Evidence of a bipedal (upright walking dog, like a gorilla) dog would. If dogs are, by definition, quadrupeds, then there is nothing that can be done to make the statement "every dog is a quadruped" incorrect. I think the problem in your above statement is equivocation on the word quadruped -- a three-legged dog is still a quadruped. This means you are saying "evidence of a quadruped dog does not render 'every dog is a quadruped' wrong or incorrect." and I would have to agree with you there.

If I saw a dog walking like a gorilla (with evolutionary changes like hip rotation, etc), the statement "every dog is a quadruped" would have to be incorrect in light of this new evidence. Quadruped means more along the lines of "is evolved to get its main movement on four feet" than it does "has four feet at every moment of its life."

It misses the point.* What we are trying to do is identify dogs (or morally good or bad stuff).

You will get the wrong answer about the question of dog if you count legs (given the existence of three-legged dogs).

Don't worry though. Everyone else is arguing about whether reductio ad adsurdum is useful and trying to figure out how useful in regards to a specific moral rule.

My original point was that virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism (and any other high-level method) readily lead to conclusions about morality that people tend to feel are yucky. Some people seem to think that is a big deal. I'm comfortable with moral dumbfoundedness** existing.

*it is also incorrect (or misleading if you are attempting a bait and switch with quadruped and four-legged).

**moral dumbfoundedness is an excellent phrase worth looking up

I agree too. Likewise, substituting the definition of quadruped: "a three-legged dog does not render 'every dog is four-legged' wrong or incorrect."

But as per your back and forth with Chez, why does a permissible act that seems to violate a moral principle render the principle wrong or incorrect in regard to ethics but not with other similar claims?

The problem with that is we derive types from tokens. So if the only instances we have to start with are three-legged dogs, we'll abstract that quality and define dogs as tripedal animals.

But we agree about that it's not precise. Which is why I would move to a default logic statement of the form 'never lie unless it's right to lie'

Isn't your argument like claiming there's no value in Newtonian mechanics? Sure it's wrong but it has huge value. So I agree 'never lie' is not a true statement but you can't start with default logic anymore than you can start with relativity.

If you prefer (as I do), you could switch to 'lying is wrong' That can always be true with an understanding of 'necessary evils' added. it all amounts to the same thing though and so it has broadly equivalent value.

They all miss default logic. Forgivable for Plato but inexcusable these days.

Conclusion is true iff conclusion is not yucky.

The really really important point that most struggle with is that the conclusion is true unless you can demonstrate that it is yucky.

Honesty is the best policy.




PairTheBoard

That isn't even remotely a problem. We create categories (not types) because they are useful in communication and problem solving.

If we call 3-legged dogs, "dogs" and our newly discovered 4-legged dogs "wogs," it isn't a problem at all. Somewhat might even notice that they are related categories, since that is the sort of thing that a person might do.

Thats the thing, it doesn't just apply to ethics, it applies to everything in the world. If I say that every solar system has at least one star, and your provide me an example of a solar system with 0 stars, my previous statement cant still be true. The outlying, hard-to-find case is exactly what is needed to be found to show the original statement to be wrong.

The reverse of what you are saying is actually the truth. In reality, people know this to apply to everything in the world but for some reason think that ethics is immune to it. People know that if they find one example of a rabbit in the Archean, the entire field of evolution is changed forever. We know that if we find one person who can use dowsing rods to effect in double blind studies, the entire field of esp will be opened to science. Yet for some reason, most people think that if you find an example where lying is ethical, the statement "all lying is unethical" can still somehow be true -- the mind boggles.

There is more to being a quadruped than having four legs and four feet. You would also have hip bones shaped in a different way, as well as shoulders. Look at the similarity in hip and shoulders between horses and dogs. Then between apes and humans.

Sure, we can count feet and that works most of the time, but when a leg has been cut off, there is more you have to do then count feet. You can look at the parents, the offspring, the position of the hips, the feet, the gate of the animal (does it move naturally on three feet, or does it look goofy and out of place as if something is wrong), many many things.

You said you think its a big mistake when people think that if it is wrong for an extreme case it is invalid (or something like this, I cant remember the exact quote) which would imply that you would not change it to "never lie unless its right to lie"


Well, at first I thought you were right, and that I would change my opinion about this, but now I'm not sure. Newtonian mechanics does still have value, but at the same time, its taught with an asterisk, knowing that it is only valid for some certain middle-ground of physics, and that it breaks down at the edges. The original position, that it works for all of physics, is no longer anywhere maintained, and if it were, that would be incorrect. However I think you are right, that even if it were incorrect, it could still have some value because you could do work with it. I will have to rethink my position, thanks for that.


Well, >0 and >1 are very different.

