Is there such a thing as 'A correct point of view'.

[Cozarkian]

...opinions about what is morally acceptable behavior can be correct or wrong.

By whose standards? Who gets to decide which opinion (out of all the many opinions) is the "right" one?

--A

That's kind of the problem, isn't it. Divine command theory, the social contract theory, utilitarianism, deontology, etc... all seek in some way to answer that question.

Ultimately, we need some objective standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, "in my point of view, it was morally acceptable" becomes a valid legal defense.

[Cozarkian]

So...I can say dogs are never scary, [though particular dogs in particular circumstances may pose a threat] from ANY POV. It is not a property of dogs. It is only that people are scared.
That may seem silly/semantic...but it isn't.[/color]

That's a thought-provoking statement. It would make an interesting Doctor Who episode to have a monster (maybe the boogeyman) that has the actual property of being scary under your definition. Perhaps it could excrete some type of fear-inducing pheromone that causes humans to undergo physiological changes commonly associated with fear.

Ultimately, your argument suggests that we have a misunderstanding about whether opinions even really exist. When I say "that dog is scary," I'm not actually giving an opinion as to whether the dog is scary, I'm making a factually verifiable statement as to whether I am experiencing the physiological symptoms of fear as a result of my observations about the dog.

We could examine this further by applying the same logic to other descriptive words. For example, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, nobody would actually have the property of being beautiful. Now, when I call someone beautiful we know I'm not really suggesting the person has the property of beauty, rather I am expressing that I find her appearance pleasing. Potentially, my body could be experiencing physiological changes that science could measure to verify whether I actually find that person beautiful. Taking that further, maybe beauty is an actual property that someone can possess. There are already studies suggesting that people find symmetry attractive, so maybe we are actually genetically programmed to respond to visual observation of someone's physical appearance.

[Avatar]

Ultimately, we need some objective standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, "in my point of view, it was morally acceptable" becomes a valid legal defense.

It's not a legal defence. It can't be, because the law doesn't care about what is moral, only about what is legal. But it is a moral defence.

"Right" can't be objective, because it is based on a subjective world view.

--A

[Zarathustra]

We don't need objective standards of right and wrong. Objective standards of acceptable and unacceptable are sufficient for social cohesion and civil rights protection. I don't really care about what others think is right or wrong. That's a moral issue. In terms of laws, I think we should only be concerned with what we'll put up with. A sense of moral indignation or vindication isn't necessary to determine this; that's just emotional baggage.

[Cozarkian]

Ultimately, we need some objective standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, "in my point of view, it was morally acceptable" becomes a valid legal defense.

It's not a legal defence. It can't be, because the law doesn't care about what is moral, only about what is legal. But it is a moral defence.
--A

Ethics is one of the predominant policy considerations in drafting a penal code.

[Vraith]

Ultimately, we need some objective standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, "in my point of view, it was morally acceptable" becomes a valid legal defense.

It's not a legal defence. It can't be, because the law doesn't care about what is moral, only about what is legal. But it is a moral defence.
--A

Ethics is one of the predominant policy considerations in drafting a penal code.

Ethics and morality are not the same thing. [hence Z speaking of acceptable/unacceptable].
In either case [right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable], there really isn't an objective standard that "exists." There are only objective definitions that we create. One may think putting a bullet in a random strangers head for no reason is morally wrong, ethically unacceptable, but there is nothing objective or standard about it till we say so and back it up with consequences.

[DoctorGamgee]

Hashi, I just have one queston regarding logical fallacies:

I understand them and appreciate their use in breaking down an argument within a debate. And yet, human society is not an inherently logical place, and at times, while a position may be based on a logical fallacy, it shows itself in the execution to be true. Is it just me, or is the invalidating of an argument for/against a proposition within society based on a logical fallacy built on the premise that reason will be universally accepted and ad hered to (which is not always the case)?

It brings to mind when Spock makes the statement "Wanting is not the same thing as having. It is illogical; it is, however, true."(I paraphrase)

Can you help me out here?

[Vraith]

Is it just me, or is the invalidating of an argument for/against a proposition within society based on a logical fallacy built on the premise that reason will be universally accepted and ad hered to (which is not always the case)?

Hashi will probably address this since you asked him...
But I will say no.
No one I know of believes that only the logical will be universally accepted/adhered to.
Societies will accept/adhere to lots of things...
They've been doing so forever....
But if they are fallacious they cannot be justified. They are unjust by definition...
And that's a large part of why they die. [and a large part of why they kill].

As an aside/question...do you have an example of a position based on a logical fallacy that is nevertheless true in execution?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi, I just have one queston regarding logical fallacies:

I understand them and appreciate their use in breaking down an argument within a debate. And yet, human society is not an inherently logical place, and at times, while a position may be based on a logical fallacy, it shows itself in the execution to be true. Is it just me, or is the invalidating of an argument for/against a proposition within society based on a logical fallacy built on the premise that reason will be universally accepted and ad hered to (which is not always the case)?

It brings to mind when Spock makes the statement "Wanting is not the same thing as having. It is illogical; it is, however, true."(I paraphrase)

Can you help me out here?

