Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 9:51 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 9:39 pm
So should this evaluation be done individually or on average for groups of individuals?

For the purpose of apportioning taxes, Individually, of course.

Sounds like either a questionnaire or a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 30th, 2023, 3:47 pm

Ecurb wrote: ↑January 30th, 2023, 10:33 am
The map and the U.S. geography text are equivalent to "educated people saying it is the case".

Well, no, it's not. We don't believe the maps and texts because someone else does (including the authors). We believe it because we assume those authors gathered evidence supporting their claims --- conducted surveys, made measurements, etc. That is a rebuttable presumption, but warrants acceptance until some reason appears for doubting it (and quite often it does). Public opinion, however, on almost any subject, does not warrant that assumption, because most of "the public" are ignorant on most subjects and will have no evidence for their beliefs. But it doesn't matter how educated the person is. If he can't produce evidence supporting his belief, that belief is worth no more than that of an ignoramus.

The entire peer-review system for scientific journals is a form of ad populum decision making.

Well, you clearly have no idea of what "peer review" entails. It means that others familiar with the topic in question have reviewed the evidence and arguments provided by the author and decided either that 1) the evidence is clear and sufficient and the arguments sound, or 2) that they are not. In the latter case the author may be asked to provide more evidence or repair errors in his statistical analysis. Then, when the article is published, others can try to duplicate the results (and often enough, fail to do so). Peer review is not poll-taking.

Barry Bonds hit the most home runs in the history of Major League baseball. The experts all say he did, and I believe them.

Do you believe them because they are "experts" and said so, or because you assume they actually counted them and could produce evidence for every one of those home runs?

Despite your complaints, my point stands. Panels of judges decide whether to accept journal papers. The decision is made ad populum. The scientific consensus is that the world is round, species evolved through natural selection, Alaska is the biggerst state, and Alpha Proxima is the nearest star, other than the sun. I've never measured the heavens, or mapped the U.S. I just accept the consensus, which is prinrted in maps. Of course the consensus is formed through the observations and measurements of some few people. But it remnains accepted because it is the consensus.

"Life and liberty are "possessions"", and therefore the right to life and liberty are akin to property rights.

I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. It's an equivocation.

That is not a postulate supporting the conclusion you reject. It is just an observation, and hardly controversial. You don't possess your life, liberty?

"Possess (transitive verb):

"1a: to have and hold as property : OWN
b: to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess

We don't "hold life or liberty as a property". That's your mistake. We don't "own" liberty; we sometimes have it, and we sometimes don't have it. Life and liberty are states of being, not "possessions". You are twisting the definitions to imply otherwise.

Egads. You assert, "I don't think "possessions" is an accurate description of life or liberty. " I give a dictionary definition clearly asserting otherwise. Now I've "twisted" that definition? Are life and liberty not attributes of (living) persons?

You seem to be construing "possessions" narrowly, embracing only tangible, physical objects. The term has a much broader scope.

The definition is unclear. What does "hold" mean? We can't "hold" liberty, or life. What does "have" mean? Can we "have" other perople's lives? If not, why do we "have" our own?

Neither "life" nor "liberty" is a "knowledge" or "skill". Perhaps, then, we are left with "attribute". Is liberty an "atribute"? Not if you're in prison, or enslaved. Is life an "attribute" -- well, maybe. That's your last gasp in an arguement you seem to think is clear anbd obfvious, but which isn't.

You now want a complete argument for libertarianism? How about one for the conclusion you rejected, which was, I believe, "No person has any a priori duty to meet any other person's needs, medical or otherwise."

Note, first, that that is a denial of an alleged duty. The burden of proof would fall on the person who asserts there is such a duty. I asked you before, "What rational moral principle permits Alfie to force Bruno to support Alfie's favorite charity, or any charity?"

You offered no answer (other than the fallacious ad populum argument).

But the argument for my claim is simple enough: Alfie has no a priori duty to pay for Brunos' health care because there are no a priori duties. All moral duties arise from some act of the agent. Alfie may have a duty to pay for Brunos' health care if he has injured Bruno, or made some sort of promise to him, or entered into a contract with him imposing that duty upon him. Duties claimed to exist a priori are arbitrary and baseless, and usually defended on emotional, religious, or other non-rational grounds.

So I ask again: do you have a rational argument for that duty?

