Originally posted by flexmoreWell, suppose that S, as a fully reflective creature, reasoned in the manner you suggest. Let's say he had the desire to treat another person in a manner that would fail to respect that person's autonomy. As a fully reflective creature, S would be led through the stages of reflection mentioned in the original proof until he recognized that his desire would give him no good reason to act unless he endorsed his nature as an autonomous creature. Now, you suppose that S could base his decision to treat another poorly merely in virtue of the fact that he and his victim were different persons. I suggest that S, as a fully reflective creature, would be led by his very reflectivity to ask himself whether that reason was good enough. Given that the only property he has found that he can't legitimately question, namely, his very capacity for reflection, exists in his victim as well, it would be inconsistent to value that property when instantiated within himself and fail to value that property when instantiated within another. There is simply no essential difference between the property of being refllective or autonomous that S has and the property of being reflective or autonomous that his vistim has. The only difference between the two properties is the contingent difference of location. After all, reflecting upon whether he ought to endorse the conception of his practical identity encapsulated in the description 'me', S would recognize that there are certain aspects of himself that he could without inconsistency fail to value (e.g., his height, hair color, tastes and preferences, etc.). The only thing S can't question the value of is his reflectivity, as that property is presupposed by the very act of questioning. So the contingent difference you mention (being me rather than him) will lose it's importance upon reflection, and S will be led back by reflection to the property whose value is fundamental, and that is the property of being reflective or autonomous. This is why it would be irrational for S to fail to respect his victim's autonomy.
i think S can look at another person and say "i did it because i am me, but you cannot do it because you are not me - regardless of the fact that there is no other difference between us". you simply claim that this is inconsistent. wel ...[text shortened]... ery good arguments of other sorts that we should be nice people 🙂
As to you not recognizing the soundness of the proof, that is understandable, as the prrof is complex and relies on notions with which most are unfamiliar.
Originally posted by huntingbearThis quote seems to indicate that the soul in virtue of which Jesus was a person existed prior to conception, and then was implanted in the conceptate. If this is correct, then not only are persons distinct from their body, but they exist both prior to and after being embodied. But if this is correct, then how does abortion harm the conceptate? If the essential characteristic of a conceptate is its soul, and the soul exists both before and after being embodied, the how is abortion harmful?
🙂
The Bible teaches the existence of the human soul and/or spirit (whether these are the same thing is a debated issue). I believe that a human with a human soul/spirit is definitely a person and should be accorded all the same rights and respect as any other person. We can't be sure when the human soul/spirit comes into existence in an individual, ...[text shortened]... most probable that the human-in-total (body and soul/spirit) comes into existence at conception.
consider 3 people, S our subject, V the victim and I an independent third party, each sees a different view of reality based on their own viewpoint.
S can presuppose reflectivity - and another thing: that S is S. S is not V. and so S can be self-consistent when being selfish, and have a different view of S than of V.
you seem to be saying that god exists, that god is I, and that the others do not. that their viewpoints do not count. yet it is exactly their reflectivity that is in action. the godlike view of I does not even come into it. it is the reasoning and reflective process of S that is in use here.
consider 3 people, S our subject, V the victim and I an independent third party, each sees a different view of reality based on their own viewpoint.
O.K. I agree everyone has their own point of view. Is this an objection?
S can presuppose reflectivity - and another thing: that S is S. S is not V. and so S can be self-consistent when being selfish, and have a different view of S than of V.
Again, S isn't presupposing anything, I'm presupposing that S is fully reflective. I'm drawing out the consequences of being fully rational. Nobody actually is fully rational, and that doesn't matter to the argument I've given. The point of the argument is that IF someone were fully reflective, THEN they would see that immoral action is irrational. This conclusion logically entails that if someone acts immorally, they are not fully reflective and to that extent irrational. Failing to respect the autonomy of others is only possible if one is not fully reflective. You can claim that S can be consistent while failing to respect his victim's autonomy, but so far you've given no argument that supports that conclusion.
you seem to be saying that god exists, that god is I, and that the others do not. that their viewpoints do not count. yet it is exactly their reflectivity that is in action. the godlike view of I does not even come into it. it is the reasoning and reflective process of S that is in use here.
Nothing I've said has anything to do with God. Whether God exists is completely immaterial to the argument I've given. I'm neither presupposing a God's eye view, nor denying the importance of our particular points of view. I am claiming (among other things) that the value we attach to our particular points of view presupposes the value of what we have in common, namely our natures as more or less reflective creatures. The fact that we often don't see this is indicative of our failure to be fully reflective.
as for your last comment above - stop the belittling twaddle. we can both play that game, and i choose not to.
