|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 14:11:14 GMT
Continued from branch in pro-choice/advocate poll thread tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Does the phrasing "advocating that murderers be subject to grievous bodily harm nor death" change anything for you? No. Why do you think it would? , would you give your answer to 1 and 2 below? A advocates a justice system of the world today whereby the families of murder victims are given carte blanche in dealing with the offender. 1.) Does it follow that A advocates murderers be subject to grievous bodily harm or death? 2.) Does it necessarily follow that A advocates murderers be subject to grievous bodily harm or death? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 21, 2017 14:13:04 GMT
How is this discussion still going on? How has rabbit not admitted he was wrong yet or at the very least silently conceded?
Also those two questions are the exact same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2017 18:14:12 GMT
1. No
2. No
I only added the "necessarily" to my some of my posts to emphasize that it doesn't logically follow (ie, if A is true, B must be true); rather, it would depend on the individual (if you added "might" before "advocate" it would be correct). The "necessarily" doesn't really change the meaning of either sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 21, 2017 18:47:47 GMT
No to both.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 20:20:34 GMT
Eva Yojimbo , would you give your answer to 1 and 2 below? A advocates a justice system of the world today whereby the families of murder victims are given carte blanche in dealing with the offender. 1.) Does it follow that A advocates murderers be subject to grievous bodily harm or death? 2.) Does it necessarily follow that A advocates murderers be subject to grievous bodily harm or death? 1. No 2. No I only added the "necessarily" to my some of my posts to emphasize that it doesn't logically follow (ie, if A is true, B must be true); rather, it would depend on the individual (if you added "might" before "advocate" it would be correct). The "necessarily" doesn't really change the meaning of either sentence. Is it still given that both A and his advocacy are rational? (of course it can be rational to advocate a system where you know maimings and deaths will result; the draft, etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2017 20:50:11 GMT
1. No 2. No I only added the "necessarily" to my some of my posts to emphasize that it doesn't logically follow (ie, if A is true, B must be true); rather, it would depend on the individual (if you added "might" before "advocate" it would be correct). The "necessarily" doesn't really change the meaning of either sentence. Is it still given that both A and his advocacy are rational? (of course it can be rational to advocate a system where you know maimings and deaths will result; the draft, etc.) Not sure what you're asking here. To start: is WHAT still WHAT? I'm also not sure what "A" referring to (my "A" was an abstract A, not referring to anything in particular). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 21:01:29 GMT
Is it still given that both A and his advocacy are rational? (of course it can be rational to advocate a system where you know maimings and deaths will result; the draft, etc.) Not sure what you're asking here. To start: is WHAT still WHAT? I'm also not sure what "A" referring to (my "A" was an abstract A, not referring to anything in particular). Are we still granting that the position A is based on rationality - e.g. because the benefits outweigh the costs, etc., and not on irrationality, e.g. because the costs outweigh the benefits, or because banana peels get slimy after a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2017 21:33:26 GMT
Not sure what you're asking here. To start: is WHAT still WHAT? I'm also not sure what "A" referring to (my "A" was an abstract A, not referring to anything in particular). Are we still granting that the position A is based on rationality - e.g. because the benefits outweigh the costs, etc., and not on irrationality, e.g. because the costs outweigh the benefits, or because banana peels get slimy after a while. That's a bit complicated to answer because it can be rational in two very different respects. It can be rational in the "carefully considered/weighed" meaning of the term, as in someone didn't just come to that conclusion based on a knee-jerk reaction but carefully considered all of the relevant information; but as I mentioned in the other thread, there will always be a component of subjectivity to ethics--the part where it becomes about how we feel about things, and typically assessing benefits/costs on abstract things is such a case--that can't be rationally discerned. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 21:42:08 GMT
Are we still granting that the position A is based on rationality - e.g. because the benefits outweigh the costs, etc., and not on irrationality, e.g. because the costs outweigh the benefits, or because banana peels get slimy after a while. That's a bit complicated to answer because it can be rational in two very different respects. It can be rational in the "carefully considered/weighed" meaning of the term, as in someone didn't just come to that conclusion based on a knee-jerk reaction but carefully considered all of the relevant information; but as I mentioned in the other thread, there will always be a component of subjectivity to ethics--the part where it becomes about how we feel about things, and typically assessing benefits/costs on abstract things is such a case--that can't be rationally discerned. I meant only after valuations are done. B = benefit, C = cost. Advocate because B > C, rational. Advocate because C > B, irrational. Random is irrational also. Probably should have stuck to the slimy banana peel (in considerations having nothing to do with bananas). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 22, 2017 13:23:21 GMT
Are we still granting that the position A is based on rationality - e.g. because the benefits outweigh the costs, etc., and not on irrationality, e.g. because the costs outweigh the benefits, or because banana peels get slimy after a while. That's a bit complicated to answer because it can be rational in two very different respects. It can be rational in the "carefully considered/weighed" meaning of the term, as in someone didn't just come to that conclusion based on a knee-jerk reaction but carefully considered all of the relevant information; but as I mentioned in the other thread, there will always be a component of subjectivity to ethics--the part where it becomes about how we feel about things, and typically assessing benefits/costs on abstract things is such a case--that can't be rationally discerned. So, are we still granting that the abstract A is grounded in rationality? On rationality, only referring to the choice after valuations are done. B = benefit, C = cost. Advocate because B > C, rational. Advocate because C > B, irrational. Random is irrational also. |
|
No. Why do you think it would? Eva Yojimbo , would you give your answer to 1 and 2 below?
