Tough questions about Evil

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You appear to have got confused between relative and absolute morals, and absolute and relative truths. For example, the value of pi is 3.14..... and never ends, there is nothing either moral or amoral about that; however, it is absolutely true.

Why does the article single out atheists, I wonder? Perhaps pi has a different value for christians?

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

http://www.absolute--truth.com/

Originally posted by dj2becker
You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth… ...[text shortened]... they turn around and grade the papers!

http://www.absolute--truth.com/

To avoid tedious entanglements of this nature, consider using E-Prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
To avoid tedious entanglements of this nature, consider using E-Prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

If you consider using E-prime as your moral measuring stick by which people and events are morally appraised, by what process is evil distinguished from good and vice versa?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
To avoid tedious entanglements of this nature, consider using E-Prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

Read the first sentence of that article. Note the implicit use of "is".

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you consider using E-prime as your moral measuring stick by which people and events are morally appraised, by what process is evil distinguished from good and vice versa?

I don't consider it a moral measuring stick!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Read the first sentence of that article. Note the implicit use of "is".

It uses "has" not "is". Rewrite the sentence with "to be" and let's see if it makes a difference.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A good example of what happens when philosophy runs amok and philosophers build their metaphysical/epistemic systems based on preferred conclusions rather than allow the conclusions to follow from a reasonable system.

Say more.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It uses "has" not "is". Rewrite the sentence with "to be" and let's see if it makes a difference.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]A good example of what happens when philosophy runs amok and philosophers build their metaphysical/epistemic systems based on preferred conclusions rather than allow the conclusions to follow from a reasonable system.

Say more.[/b]

"Has" has an implicit "is". For instance, do you see any semantic difference between the following statements?

"E-PRIME ... has its roots in the field of general semantics"

and

"The roots of E-PRIME ... are in the field of general semantics"

Note: The author himself makes a similar criticism in the stabbing example.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Has" has an implicit "is". For instance, do you see any semantic difference between the following statements?

"E-PRIME ... has its roots in the field of general semantics"

and

"The roots of E-PRIME ... [b]are in the field of general semantics"

Note: The author himself makes a similar criticism in the stabbing example.[/b]

I don't see enough of a difference to quibble over; merely a question of emphasis. However you have avoided the main issue and the prime value of E-Prime (according to its advocates). You also don't seem to care much for the E-Prime concept though (I quoted your reply from the Quotes thread for that reason). Could you say why?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't see enough of a difference to quibble over; merely a question of emphasis. However you have avoided the main issue and the prime value of E-Prime (according to its advocates). You also don't seem to care much for the E-Prime concept though (I quoted your reply from the Quotes thread for that reason). Could you say why?

Because it essentially boils down to the relativist/skeptical position that dj2 criticised earlier in the page. The purpose of E-prime is to avoid making metaphysical assumptions - but that cannot be done without making other ones.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Because it essentially boils down to the relativist/skeptical position that dj2 criticised earlier in the page. The purpose of E-prime is to avoid making metaphysical assumptions - but that cannot be done without making other ones.

Examples?

What metaphysical assumptions are intrinsic to quantum physics?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Examples?

What metaphysical assumptions are intrinsic to quantum physics?

In itself, nothing. The problem is with statements the author makes like the following:

"'The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1' reports what actually occurred in space-time"

Quite simply, the author makes a claim about what actually occurred; i.e. he has made a claim based in Aristotelian realism -- which is exactly what he is trying to avoid. Indeed, by his own principle, he can't even claim what the instrument actually measured - simply what it appeared to measure as seen by him. Far from affirming science, he destroys it; imagine scientists going around claiming "It appears to me as though my instruments confirm theory X - but it might appear different to you and that's OK".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"It appears to me as though my instruments confirm theory X - but it might appear different to you and that's OK".

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.
As quoted in "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" by Aage Petersen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (September 1963)

Comment?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In itself, nothing. The problem is with statements the author makes like the following:

"'The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1' reports what actually occurred in space-time"

Quite simply, the author makes a claim about what actually occurred; i.e. he has made a claim based in Aristotelian realism -- which is exactl ...[text shortened]... h my instruments confirm theory X - but it might appear different to you and that's OK".

One can almost taste the truth.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.
As quoted in "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" by Aage Petersen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (September 1963)

Comment?

What we can say about nature presupposes something about what nature is (or, at least, what it isn't).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
To avoid tedious entanglements of this nature, consider using E-Prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

Despite the convolutions of semantics, the latent 'is' persists. While much may be gained from considering alternative perspectives, at the end of the day, someone is tired.