A Boolean logical argument for Rights

[PhilB]

Mr. Bastige, do you understand what a logical premise is? Do you understand the function of a logical premise in a logical argument?

Premise -- n. In logic, a proposition set in front. A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion; esp. the two propositions from which a conclusion is derived in a syllogism.

All the foregoing in this subthread (now new thread) has been (as explicitly stated more than once) an attempt to assemble a set of agreed upon premises upon which to base a logical argument. So your continued protestations that this argument is not Boolean are not yet relevant, since we aren't at the point of actual logical argument yet, since we haven't got our premises established yet. So likewise your complaint that these statements do not follow from each other is also not relevant. These statements are not intended to follow from each other; they are each independent proposed premises from which logic is intended to follow. So each of these statements stands independently, for agreement or disagreement; once we have some agreed upon, a logical argument built upon the agreed upon premises can follow.

Since this is a new location for this train of thought, I will include the bulk of your last response, so this will be on the long side.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
Equal is not the same as identical. Agreed that people are born with, and also develop distinct differences. In fact, I'll go ahead and postulate that as Premise #5. In 3, however, I am talking about the field of moral value. A baseline, if you will, is a fine way to look at it. Are you claiming that some are born with *more* moral value than others? That we are inherently morally unequal from birth? If not (or even if so) make it a clear statement. What is your premise with regard to our moral equality or lack thereof?


Logical faults in this paragraph:

Field of moral value not defined.

Assumed that my argument believes in your view of morality

Assumes that I meant identical.

Legitimate part of your response:

Definition of the "field of moral value".

Moral -- n. of or pertaining to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil in relation to the actions, volitions, or character of responsible beings; ethical.

So moral value would be the application of right and wrong, in this case to the treatment of newborn humans. So what I am trying to state here is the idea that all newborn humans are equal with regard to how they should be treated by responsible beings. The statement does not assume what that standard of treatment is; it *only* specifies that it is the same for all newborn humans.

Logical faults in your response:

The paragraph does not assume anything about your view of morality, or even that you have one. It does not make any assumptions about *what* the moral value of any individual is; it is only trying to establish the idea that *whatever* that level is, from zero to infinity, it is the same for each individual.

I didn't assume you meant identical. I initially said "equal". You responded that they weren't equal because they were different. So I said that equal doesn't mean identical, people could be different but equal. That's a logical response to your objection.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
So, again:

3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior.

Agree or disagree with what the statement actually says. If disagree, give me a substitute premise.


Assumes precept that humans have morals from birth.

No it doesn't. The statement is entirely compatible with the idea that humans start out with zero moral status or value. It only states that the value is equal, not what the value is.

So again:

3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior.

Agree or disagree with what the statement actually says. If disagree, give me a substitute premise.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
And I haven't made any "blanket statements", or even any statements at all yet, about right and wrong in this sub-thread about a Boolean logical argument. All I've said so far is my proposed premises (listed again at the bottom, for the purpose of keeping the eye on the ball). None of those premises says anything about what is right or wrong at all, or whether people do or have to or even should agree on it. #4 says that most people have the ability to understand the concept that there *is* right and wrong; it says nothing about agreement, or validity, of the concept any given person holds; only that most people have *some* sort of concept. Are you saying that you think most people are incapable of grasping any concept of right and wrong? In the other sub-thread, you said "Even serial killers know what they do is wrong and that's what the ability to prosecute is based on." This would indicate that you *do* think most people can grasp the concept. If not (or even if so) make it a clear statement. What is your premise with regard to our capacity for moral understanding or lack thereof?


Logical faults:

Says he didn't make blanket statements, and yet uses all humans several times in this post, which is a blanket statement.

Says that premise doesn't include concept of right and wrong, but says
"he great majority of adult humans are capable of understanding the concept of morals; that is, they can understand that some things are right and some things are wrong, in a moral sense. -- You haven't agreed, but neither have you proposed an alternative statement."

Assumes that my argument about right and wrong states that people don't know right and wrong. This has never been said. Leap from one concept to another.

I didn't say I made no blanket statements at all; I said I didn't make any blanket statements *about what is right and wrong*. Read all the words.