Being rational--or being logical, or however you want to say it--is a wonderful thing to do on a personal basis as long as you allow yourself to be illogical or irrational at times. Society itself has to be built on rational rules that are commonly accepted or we are left with chaos. The people in that society, taken as a whole, are illogical and irrational most of the time. Rationality will never be universally followed so no, it isn't just you. Of course, we can examine the rules that generally govern societies and see some rationality but in general the object in question--the society itself--is not necessarily rational. This is the sociological equivalent of the inherent problem of quantum physics--examination changes what is observed.

It is possible to base a society on some rules that are false but can be believed to be true, such as "you may own another human being as property", and this society will function well enough that it won't collapse quickly. However, the knowledge that those foundations are false yet believed will be there in the back of everyone's mind and ultimately they will have to confront the truth. This begins a cascading deconstruction of the society--if one foundational belief is shown to be false then all the others could be, as well.

The really funny thing about logical fallacies is this: just because your argument may contain a logical fallacy doesn't mean that your conclusion is untrue. It means only that you need to remove the loopholes from your thought process.

[Vraith]

The really funny thing about logical fallacies is this: just because your argument may contain a logical fallacy doesn't mean that your conclusion is untrue. It means only that you need to remove the loopholes from your thought process.

It may not mean your "conclusion" is untrue. It DOES mean you do not have a conclusion.
So I repeat...any system/social structure incorporating such a "conclusion" [even IF the conclusion is somehow true for other reasons] will be unjust from top to bottom.

[DoctorGamgee]

Thanks, Hashi.

Vraith, I fear that my seriously answering your question would end up hijacking this thread, which I am trying not to do. But I thank you for your thoughts as well.

[Avatar]

Objective standards of acceptable and unacceptable are sufficient for social cohesion and civil rights protection.

Yes they are, but even those aren't really objective. They're just mutually agreed on.

Well, I mean not objective in the sense that people appear to use the word, i.e. something that is "true" separately from our perceptions. If you're using it in it's original sense of simply being unbiased, or uninfluenced by personal feeling or opinion, then I agree.

--A

[peter]

One problem is that you can always throw up specific exeptions that fly in the face of what is otherwise a clear cut situation. 'Murder is wrong' therefor it would have been wrong to murder Adolph Hitler (a trite example but it illustrates the point). The particular has a knack of contradicting the general.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

At the risk of derailing, it would have been wrong to murder Hitler--if you can get close enough to kill him then you could get close enough to catch him and bring him to trial. Besides, by the beginning of WWII in Sept. 1939 killing Hitler wouldn't make much difference--the machinery was already in place. The only difference it might have made would have been the German military not invading Russia, their biggest mistake. By 1943 it wouldn't matter whether you killed him or not--he was mostly gone due to the medications, anyway, and other people were really running the show.

[Vraith]

One problem is that you can always throw up specific exeptions that fly in the face of what is otherwise a clear cut situation. 'Murder is wrong' therefor it would have been wrong to murder Adolph Hitler (a trite example but it illustrates the point). The particular has a knack of contradicting the general.

I'm always wary when impossible what ifs are used to counter things.
Systems HAVE to be examined/tested with the hard cases.
Practically the entire history of philosophical thought exists because of the hard cases.
But an impossible case isn't an hard case.
Besides Hashi's if you can kill him you can capture him, there's this:
If you don't know the future, it is wrong, you are simply a murderer.
If you do know the future, is it murder at all? No. Justifiable homicide, Defense of others. [if capture isn't possible].

[Avatar]

As usual, it's a matter of perspective.

--A

[peter]

One could say it depends on your point of view (;)).

My point is I think there is a paradox here - I think *both* positions are right and that the problem is with our use of words rather than being a contravention of the laws of Logic. 'It is not murder to kill someone in protection of other peoples lives' could be the starting point of unravelling the dilema - and so you come back to the stance of absolute rights and wrongs in the moral sphere. Hate to say it but it's almost a religious/ideological thing; we are born with the knowledge of 'right and wrong' hard-wired into us (maybe).

[Avatar]

No we're not. We're just inculcated with it so quickly and subliminally that it feels like it.

--A

[peter]

Yes - I believe this is true (but I struggle to identify the things in my view of whats right and wrong that could be changed ( ) and we (in western culture at least which is really all I know) all seem to have a remarkable degree of agreement on what is 'right and wrong'.)

[Cozarkian]

and so you come back to the stance of absolute rights and wrongs in the moral sphere. Hate to say it but it's almost a religious/ideological thing; we are born with the knowledge of 'right and wrong' hard-wired into us (maybe).

No we're not. We're just inculcated with it so quickly and subliminally that it feels like it.

--A

Just because we aren't born with an objective knowledge of right and wrong doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard in the universe. Many laws of physics exist despite the fact that we don't understand them until after we are born.

Assuming you don't believe in a deity, it is difficult to grasp the concept of an objective standard just existing without anyone deciding what that standard is, but frankly, a lot of the concepts in the Loresraat are difficult to grasp and defy our common understanding of the world. The superposition of states in quantum physics seems impossible, yet science has tests to confirm it. Similarly, I don't think it is impossible for the universe to have some inherent objective standard of morality despite the difficulty in grasping it.