Of course I do. Postulate: Do unto others as your would have others do unto you.
Coralarry: Most rational people would want help paying for medical care if they were indigant.
Conclusion: We should pay for indigent people's medical care.

Question: What would be a fair way to all chip in for the medical care of the indigent?
Answer: Graduated taxes where rich people pay more, both as a percentage and as a total. They can best afford it.

This is one of many duties that follow from the basic principle. Of course I know you don't accept the principle. But you can hardly pooh-pooh it as historically or ethically irrelevant. It's been the foundation of Western morality for 2000 years.

Of course this principle -- like most ethical principles -- asserts that there are a priori positive duties. OK. We're at an impasse. You say there aren't. I say there are. You may think we can argue our way to agreement, but we can't. That's why I asked for your principles. Principles are not and cannot be objective. If you think there is no duty to care for your children, love your neighbor, and do unto others, that's your prerogative -- just as it is mine to think your negative philosophy is like a black hole, sucking the light from the universe.

Ecurb wrote: ↑January 30th, 2023, 10:34 pm Postulate: Do unto others as your would have others do unto you.
Coralarry: Most rational people would want help paying for medical care if they were indigant.
Conclusion: We should pay for indigent people's medical care.

Question: What would be a fair way to all chip in for the medical care of the indigent?
Answer: Graduated taxes where rich people pay more, both as a percentage and as a total. They can best afford it.

This is one of many duties that follow from the basic principle. Of course I know you don't accept the principle.

The objection is not to the principle, but to your lopsided way of applying it. A better application would be:

I would have others invite me to voluntarily contribute to the good causes they have identified, and not coerce me into doing so by threatening me with imprisonment if I do not.

Conclusion: I should not coerce others.

The libertarian state is the most moral state because it applies the minimum of coercion. No rational person desires to be coerced.

Your logic fails at the point where you say "we should pay". The term "we" is not present in the premises of the argument as stated, and thus cannot logically be present in the conclusion.

The problem with all positive moral duties is identifying whom they belong to.

The step from "it would be a morally good thing if Bruno received medical care" to "Ecurb has the moral right to coerce Alfie into paying for it" is the step you cannot logically justify.

You're left falling back on weak statements like "seems fair to me".

But you're not willing to let Alfie spend his money according to what seems fair to him, and in that you are not doing as you would be done by.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 28th, 2023, 1:22 pm No, they can't be "collectively" harmed. Any harms will affect particular individuals. It is possible, of course, that some particular harm can befall all the members of some group, but the larger the group, the less likely that becomes. In groups larger than a few hundred people any public policy will benefit some, harm others, and leave others unaffected.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 10:24 am Don't be silly! Being an individual, and being a member of a group, is not an either/or thing. On the contrary, we are all both, at different times, and in different circumstances. We are all members of many groups, of all shapes and sizes, and we remain individual throughout all that. 'Groupness' is not an attack on the individual or on individualism. It's just a direct expression of empirical observations. Your antipathy toward anything that dilutes your Libertarian (i.e. Individualist) beliefs is getting, er, comical...?

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 1:00 pm I didn't deny that individuals (in social settings) are members of groups, or express any "antipathy" to groups or "groupness"(?). I just said that harms are not collective; that they apply only to individuals, whether or not they're members of groups, and that the larger the group, the less likely any particular harm will befall all of its members.

To the extent that groups exist — and they do; we don't disagree about that — they can suffer 'collective harm'. But considering groups requires — among other things — a statistical approach. Statements made about groups are necessarily general statements. A 'collective harm' will likely not apply to all members, but this does not invalidate the observation. Consideration of groups, and group dynamics, is a general sort of thing. It is not precise, and any observations made will rarely affect all members equally. As you are well aware, there are qualitative differences between individuals and groups of individuals. This generalisation is one of them.

Are imprecise matters beyond your understanding? I doubt it. The world is filled with things that, to us, appear (and perhaps are) imprecise. We need to learn to deal with them in the serious and considered way that philosophers do such things. We invented statistics for good reasons, and maybe one of those reasons is handling imprecise matters such as group dynamics?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑January 31st, 2023, 4:26 am
The objection is not to the principle, but to your lopsided way of applying it. A better application would be:

I would have others invite me to voluntarily contribute to the good causes they have identified, and not coerce me into doing so by threatening me with imprisonment if I do not.

Conclusion: I should not coerce others.

The libertarian state is the most moral state because it applies the minimum of coercion. No rational person desires to be coerced.

