I'm not finished understanding the above quoted yet, but i'm wondering, if someone says in a philosophical discussion, "dogs are brown," then is it true that the only way to take this is "all dogs are brown." This is the closest meaningful statement to the one that was made in such a situation.

Tbh I think we may be splitting hairs and getting a little deep. The reason I got started on this was when I read chez's statement about outlier cases or extreme scenarios not mattering. There cant be an extreme scenario to the statement "dogs are brown" because its not even clear what this statement means. But there can be to the statement "all dogs are brown" and this may be a strawman or it may be the closest meaningful statement to the one that was made.

It's the default moral rule that most people do live by. No further justification is required. This may be clearer after the next bit.

So the justification for killing A is retaliation. Eye for an eye type morality

But what justification would we give for not killing C? The very question is odd because in general (or by default) not killing someone doesn't require any justification

Yes. There's nothing apriori about the rules of default logic. It's possible to imagine a world where by default we kill everyone unless we had a particular reason not to.

Hadn't even heard of default logic until you brought it up so I can't even say I disagree with you. But thanks for bringing it up; I definitely plan to get at a grasp of it. Pathetically, not because it might help me resolve some ethical issues but because based on what you've said the ramifications I foresee with machine learning.

Yeah. Just to answer your "dogs are brown" question there's a bunch of concepts (like concepts themselves) to unpack with traditional logic just to get started.

"Dogs are brown" is a lie. Both regarding absolute and default logic. So we can discard the statement.

"Plants are green", on the other hand, can be true. Default logic comes to the rescue here.

My dog is brown <---

Some dogs are brown.

chezlaws cute dog is brown.

chezlaw's dog is as honest as the day is long.


PairTheBoard

It took me ages to find the Brown Dog statue in Battersea Park.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Dog_affair

I use the MoralaMeter 5000 for all of my morality measuring needs.

I use a bottle of gin or Six Pints of an IPA. Whichever is quicker.

And what about southerners in the States in the time of slaves and plantations. Did they say to eachother "enslaving blacks is the default moral rule that we live by. no further justification is required"

Again, i'm using the technique of providing an example which shows that the statement proposed cannot be true. Appealing to the masses would be a valid thing to do only if the masses were infallible.

Default logic is about reasoning, It doesn't determine or guarantee morality. What we would consider deeply immoral societies are captured by default logic just as much as once we consider more moral. Appeal to the masses has nothing to do with it but the prevailing norms do determine the better default rules. [BTW which default rules to use is a very serious topic]

Re the particular example. It's just clearly the case in our society that we generally don't have to justify not killing people (or telling the truth) while we generally do have to justify killing them (or lying). Maybe it doesn't have to be that way but it clearly is that way and so it's obvious which to use as the default rule.

I'm not sure if you understand my point. It is clearly the case that in our society we generally don't have to justify not killing people, but it clearly was the case in Aztec society that you did have to justify not killing people. From this, we can deduce that if someone was dropped into a society, not knowing which one it will be, and used an appeal to masses for his ethical guidance, he could pick one belief or the opposite of that belief, depending on where he landed. Therefore this cannot be used as a tool for someone who is seeking truth regardless of the society in which he landed. Its fine if you have a default rule, but what is not fine, in my opinion, is to bring that up in ethical discussions.

Life matters. You don't take a life lightly. I think that is the default in all cultures. There's always a "justification"

But I'm not using appeal to the masses as a tool. Default logic doesn't even remotely imply, or rely upon, you and I agreeing about what is moral. We all use default logic whether we realise it or not. I fear you're stuck in the common place of thinking that 'default' implies 'shared' or 'correct' or some such.

Your criticism with aztecs/etc doesn't apply to default logic in any way that it doesn't apply to standard deductive logic. Some think morality is about rules that are logically necessary or apriori rules or better rules. That's fine and it's equivalent, in part, to seeking some best or necessary default rules.

Well, this is not true. This is true of your current culture in the current time that you are living, yet you are applying it to all cultures at all times. The mongol horde, for an example, was a culture that was at direct odds with what you are saying, and it did quite well.

They saw killing as important, for achieving their goals. They didn't kill each other systematically in their own group without a goal. They had to "justify" their killing. So you could say the default was kind of not to kill.

It would be much more correct to say that they did what was in their interest, be it killing or not killing. When not killing was in their interest, they didnt kill. When killing was in their interest, their default moral position of "do not kill" that was pressed upon them by humans of the future was overcome, and they killed anyway.

I'm okay saying that 'gratuitous killing' or killing a person for no reason whatsoever has been universally wrong. But does that mean a certain sort of killing (gratuitous) is wrong OR a certain sort of gratuitous act (killing) is wrong? As per what I was getting at upthread, I'd say it means the latter.

Life does not matter. At all. It has no intrinsic value.

That’s the default position.

I'd say it's just human psychology primarily not to kill. But it can be debated. Humans also have the killing deep down: for getting food. But that concerns primarily animals. And, when you think about it, plants.

That's nonsense. Beer is good. That requires life. Therefore life matters.

First, there is no such thing as gratuitous killing. If someone is killing they have a reason to do it. Greed, jealousy, entertainment, boredom, something. You disagree with their reason for doing it and call it gratuitous, but calling it gratuitous just means that you are saying your perspective of situation trumps the killers perspective of the situation -- that you are right and they are wrong in the analysis of the situation.

Second, nothing has been universally anything. But if it has, you are wrong, and it has been universally the other way. You are living in a time of little killing but this is a new development. Your country, I don't care where it is in the world, has not existed as long as the western roman empire did, and killing was rampant in that empire. Even the rich and famous were killed, all the time, and many of them only on suspicion without any evidence.

It is absurd to me to be born into a time and place and think that your way of doing things -- that is, the way things are done by everyone around you -- is the correct and ethical way of doing things, and then go on to say "thats the universal way things have always been done"

I have been corrected. Yes, Beer is good. Having one right now in fact. Cheers!