Okay, when it is said "if it is not good for an extreme case, it is not good any general case" I think what is meant is this: It breaks down at the edges, and you know this, so you know you didn't get it completely right.

Say that the truth is in red, and Newtonian physics is in blue:

For the middle part, assume they are completely overlapping (the truth and the blue).

Yeah, you're right, just because it fails at the extreme case doesn't mean it cant be good or useful for the non-extreme case. I will have to think about it for a while and get back to you.

You can do that. What you cannot do is equate two words that have different meanings and think that you have made something that closely resembles a point.

You also, unless you are an ancient greek dude, cannot believe in forms and expect to be taken seriously.*

Note: you were not the one who did that

*you also cannot do so as an ancient greek dude, since dead people don't have expectations.

I dont know what you are saying here. If I start walking on all 4's that doesn't mean I'm a quadruped, and it doesn't mean humans aren't bipedal. If I cut a dog's leg off it doesn't mean dogs aren't quadrupeds. If I find a white tiger in nature, it does mean that the statement "all tigers are orange and black" is false. If I paint a tiger black, it doesn't mean some tigers are black, it means some tigers are painted black. Subtle differences in wording here are important.

Even if the above is true, and we accept it as true, it doesn't mean that evidence of a flying mammal wont render the statement "no mammals are capable of flight" incorrect, or better yet, it doesnt mean that evidence of a bat doesn't render the statement "no mammals have evolved the capacity to fly" incorrect.

In logic, all we need is one counter example to show a statement as false. When found, the entire statement becomes false, regardless of whether or not there is truth to some smaller slice of the statement.

"Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration to make a point. It is completely and utterly unlike any other rhetorical technique, the single most powerful way to communicate any concept ever conceived."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hyperbole

I think the author of that quote had a sense of humor.

Evidently, Hyperbole Logic is actually a thing.


PairTheBoard

Didnt we (iirc) establish earlier that hyperbole used in math? For instance, when checking to see if a function is 1-1, the first thing that is usually done is looking for extreme scenarios such as where the slope is undefined. Or interesting inputs such as 0, where sometimes things can get weird. Or something like this, I suck at math.

You're thinking of hyperbola.

From Wiki -
Hyperbole

Description
Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis. In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally
=======================



PairTheBoard

No. You are thinking of a high pergola.

I meant that mentioning quadrupeds is not relevant to the truthfulness of the statement "every dog has 4 legs."

Nothing more than that.

It would be true and invalid, since we are presumably interested in what people find yucky. Most people don't think that a utility pump is a good thing, despite it logically being the very best thing.

That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say anyway is more along the lines of "lying isn't wrong."

Q: Is lying wrong? Y/N
Q: Is killing a person wrong? Y/N

My guess is that when pressed most will answer N to both questions but immediately want to qualify their answer, a qualification that could very well take the form of "it's not wrong except when it is" or something to that effect.

I agree with that if we're just talking about a statement. But we're not. We're talking about logical propositions and in this case an A-form proposition used in argument. So while informally it's fine to read "Every dog is a quadruped" as a claim that every single dog in existence has four legs, that's not what the proposition means in a logical sense. In that sense it's simply saying "Dog is quadruped."

So your statement "all lying is unethical" would read simply "Lying is unethical." Now I don't believe not telling people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is unethical, so I wouldn't agree. But not because I can imagine scenarios where it would be appropriate to lie, rather because I don't believe lying is inherently unethical, which is what I meant earlier when I said "lying isn't wrong." For me, it's the circumstances and intentions of the person that makes an act of lying, killing, etc. wrong or right, not the essential act itself.

I'm assuming you have a rigorous theory of yuckyness.

If not then we have to stick to the true unless it isn't.

More the other way round I think i.e 'don't lie', 'don't kill' are the defaults with particular exceptions requiring justification. It matters that we get this the right way round because we don't need any particular justification to tell the truth or not kill someone - these are literally the default positions.

.

Just to add that the diagram would be a lot more complicated for moral issues. Exceptions will pop up all over the place (may even by chaotic) but will still be a tiny proportion of the whole.

What do you mean they are the default positions? What reasons do we have to assume these are the default positions? If anything the default positions would be neither--that it is neither right nor wrong to lie or to kill. Then, when the lying happens and the murdering happens, we look at the results and see if it is to our liking.

Person A kills person B, person B's brother kills person A. Person A's father then kills person B's brother, and so it goes, on and on, vengeful men serving justice. This of course is not to our liking as we need all four of these able-bodied men to fight our wars and till our fields.

This scenario being plausible does not come apriori but rather from an understanding of human behavior -- jealousy, revenge, justice, etc. If humans only killed when it was ethical and right to do so, there's no way it would be illegal.

The fact that we observe something and make a decision about it being good to us or not, I dont think, can mean that our conclusion about the scenario is now the "default position."