Your logic fails at the point where you say "we should pay". The term "we" is not present in the premises of the argument as stated, and thus cannot logically be present in the conclusion.

The problem with all positive moral duties is identifying whom they belong to.

The step from "it would be a morally good thing if Bruno received medical care" to "Ecurb has the moral right to coerce Alfie into paying for it" is the step you cannot logically justify.

You're left falling back on weak statements like "seems fair to me".

But you're not willing to let Alfie spend his money according to what seems fair to him, and in that you are not doing as you would be done by.

YOur position is reasonable -- but not unassailable. It is true, of course, that I would wish to be able to spend my own money however I want. This wish conflicts with my responsibility to support other people -- a responsibility supported by both the Golden Rule and "Love your Neighbor..." How do I decide these conflicts for myself? How do I decide them for others?

If we agree that taxes are also reasonable, all taxes interfere with a person's wish to spend his money however he desires. This is true however the taxes are spent. GE thinks taxes are reasonable if they help pay for things that are useful to the tax-payer. Are welfare and National Health Insurance useful to everyone? That's a complicated discussion, but the answer is clearly disputable. Does public education benefit those without children? If not, should we abandon paying for it with tax dollars? Is it reasonable for a professional criminal to abhor paying taxes to fund the police?

The problem with this approach is that the arguments it precipitates are endless. What expenditures benefit everyone? The compromise is that governments tax people and then decide how to spend the money, subject, of course, to the will of the electorate. If the electorate and their representatives propose spending money on immoral things (say, sterilizing certain classes of people), then it is the duty of the tax payers to rebel. However, despite GE's complaints, providing Health Care and food for the indigent does not rise to that level of immorality. In fact, if "forcing" people to pay taxes is reasonable, it becomes mere quibbling to object to some expenditures (but not others) as "robbery".

If a neighbor breaks into your house, robs all your money, and then spends it on repaving the sidewalk in front of his house (which also benefits you) is he absolved of robbery? If not, is a government that collects taxes forcibly absolved of robbery if they spend it only on those things which benefit every tax payer? Isn't that impossible? Does the army benefit those who wish we were ruled by a foreign power? Do the police benefit criminals?

As I've said before (but you may not have read), if compelling people to do things using violence and force is a bad thing, utopia must clearly be an anarchy. I respect anarchists. My objection to Libertarians is that they want to enforce certain laws that support property rights, and refuse to see that this is just as limiting on freedom as laws that tax people to pay for food stamps. AT least we have a voice in the government; we have no say in how property owners limit our freedom vis a vis the property.

That's fine. We can all have our own opinions about what ideal governance looks like. But when Libertarians argue that other forms of government are immoral ("theft"), but their preferred form is not, I object. All forms involve forcibly collecting money, and GE is tying himself in knots trying to suggest that certain expenditures are "theft", while others are not.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 31st, 2023, 9:25 am
To the extent that groups exist — and they do; we don't disagree about that — they can suffer 'collective harm'. But considering groups requires — among other things — a statistical approach. Statements made about groups are necessarily general statements. A 'collective harm' will likely not apply to all members, but this does not invalidate the observation. Consideration of groups, and group dynamics, is a general sort of thing. It is not precise, and any observations made will rarely affect all members equally. As you are well aware, there are qualitative differences between individuals and groups of individuals. This generalisation is one of them.

Are imprecise matters beyond your understanding? I doubt it. The world is filled with things that, to us, appear (and perhaps are) imprecise. We need to learn to deal with them in the serious and considered way that philosophers do such things. We invented statistics for good reasons, and maybe one of those reasons is handling imprecise matters such as group dynamics?

You're overlooking the obvious. You can't compute any statistics describing groups except by examining each of the individuals constituting that group. And when you do that you always find the variable of interest applies to some members and not to others (in large groups). Moral constraints apply to individuals, to the acts of individuals and the effects of those acts on other individuals. You can't justify an act or policy that harms some individuals on the ground that it benefits other individuals --- at least, not via a moral theory that postulates an "equal agency" principle (all moral agents have the same moral status). That precludes any individual being offered up as a "sacrificial goat" to someone else's interests. Public policies have to be "Pareto optimal."

