Neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that since mental states like suffering are related to empirical changes in brain function there is an empirical and objective basis for describing an action as moral or immoral: whether it increases or decreases the total well-being of conscious creatures. From this vantage, certain actions, like killing a newborn, are objectively immoral; they objectively reduce the well-being of conscious creatures. The argument you've given is circular because your premise includes your conclusion, but if that conclusion were supported differently, via the above, it could be reached.
+Stian Olsnes It's not circular. You can tell, because you can't do this: 1. How do you know something exists that is absolutely morally wrong? 2. Because killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong. 3. How do you know killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong? 4. Because there exists something that is absolutely morally wrong. The inference from 1 to 2 works (at least if infanticide counts as something). The inference from 3 to 4 does not. Just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that any particular thing is. The only real problem with your argument is that you're missing a premise: P1. Killing newborn babies for fun is something. P2. Killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong. C. There exists something that is absolutely morally wrong. It's a silly nitpick, I know. +Alex Stein Sam Harris' morality doesn't change the argument from circular to non-circular -- it just adds additional premises to try and justify P2. It's similar to preceding the argument with: P3. Something is absolutely morally wrong if, and only if, I don't like it. P4. I don't like killing newborn babies for fun. The difference is that you would have to be pretty silly to accept P3 as true. Harris' premises are much more believable, though you have to be a certain kind of person to actually accept them.
dodopod Harris' statements about morality are _definitional_; he isn't really _adding_ any premises. According to him, "moral" and "immoral" ought to reduce to "beneficial to well-being" and "deleterious to well-being," respectively. This isn't the same as "if, and only if, I don't like it," though there will often be a coincidence. We have grounds for making objective statements about morality given this definition of it. In fact, without this "object-level" conception of morality, we have nothing concrete to point to when making extrapolations about it. Avoiding useless abstractions, Stian's argument might be phrased: P1. An immoral action is an action which produces a net harm to well-being. P2. Killing a baby (for fun) produces a net harm to well-being.* C: Killing a baby (for fun) is an immoral action (absolutely morally wrong). *We must include as much context as possible to ensure this is true in a given instance: allowing an unstoppable computer dictator that would torture all conscious organisms forever if displeased to kill a baby for fun _would_ be a moral (if not wholly desirable) action.
***** "Harris' statements about morality are definitional" This is pretty much what I meant. I was just using "if, and only if, I don't like it" as an example of a definition. It happens to be an abysmal definition, though -- I'll give you that. I was just saying that, in the context of Stian's argument, there's no need to define 'absolutely morally wrong'. The argument isn't circular either way.
dodopod I think we may have some crossed wires. I disagree that "if, and only if, I don't like it" was his intended definition, and that was _my_ point. As I understand it, Stian's argument, in the particular instance that he presented it, _is_ circular because it begins with its conclusion, that being that "moral wrongness" exists. That proposition is contained in the first premise, rather than being moved to by inference.
"II Tim. 3:16 says the Bible is inspired, so we know that the Bible is inspired" seems more like an appeal to authority to me. "The Bible is inspired , so we know the bible is inspired" seems more like the circular argument. In the latter, there is no cause to believe that the bible is inspired. However in the former there is a cause if the bible itself is taken to be an authority. It's entirely possible that a person can view the Bible as not inspired but take it as an authority. That person can be convinced that the Bible is inspired based on the authority of the Bible itself. For had the Bible not said it itself was inspired, that person would be unconvinced. An analogy would be, "My teacher says that he's a scientist, so we know my teacher is a scientist". This seems like an appeal to authority because the acceptance is based off what the teacher says as an authority. The circular argument would be, "My teacher is a scientist, so we know my teacher is a scientist."
If someone asks you complex questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?" or "Where did you hide the dope?" the obvious response seems to be to address the hidden question with "I was never beating my wife" and "I did not hide any dope."
+dodopod It is easy if you train yourself not to feel that you have to answer people's questions right away. pause. Then say: "what would make you say something like X". because, to be frank, they are being very lousy to give you such a loaded question in the first place and hus there's nothing wrong with letting them know.
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!👍
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thanks for this video PhilHelper!
Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales! Thanks for this Video! PhilHelper!
Done watching, Maam Joy Cerjulas. Thank you for this video, PhilHelper!.
Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video, Philhelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy P. Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper!.
Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!
Done watching Maam Joy Cerujales Thankyou for this video, Philhelper!
Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales , Thanks for this video, Philhelper.
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!🙂
Done watching @Ma'am Joy Cerujales and thanks for this video, Philhelper...
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper! :)
"done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"
Done watching, Maam joy Cerjuales, Thankyou for this video. Philhelper !
Done watching,Mam Joy Cerujales.Thank u for this video,Philhelper.