That wasn't meant to be belittling. The proof is difficult, it took me the better part of Saturday to construct, and I had to go over it again and again until I was satisfied. I'm only saying that the soundness of a proof isn't a function of whether it succeeds in convincing people. Bunk arguments can convice people and beautiful arguments can fail to convince people. But as of yet you've given me no reason to think the proof contains a mistake. You have given me a reason to think that I ought to try to be more clear in the proofs I construct.
your fully-reflective S, seems to be fully-reflecting from the point of view of I, not from the point of view of S.
this is my problem here. i guess you could just call it a subjective / objective argument. but it is genuine. especially given that we are very explicitly talking of a subject S.
we are not talking of a judgemental independent observer here. we are talking of the subjects themselves. and sure an all-understanding S will predict the viewpoints of others, and will also predict that they can be different. they are seen from a different identity - what is the problem there?
Originally posted by flexmoreyour fully-reflective S, seems to be fully-reflecting from the point of view of I, not from the point of view of S.
your fully-reflective S, seems to be fully-reflecting from the point of view of I, not from the point of view of S.
this is my problem here. i guess you could just call it a subjective / objective argument. but it is genuine. especially given that we are very explicitly talking of a subject S.
we are not talking of a judgemental independent observer ...[text shortened]... hat they can be different. they are seen from a different identity - what is the problem there?
S reflects from his own point of view just as we do. The difference between S and the rest of us is that he is not subject to the limitations and inconsistencies involved in our reflections. He is fully reflective, in that he is aware of what his judgments presuppose, entail, etc. Where is the mystery here?
this is my problem here. i guess you could just call it a subjective / objective argument. but it is genuine. especially given that we are very explicitly talking of a subject S.
What genuine subjective/objective argument are you referring to? As of yet you haven't given me an argument. How does the distinction between the subjective and the objective raise a worry for my argument?
we are not talking of a judgemental independent observer here. we are talking of the subjects themselves. and sure an all-understanding S will predict the viewpoints of others, and will also predict that they can be different. they are seen from a different identity - what is the problem there?
What are you trying to say? S isn't omniscient, he is fully reflective. Furthermore, nothing in the argument says anything about S predicting the viewpoints of others.
perhaps you can give me a precise definition of fully reflective? we may be talking of shoes and ships (and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings)
what i am really interested in is selfishness, especially aggressive selfishness.
can we find an argument that selfishness involves something innapropriate?
arguably, religions seem to argue that selfishness is innapropriate within the context of the religion.
does logical argument find a contradiction? (given that the individual acts according to logic) - i think it does not. i see no way it can demand that an individual treat others equally to themselves. this is based on the fact that they will always recognise their own identity, and given that their actions involve themselves, their identity becomes relevant. they logically justify acting differently to others, thus being selfish.
perhaps you can give me a precise definition of fully reflective? we may be talking of shoes and ships (and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings)
I can try: Let's say an agent S is fully reflective if and only if:
1. For any mental state M, if S has M, S is aware of M. So, S knows what he believes, desires, endorses, etc. We'll call this quality 'mental transparancy'.
2. For any mental state M, if S has M and M entails some proposition P, then S believes P. So, S believes all the entailments of his beliefs, desires, endorsements, etc. We'll call this quality 'consistency'.
3. For any proposition P, if S entertains P and P entails Q, then S believes that P entails Q. We'll call this quality 'inferential infallibility'.
This may require some revision, but I think it's O.K. as a first pass. The idea is that S has full access to his own mind, that he has no contradictory beliefs, desires, endorsements, etc., and that he draws all and only valid inferences.
what i am really interested in is selfishness, especially aggressive selfishness. can we find an argument that selfishness involves something innapropriate?
I think the argument I've given shows that aggressive selfish behavior is irrational.
does logical argument find a contradiction? (given that the individual acts according to logic) - i think it does not. i see no way it can demand that an individual treat others equally to themselves. this is based on the fact that they will always recognise their own identity, and given that their actions involve themselves, their identity becomes relevant. they logically justify acting differently to others, thus being selfish.
Again, the argument doesn't need to actually convince people to act morally in order for it to show that by acting immorally they are acting irrationally. Irrational people will probably not be convinced by the argument, after all (and even if they are, it will probably be for the wrong reasons). The argument doesn't demand anything of anybody, but merely points out that if people engage in immoral actions they will thereby be acting irrationally.
Originally posted by RedmikeSorry it took so long to reply, I have been away the past few days.
Re traffic - what if you just jump a red light - denied treatment here as well?
You'd deny medical treatment to smokers who get lung cancer?
You'd allow an abortion if the woman said the condom split then?
Pregnancy isn't a disease - not all medical treatment is for diseases.