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

You can speak metaphorically of "collective harm." But any such alleged harms, if they exist, will be reducible to harms to individuals, and those are what you'll need to count in order to compile any statistics.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑January 14th, 2023, 11:32 pm It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

Classic Brahmanism holds that the essential unity of all is real whereas duality and plurality are phenomenal illusion and that matter is materialized energy which in turn is the temporal manifestation of an incorporeal spiritual eternal essence constituting the innermost self of all things. That way omniscience and omnibenevolence would be possible.

Ecurb wrote: ↑January 30th, 2023, 10:34 pm
Despite your complaints, my point stands. Panels of judges decide whether to accept journal papers. The decision is made ad populum.

You still fail to understand what an ad populum argument is, and why it is fallacious. An ad populum argument is one which holds, "Everyone (or some defined group) believes P is true. Therefore, P must be true."

The fact that some group believes P to be true is assumed (per the ad populum fallacy) to be evidence for the truth of P, a reason for believing that P. Which it is not. None of the judges on your "panel" are basing their vote on the beliefs of other members of the panel, or the beliefs of anyone else. They're basing their votes on the evidence presented in the paper before them. That they agree that the evidence supports the thesis of the paper is not itself an argument for the soundness of that thesis.

Most people would agree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But their agreement is not evidence for that fact. An argument to the effect, "Everyone agrees the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Therefore, the sun must rise in the east and set is the west" is a fallacious argument --- the evidence for that proposition consists of observations of the position of the sun in the sky at various times of day; people's beliefs have nothing to do with it.

So, no, your panel is not approving the paper based on an ad populum argument, and their agreement does not constitute an ad populum argument for the soundness of the paper's thesis.

You seem to be construing "possessions" narrowly, embracing only tangible, physical objects. The term has a much broader scope.

The definition is unclear. What does "hold" mean? We can't "hold" liberty, or life. What does "have" mean? Can we "have" other perople's lives? If not, why do we "have" our own?

Egads. You're now questioning the meanings of "hold" and "have"? What's next --- the meanings of "this" and "that"?

Neither "life" nor "liberty" is a "knowledge" or "skill". Perhaps, then, we are left with "attribute". Is liberty an "atribute"? Not if you're in prison, or enslaved. Is life an "attribute" -- well, maybe. That's your last gasp in an arguement you seem to think is clear anbd obfvious, but which isn't.

*Sigh". Yes, those are attributes of living things. Those things (and many others) have many other non-tangible attributes as well (but maybe I'm being vague, using the word "have").

So I ask again: do you have a rational argument for that duty?

Of course I do. Postulate: Do unto others as your would have others do unto you.

Heh. Well, couple of problems there. First, the postulates of a theory must be self-evident --- i.e, beyond reasonable doubt. Your postulate is hardly that, and in fact begs the question. The Golden Rule also has disconcerting implications: Would you want a masochist to do unto you what he would have you do unto him? Your postulate is as dubious as the conclusion you wish to draw from it.

Coralarry: Most rational people would want help paying for medical care if they were indigant.

That is not self-evident either. And surely false if this "help" is be secured from unwilling persons at gunpoint.

Conclusion: We should pay for indigent people's medical care.

Well, that conclusion is a glaring non-sequitur; there are terms in the conclusion that don't appear in the premises, and you're trying to derive an "ought" from an "is."

I'd suggest a course in logic.

This is one of many duties that follow from the basic principle. Of course I know you don't accept the principle. But you can hardly pooh-pooh it as historically or ethically irrelevant. It's been the foundation of Western morality for 2000 years.

Well, no, it hasn't. It is just a dogma often recited from pulpits, but honored more in the breach than the observance.

If you think there is no duty to care for your children, love your neighbor, and do unto others, that's your prerogative -- just as it is mine to think your negative philosophy is like a black hole, sucking the light from the universe.

Oh, there is a duty to care for your children --- you brought them into the world. As I said, duties arise from acts of the agent. But there is no duty to "love your neighbor" (and if there is, hardly anyone honors it). You do have a moral constraint with regard to your neighbor, i.e., not to violate his rights. But no duty to provide for him.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 31st, 2023, 9:25 am To the extent that groups exist — and they do; we don't disagree about that — they can suffer 'collective harm'. But considering groups requires — among other things — a statistical approach. Statements made about groups are necessarily general statements. A 'collective harm' will likely not apply to all members, but this does not invalidate the observation. Consideration of groups, and group dynamics, is a general sort of thing. It is not precise, and any observations made will rarely affect all members equally. As you are well aware, there are qualitative differences between individuals and groups of individuals. This generalisation is one of them.