I also didn't assume that your argument about right and wrong states that people don't know right and wrong. I'm asking whether or not you agree that people know right and wrong. I'm still asking, since you haven't managed to answer the question yet.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
So again:

4) The great majority of adult humans are capable of understanding the concept of morals; that is, they can understand that some things are right and some things are wrong, in a moral sense.


See above. Mentions right and wrong and still says in his paragraph:
"None of those premises says anything about what is right or wrong at all,"
Circular logic.

So it still doesn't say anything about what is right or wrong. It's only saying that most people can have *some* concept of right and wrong and distinguish between the two according to *some* set of criteria. What that concept is, or criteria are, for any given individual or society is not specified in any way. Only that in most cases there is some concept or criteria.

So again:

4) The great majority of adult humans are capable of understanding the concept of morals; that is, they can understand that some things are right and some things are wrong, in a moral sense.

Agree or disagree with what the statement actually says. If disagree, give me a substitute premise.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
Agree or disagree with what the statement actually says. If disagree, give me a substitute premise.


Morality is cultural and taught, therefore the morality of the culture is passed on. This is born out by the widely differing concepts of morality in human cultures.

This response neither agrees nor disagrees with the statement. It is therefore not a subsitute premise, but an additional one. I am willing to agree with this additional premise, slightly restated as follows: 6) Any given morality is cultural and taught, therefore the morality of a culture is passed on.

I still need you to agree or disagree with statement #4.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
Of course the post isn't Boolean yet, I'm still trying to establish some agreed-upon premises. It would be entirely pointless to start applying Boolean operators to disputed premises; that wouldn't get anyone anywhere. Once we've got some agreed-upon premises, *then* we can operate on them to produce a logical argument. If, at any time during the argument, I wish to introduce an additional premise, I will number it and introduce it as such, and get agreement from you before I use it in the argument.


I asked for it in Boolean. For someone who professes to have logic behind them, you can't even put it in one of the earliest taught forms of logic.

It is useless to apply Boolean (or any other) logic processes to disputed premises. Example:
Premise 1: The sky is blue.
Premise 2: All blue things are berries.
Conclusion: The sky is a berry.

This is a perfectly sound syllogism, given the premises. The problem is that Premise 2 is false.

To avoid this sort of problem, I am not going to start putting things in logical form until we have agreed upon the things that may be admitted into the argument as premises. So: back to the effort to establish premises.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior. -- You haven't agreed, but neither have you proposed an alternative statement.


Logical fallacy. Assumes morality without providing proof of morality. Provide proof of morality.

Also jumps from physical to meta. Two different concepts.

So again, this doesn't assume any particular morality, or any morality at all. The equal moral status may be none at all, and be consistent with this premise. It is only a statement that the status, whatever it may be, from an infinite set, is the same for each human starting out. Do you believe this to be the case or not? If not, on what basis do you think humans may differ in moral status starting out?

Also, I do not understand your comment on jumping from physical to meta in relation to this statement. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
4) The great majority of adult humans are capable of understanding the concept of morals; that is, they can understand that some things are right and some things are wrong, in a moral sense. -- You haven't agreed, but neither have you proposed an alternative statement.


Assumes again that morality is a firm concept. Also doesn't follow any logic pattern of boolean nature as it doesn't come up with a transitory stage.

No it doesn't make that assumption at all. Morality may be as infirm as you like. It only is saying that most people can learn some concept of morality, firm or not. Do you believe this to be the case or not? If not, make the converse statement that you believe that most people cannot grasp any concept of morality, or propose some other relevant alternative.

And again, it's a proposal for a premise, not a conclusion. So a transitory stage is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilB
5) People are born with, and also develop, distinct differences. -- New premise

PhilB


Again, doesn't follow previous statement. No logical transition from previous statement.

Not to mention that it has nothing to do with statement 4 as it doesn't reinforce concept of understanding a moral construct.

Again, it's not supposed to follow from anything. It is not required to have anything to do with statement 4, or any other; it's another premise suggestion. In fact, it's one that you made, not I in the first place. I was just adding it to the list as another agreed upon starting point.

==========
So, the list of premises again, in their current states, to try to keep the progress of the argument in view.