Now, Redmike my friend.......didn't we just go over this? It has become apparent to me that you can't be bothered to read my posts in a comprehensive manner. If at some point in time you would like to go over them again and you find something RELEVANT and NEW to discuss, I would be happy to engage you in debate once again. Untill then, I have covered every point you have brought up in previous posts.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
bbarr,
if you have shown that aggressive selfish behaviour is irrational, (which unfortunately i do not yet fully appreciate) can you (please try to) extend this argument to a more useful real world scenario?
the scenario i propose involves a person who is not always rational. this person is faced with a tough decision. they want to make a morally correct choice. can this person use rational thinking as a guide to reliably move themselves towards a more moral decision?
obviously there are difficulties:
what does it mean to be logical in a framework riddled with contradictory assumptions?
are there levels of morality?
i suspect it can be disproved by counterexample;eg suppose they were going to "fluke" upon a moral decision anyway, and show that they can logically move themseles to an immoral decision.
the logic i speak of here would probly make most sense to be really just consistency with each of their previous irrational positions. it would not be realistic to expect people to weed out all of their inconsistencies.
perhaps it is possible to prove that they will not achieve any worse immorality than they already have achieved, and that this is the best we can do. ie by being inconsistent with themselves they may run the risk of going deeper into the depths of disaster.
unfortunately hitler comes to mind. he decides jews should die in 1935. then consistent with this in 1944 he murders millions. (likely historical innaccuracy here)
Originally posted by bbarrChrist existed, and existed as a person, before His physical advent as the Man Jesus. He was not human until conceived in the womb of Mary, and so it is there that His experience as a human, and any similarity between His experience and ours, begins. I don't believe in the pre-existence of all human souls, though some Christian or 'semi-Christian' sects have/do. But I do believe that the soul survives the death of the body, which is (I think) more relevant to your question. Let us take, for starters, the case of the very early conceptate annihilated by a 'morning after' pill. I doubt if it is 'harmed' at all, aside from 'merely' being killed, in that I believe the soul of that person is destined for Heaven. But it remains that we have been commanded by the Lord not to kill other humans, and I see no compelling reason to make exception in the case of the unborn. I hope this is helpful, but I know you'll notify me if it's not 🙂
This quote seems to indicate that the soul in virtue of which Jesus was a person existed prior to conception, and then was implanted in the conceptate. If this is correct, then not only are persons distinct from their body, but they exist both prior to and after being embodied. But if this is correct, then how does abortion harm the conceptate? If the essen ...[text shortened]... s soul, and the soul exists both before and after being embodied, the how is abortion harmful?
Originally posted by Redmikemedical science says life begins at conception if you are wondering. but considering that its a womans body that changes to carry the baby then it is her body that she is considering. i don't agree with abortion but i agree witht the right to choose. what right have i to say that abortion is wrong? there are some things in life that we don't understand unless we go though them. people have to live and learn. we have to choose to make what decisions we want. abortion cannot be called murder. that is an overharsh term that paints a black picture. every woman will have her own reason to keep or terminate her child.
I don't know. Not at conception, and not for many months afterwards. Medical science doesn't have an precise answer to this, so I'm not qualified to say.
If you believe that its a someone from conception, then that belief should guide your action. What a woman believes on this matter will have a bearing on wherther she has an abortion, but that's her choice.
Originally posted by proca666The original question which my post addresses was when did a foetus become a 'someone', not when it was alive, which isn't the same thing(as debated at length elsewhere in this thread).
medical science says life begins at conception if you are wondering. but considering that its a womans body that changes to carry the baby then it is her body that she is considering. i don't agree with abortion but i agree witht the right to choose. what right have i to say that abortion is wrong? there are some things in life that we don't understand un ...[text shortened]... hat paints a black picture. every woman will have her own reason to keep or terminate her child.
I think I pretty much agree with your conclusions though.
Originally posted by flexmoreI'd be glad to try and apply the considerations I've raised to a more realistic scenario involving a normal, not fully rational agent confronted with a tough choice. So as not to make any unwarranted assumptions, perhaps you provide a few more details as to the situation you had in mind? If you provide the scenario, as well as the characteristics of the scenario that force the agent to make a tough choice, I'll try to apply the above considerations.
bbarr,
if you have shown that aggressive selfish behaviour is irrational, (which unfortunately i do not yet fully appreciate) can you (please try to) extend this argument to a more useful real world scenario?
the scenario i propose involves a person who is not always rational. this person is faced with a tough decision. they want to make a morally c ...[text shortened]... 5. then consistent with this in 1944 he murders millions. (likely historical innaccuracy here)
Originally posted by huntingbearThank you, that was helpful. I am especially impressed that you admit that an aborted zygote has not been harmed in any way. Now, just to clarify, you believe that God creates new souls and infuses the conceptate with a soul at the moment of creation, is that correct?
Christ existed, and existed as a person, before His physical advent as the Man Jesus. He was not human until conceived in the womb of Mary, and so it is there that His experience as a human, and any similarity between His experience and ours, begins. I don't believe in the pre-existence of all human souls, though some Christian or 'semi-Christia ...[text shortened]... in the case of the unborn. I hope this is helpful, but I know you'll notify me if it's not 🙂