Does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion in our moral decisions to be surpassed by the demands of logic and reason or does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion should be the ultimate and decisive criteria in making our moral decisions ?
... in other words which is subordinate to which and how is this to be decided ?
Is it possible to decide this within the framework of logical reasoning alone ?
Is having the demands of Love and Compassion as the ultimate and decisive criteria of our final decisions irrational ? Why ?
Is Love and Compassion by definition irrational ?
Is this a false dichotomy perhaps that I am presenting ?
To cut a long story short: How do "Love and Compassion" and "Logic and Reason" relate to eachother ?
Who is willing to shed some light in this darkness ?
Any thoughts ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou'll be happy to know that as of right now, I'm leaving
Does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion in our moral decisions to be surpassed by the demands of logic and reason or does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion should be the ultimate and decisive criteria in making our moral decisions ?
... in other words which is subordinate to which and how is this to be ...[text shortened]... eachother ?
Who is willing to shed some light in this darkness ?
Any thoughts ?
for a three-day vacation. You'll be able to enjoy a productive
debate without my uncompassionate interjection of logic,
whose only purpose is to create a level playing field and
to keep things fair for everybody.
Feel free to tip the scales as you see fit until I return.
Enjoy.
Cribs
Originally posted by CribsCribs: " without my uncompassionate interjection of logic, ... "
You'll be happy to know that as of right now, I'm leaving
for a three-day vacation. You'll be able to enjoy a productive
debate without my uncompassionate interjection of logic,
whose only purpose is to create a level playing field and ...[text shortened]... to tip the scales as you see fit until I return.
Enjoy.
Cribs
Cribs, You assume too much.
Have a nice holiday and don't worry too much. You're a nice guy .... *coughs* .... deep down inside .... 😉 😵
There are some people, who will debate/argue just for the sake of doing so, which I guess is their prerogative to do so. I think a debate is well served if all of the parties involved have a stake in what they are debating about. I have been in debates on topic of great concern to me, and some one will come along and start debating my sentence structure, even though they know perfectly well what I am saying. I will be the first to admit I was not in the debating club, and do not do well with formatting an argument. All that I can do is interject my feelings on the subject.
There are two aspects to contstructing an argument, namely laying out one's assumptions and then drawing a valid conclusion.
In theory, the second part uses only valid inferential techniques, and this is an ideal which IMO should be very closely adhered to if one is being serious.
The laying out of assumptions is more tricky though, as these can come from a variety of sources. They may, for instance, be chosen so as to be nonsensical, and a (logically) legitimate conclusion still drawn. However, most argument about debate forumy things require us to draw on a lot of knowledge and experience in choosing assumptions, so this is often a very logical process as well (a trivial example is that one must choose non-contradictory assumptions--sometimes easier said than done). However, it is here that love and compassion have their place, though I think they have more of a place in ethical debates and debates about specific policy than in others.
Originally posted by ivanhoeLogical reasoning dictates neither of these things. Logical reasoning operates upon premises by constraining the inferences we can draw from them. You make a mistake when you take compassion and logic to be at odds. I'm not sure why you make this mistake.
Does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion in our moral decisions to be surpassed by the demands of logic and reason or does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion should be the ultimate and decisive criteria in making our moral decisions ?
... in other words which is subordinate to which and how is this to be ...[text shortened]... eachother ?
Who is willing to shed some light in this darkness ?
Any thoughts ?
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: " You make a mistake when you take compassion and logic to be at odds. "
Logical reasoning dictates neither of these things. Logical reasoning operates upon premises by constraining the inferences we can draw from them. You make a mistake when you take compassion and logic to be at odds. I'm not sure why you make this mistake.
I'm not taking compassion and logic, Love and Reason, to be at odds theoretically or in essence.
Bbarr: " I'm not sure why you make this mistake.[/b]"
Please we had this conversation before: I present a patato to you, you take your knife and carve a pear out of it. You take a bite and you taste it and you throw it back at me complaining it is a potato and not a pear.
I do not consider compassion and reason to be at odds.
The relation between Compassion and Love on one side and Logic and Reason on the other. Thát's what the thread is all about. The subject of the thread is meant to be this very issue. An exploration.
We both agree that the two are not at odds. That's a good start.
Maybe you could elaborate on the essence of the relation, if there is any, between the two without involving my views or assumed views for the time being.
Originally posted by rapalla7Rapalla: " I have been in debates on topic of great concern to me, and some one will come along and start debating my sentence structure, ... "
There are some people, who will debate/argue just for the sake of doing so, which I guess is their prerogative to do so. I think a debate is well served if all of the parties involved have a stake in what they are debating about. I have ...[text shortened]... ument. All that I can do is interject my feelings on the subject.
I know where you're coming from. It can be most annoying ..... those "Correction Monkeys".
Originally posted by royalchickenRC: " ... I think they have more of a place in ethical debates ... "
There are two aspects to contstructing an argument, namely laying out one's assumptions and then drawing a valid conclusion.
In theory, the second part uses only valid inferential techniques, and this is an ideal which IMO should be very closely adhered to if one is being serious.
The laying out of assumptions is more tricky though, as these ...[text shortened]... they have more of a place in ethical debates and debates about specific policy than in others.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI already gave you a good answer to this in another thread, though on a different topic of course.
Does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion in our moral decisions to be surpassed by the demands of logic and reason or does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion should be the ultimate and decisive criteria in making our moral decisions ?
... in other words which is subordinate to which and how is this to be ...[text shortened]... eachother ?
Who is willing to shed some light in this darkness ?
Any thoughts ?
Compassion
Logic
Perception
Is the correct order, some would see that as making compassion the pre-eminent factor or that perceptioni is, but neither is the case. They are all relevant factors of equal value.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion in our moral decisions to be surpassed by the demands of logic and reason or does logical reasoning dictate the demands of love and compassion should be the ultimate and decisive criteria in making our moral decisions ?
Neither dictates either. Why should either dictate either?
... in other words which is subordinate to which and how is this to be decided ?
Neither is subordinate to either. The relation between the two elements you mentioned is not one of subordination or superiority, as far as I can tell.
Is this a false dichotomy perhaps that I am presenting ?
I would say insubstantial rather than false. Could you give a concrete example that illustrates the abstract dichotomy you are driving at?
To cut a long story short: How do "Love and Compassion" and "Logic and Reason" relate to each other ?
I think this question is pitched at two general a level, and is to vague, to admit of a useful answer. Could you be more precise?
Aiden
A distinction should be drawn between "irrational" and "non-rational"
In putting forward an argument, you can be rational (i.e., talk sense) or irrational (i.e., talk nonsense). Just because you are committed to rationality in this sense in no way implies that you devalue non-rational things, that is, things what are not properly described as involving argumentation, or not properly described as making sense or not making sense. Take imagination. I think that, it general, it's a good thing, and it clearly involves non-argumentative mental processes. Or take compassion: no amount of arguing could make a psychopath feel sorry for a victim, and clearly psychopathy is a wicked thing.
You can have logical and unsympathetic people, and illogical and sympathetic people, so neither necessarily excludes the other. I would say, however, that there is a small correlation between rationality and sympathy.
Its also worth mentioning that unbiased reasoning is an essential component of justice, though not of the humane passions that make one want to commit oneself to justice.