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thankyou for this video, Philhelper
Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video Philhelper
Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhiHelper.
Done watching maam joy cerujales. Thank youfor this video PhilHelper.
ambiguous can also mean imprecise and vague. It's not always defined as exhibiting constructional homonymity
done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper
1. Killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong
2. There exists something that is absolutely morally wrong
Is this argument circular?
Neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that since mental states like suffering are related to empirical changes in brain function there is an empirical and objective basis for describing an action as moral or immoral: whether it increases or decreases the total well-being of conscious creatures. From this vantage, certain actions, like killing a newborn, are objectively immoral; they objectively reduce the well-being of conscious creatures. The argument you've given is circular because your premise includes your conclusion, but if that conclusion were supported differently, via the above, it could be reached.
+Stian Olsnes It's not circular. You can tell, because you can't do this:
1. How do you know something exists that is absolutely morally wrong?
2. Because killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong.
3. How do you know killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong?
4. Because there exists something that is absolutely morally wrong.
The inference from 1 to 2 works (at least if infanticide counts as something). The inference from 3 to 4 does not. Just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that any particular thing is.
The only real problem with your argument is that you're missing a premise:
P1. Killing newborn babies for fun is something.
P2. Killing newborn babies for fun is absolutely morally wrong.
C. There exists something that is absolutely morally wrong.
It's a silly nitpick, I know.
+Alex Stein Sam Harris' morality doesn't change the argument from circular to non-circular -- it just adds additional premises to try and justify P2. It's similar to preceding the argument with:
P3. Something is absolutely morally wrong if, and only if, I don't like it.
P4. I don't like killing newborn babies for fun.
The difference is that you would have to be pretty silly to accept P3 as true. Harris' premises are much more believable, though you have to be a certain kind of person to actually accept them.
dodopod Harris' statements about morality are _definitional_; he isn't really _adding_ any premises. According to him, "moral" and "immoral" ought to reduce to "beneficial to well-being" and "deleterious to well-being," respectively. This isn't the same as "if, and only if, I don't like it," though there will often be a coincidence. We have grounds for making objective statements about morality given this definition of it. In fact, without this "object-level" conception of morality, we have nothing concrete to point to when making extrapolations about it. Avoiding useless abstractions, Stian's argument might be phrased:
P1. An immoral action is an action which produces a net harm to well-being.
P2. Killing a baby (for fun) produces a net harm to well-being.*
C: Killing a baby (for fun) is an immoral action (absolutely morally wrong).
*We must include as much context as possible to ensure this is true in a given instance: allowing an unstoppable computer dictator that would torture all conscious organisms forever if displeased to kill a baby for fun _would_ be a moral (if not wholly desirable) action.
***** "Harris' statements about morality are definitional"
This is pretty much what I meant. I was just using "if, and only if, I don't like it" as an example of a definition. It happens to be an abysmal definition, though -- I'll give you that.
I was just saying that, in the context of Stian's argument, there's no need to define 'absolutely morally wrong'. The argument isn't circular either way.
dodopod I think we may have some crossed wires. I disagree that "if, and only if, I don't like it" was his intended definition, and that was _my_ point. As I understand it, Stian's argument, in the particular instance that he presented it, _is_ circular because it begins with its conclusion, that being that "moral wrongness" exists. That proposition is contained in the first premise, rather than being moved to by inference.
"II Tim. 3:16 says the Bible is inspired, so we know that the Bible is inspired" seems more like an appeal to authority to me. "The Bible is inspired , so we know the bible is inspired" seems more like the circular argument. In the latter, there is no cause to believe that the bible is inspired. However in the former there is a cause if the bible itself is taken to be an authority. It's entirely possible that a person can view the Bible as not inspired but take it as an authority. That person can be convinced that the Bible is inspired based on the authority of the Bible itself. For had the Bible not said it itself was inspired, that person would be unconvinced.
An analogy would be, "My teacher says that he's a scientist, so we know my teacher is a scientist". This seems like an appeal to authority because the acceptance is based off what the teacher says as an authority. The circular argument would be, "My teacher is a scientist, so we know my teacher is a scientist."
If someone asks you complex questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?" or "Where did you hide the dope?" the obvious response seems to be to address the hidden question with "I was never beating my wife" and "I did not hide any dope."
+Alex Stein That's true, it's just not always easy to think of that on the spot.
+dodopod It is easy if you train yourself not to feel that you have to answer people's questions right away. pause. Then say: "what would make you say something like X". because, to be frank, they are being very lousy to give you such a loaded question in the first place and hus there's nothing wrong with letting them know.
13:41
done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"
done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales
thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video. Philhelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!
Done watching. Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper!
done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video. Philhelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thanks for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thanks for the video PhilHelper!
done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!
done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!