option, perhaps?)"

    This is strange, since the term "murder" just means "wrongful or unjust killing." SInce it's analytic that "murder is wrong", to say that murder is not always wrong is confused, to say the least.

    But, on the confused supposition that "murder isn't always wrong", it doesn't follow that "murder is wrong" is always false; It only follows that "murder is wrong" is false in some cases.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Murder... yes I guess I was defining murder as the killing of a human being in general. But no I still stand by my point because you can murder a man with malice and planning beforehand who is considered evil himself (the murder of Hitler, perhaps... if that would have ever occurred that would have been called a murder, yes). (m-w.com ... unlawful is relative so it depends on who is calling it a "murder").


    "But, on the confused supposition that "murder isn't always wrong", it doesn't follow that "murder is wrong" is always false; It only follows that "murder is wrong" is false in some cases.":

    If one says a statement that is not in general true, then isn't it false?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If one says a statement that is not in general true, then isn't it false?"

    Nope. If it's true that "I eat potatoes" only on mondays, it doesn't follow that the "I eat potatoes" is false.

    We need to qualify, that's all.

    So it's true "I eat potatoes on Mondays", buts it's false that "I eat potatoes every day."

    So, Louis' point, I think, is this: (to avoid confusion, let's just talk about killing.)

    It maybe not wrong to kill hitler, given his responsibility for the holocaust, especially if his death would end it.

    But it is wrong, given our present circumstances, to kill you, right? The difference is that Hitler is guilty or responsible for an injustice, and, at least in relation to me, you're not guilty of any injustice (or at least, not one that would justify my killing you).

    Given this, "It's wrong to kill hitler" is plausibly false. And

    "It's wrong for me to kill you" is really true.

    Or perhaps you disagree?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I disagree because you have not stated what gives my life meaning. If it has no meaning, killing me is not wrong (that's not to say that it's right) but it would be nothing to argue against.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah "killing is wrong" vs "i eat potatoes" :

    When stating a Judgment, it is implied that "always -said judgment-" but for actions, such as "I eat potatoes" the same does not follow...

    Have exceptions to the judgment rule? I was trying to find some counterexamples

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous,

    Let's title the claim that "To argue that killing innocent babies is wrong one has to know what makes life meaningful." as "1".

    You can't argue (1) until you know what the meaning of "meaningful" is. Figured out what the meaning of "meaningful" is? Awesome, now defend it.

    After you've done that, then give me an argument in support of (1).

    Not only do you assume one has to know what makes life meaningful in order to argue that abortion is wrong, you also assume one can only make a pro-life case based on the meaningfulness of life. But why think these things are so?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "When stating a Judgment, it is implied that "always -said judgment-" but for actions, such as "I eat potatoes" the same does not follow..."

    What's your argument for this? And both:
    "I eat potatoes everyday", and
    "It's not wrong for me to kill Anonymous", are both "judgments". Whatever statement predicates of a subject is a judgment.

    Both of them have the form:

    "[S] is [P]"

    "[I] am [that which eats potatoes]"
    "[Anonymous] is [that which it would be wrong for Derek to kill]"

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.