1) Each living creature owns its own life. -- Agreed
2) Humans are living creatures. -- Agreed
3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior. -- You haven't agreed, but neither have you proposed a relevant alternative statement.
4) The great majority of adult humans are capable of understanding the concept of morals; that is, they can understand that some things are right and some things are wrong, in a moral sense. -- You haven't agreed, but neither have you proposed a relevant alternative statement.
5) People are born with, and also develop, distinct differences. -- New premise, stated by you and slightly restated by me, therefore I wish your agreement (or disagreement) with the restated version.
6) Any given morality is cultural and taught, therefore the morality of a culture is passed on. -- New premise, stated by you and slightly restated by me, therefore I wish your agreement (or disagreement) with the restated version.

PhilB

[Sibling]

...cliff notes?

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Sibling

...cliff notes?

This started as a subthread in the thread about HR1022 - Assault Weapons Ban. That thread was started as an alert about another attempt to abridge our rights. Of course, a few people jumped in there to protest that we don't really have those rights, or shouldn't, or whatever. In particular, a certain Mr. Fargin Bastige tried to argue that there is no such thing as actual unalienable rights; that we only have whatever rights our societies and governments decide to give us. I disagreed, and he challenged me to logically prove such rights exist.

Many wordy posts ensued, which threatened to (if not succeeded in) totally obscuring the purpose of the thread altogether. So I decided to break it out into a new thread. If you are sufficiently interested, you could read the background posts to this in that thread. But I don't think it is really necessary, since the logic part of the argument hasn't even commenced yet. I'm still trying to get Mr. Bastige to agree to some premises to argue from.

He claims to be professionally employed in the field of logic, but hasn't shown a great command of the subject yet. And of course, he hasn't taken me up on my counter-challenge that he make a logical argument for his position. But we'll see where this goes.

Anyhow, the list of proposed premises at the end, after the double dashed line, is the core of where we are in the course of the argument. Everything above that is discussion in an attempt to get Mr. Bastige to either agree or to disagree with each of the stated premises as stated, which he seems to have difficulty doing in any clear simple way.

PhilB

[acalliste]

If:
6) Any given morality is cultural and taught

then how can this be true:
3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior.

Morals don't make people superior or inferior, except to other people who are judging them, and they may or may not be correct in their judgements.

[bush]

Originally Posted by acalliste

If:
6) Any given morality is cultural and taught

then how can this be true:
3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior.

Morals don't make people superior or inferior, except to other people who are judging them, and they may or may not be correct in their judgements.

In order for both to be true, we have to start with nothing, which would still be equal to nothing. It could be made much clearer if we could define a metric by which we could measure morality. Is this possible?

[acalliste]

Obviously not. We humans have a long and bloody history proving it can't be done.

[bush]

Well then, I guess your point is moot.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by acalliste

If:
6) Any given morality is cultural and taught

then how can this be true:
3) Each human starts out morally equal to each other human, neither superior nor inferior.

Morals don't make people superior or inferior, except to other people who are judging them, and they may or may not be correct in their judgements.

Which premise do you then disagree with?

Any given morality may or may not be rational or correct. Actually, I think #3 is true, and #6 is partially true. Humans do have certain instinctual moral urges, upon which the more complex moralities that we create and develop are initially based. Although sometimes such systems then diverge from our instinctual base, but that usually results in failure of the system eventually.

I will restate #6 appropriately.

Originally Posted by bush

In order for both to be true, we have to start with nothing, which would still be equal to nothing. It could be made much clearer if we could define a metric by which we could measure morality. Is this possible?

I think it is possible. I think that is part of what I'm trying to do here. Not to give away the ending of the movie, but if we can rationally demonstrate that all humans have certain rights equally, then that can become the metric. Morality will be that which respects those certain equal rights of all people; immorality will be that which doesn't.

PhilB

[bzbatl]

I always loved those moral decision trees in Ultima. It was always something very tough to decide on the outcome of your character.

A thief has stolen precious heirlooms from your master and sold them. You confront the thief and find that the money was to feed his wife and baby. You:

a) Valiantly defend the honor of your master and kill the thief.
b) Show compassion and ignore the misdeed, and lie to your master.


The point is that sometimes moral decisions aren't black and white choices.

[acalliste]

Originally Posted by bush

Well then, I guess your point is moot.

How so? I'm saying that because you can't scientifically measure it, you can't say that one person is superior to another based on morals alone, since morals change with time and culture.

[acalliste]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Which premise do you then disagree with?

#3

We aren't born with morals. We learn them.