Are imprecise matters beyond your understanding? I doubt it. The world is filled with things that, to us, appear (and perhaps are) imprecise. We need to learn to deal with them in the serious and considered way that philosophers do such things. We invented statistics for good reasons, and maybe one of those reasons is handling imprecise matters such as group dynamics?

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 31st, 2023, 11:54 am You're overlooking the obvious. You can't compute any statistics describing groups except by examining each of the individuals constituting that group. And when you do that you always find the variable of interest applies to some members and not to others (in large groups). Moral constraints apply to individuals, to the acts of individuals and the effects of those acts on other individuals. You can't justify an act or policy that harms some individuals on the ground that it benefits other individuals --- at least, not via a moral theory that postulates an "equal agency" principle (all moral agents have the same moral status). That precludes any individual being offered up as a "sacrificial goat" to someone else's interests. Public policies have to be "Pareto optimal."

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

You can speak metaphorically of "collective harm." But any such alleged harms, if they exist, will be reducible to harms to individuals, and those are what you'll need to count in order to compile any statistics.

All I hear in your replies is a reminder I didn't need: that being members of a group doesn't take away the individuality of those members. A group can usefully be viewed as an entity in itself. It is not a formally-real entity like a person is, but groups do show sufficient similarities to living things that the perspective offers a worthwhile way of seeing them. Worthwhile and useful.

Your comments reflect those that say that a human mind (for example) can be reduced to neuronal activity. Yes, OK, but there are other perspectives that can usefully add to this, without taking away from the initial observation about the fundamental components involved.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 31st, 2023, 9:25 pm

You still fail to understand what an ad populum argument is, and why it is fallacious. An ad populum argument is one which holds, "Everyone (or some defined group) believes P is true. Therefore, P must be true."

The fact that some group believes P to be true is assumed (per the ad populum fallacy) to be evidence for the truth of P, a reason for believing that P. Which it is not. None of the judges on your "panel" are basing their vote on the beliefs of other members of the panel, or the beliefs of anyone else. They're basing their votes on the evidence presented in the paper before them. That they agree that the evidence supports the thesis of the paper is not itself an argument for the soundness of that thesis.

Most people would agree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But their agreement is not evidence for that fact. An argument to the effect, "Everyone agrees the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Therefore, the sun must rise in the east and set is the west" is a fallacious argument --- the evidence for that proposition consists of observations of the position of the sun in the sky at various times of day; people's beliefs have nothing to do with it.

So, no, your panel is not approving the paper based on an ad populum argument, and their agreement does not constitute an ad populum argument for the soundness of the paper's thesis.

i assure you I understand the ad populum fallacy perfectly. I also agree that everyone's belief that something is true does not constitute proof that it is true. Nonetheless, it DOES constitute evidence. If everyone in the world tells you you are not Napoleon and were not even alive when the battle of Borodino was fought, you might consider listening to them. I know that you seem to think you are the only reasonable, intelligent person in the world, GE. But you're not.

When scientists vote to aaccept or reject a paper, their verdict does not PROVE that the paper is shoddily done, or incorrect in its conclusions. However, it DOES provide evidence that some experts feel that is the case, and it's worth considering their expert opinon.

All of this is so obvious that I'm astounded at your complaints, although, of course, since your own positions are unpopular, I know you must rail against the wisdom of the majority. Also, since ranting about fallacies is so popular on the internets, you have begun arguing in the popular (but fallacious) fashion.

Egads. You're now questioning the meanings of "hold" and "have"? What's next --- the meanings of "this" and "that"?

Hold: Grasp or support with your hands

Have: Possess or own

Of course if we "have" something, we "possess or own" it -- by definition. My objections stand.

Heh. Well, couple of problems there. First, the postulates of a theory must be self-evident --- i.e, beyond reasonable doubt. Your postulate is hardly that, and in fact begs the question. The Golden Rule also has disconcerting implications: Would you want a masochist to do unto you what he would have you do unto him? Your postulate is as dubious as the conclusion you wish to draw from it.

Coralarry: Most rational people would want help paying for medical care if they were indigant.

That is not self-evident either. And surely false if this "help" is be secured from unwilling persons at gunpoint.

Conclusion: We should pay for indigent people's medical care.

Well, that conclusion is a glaring non-sequitur; there are terms in the conclusion that don't appear in the premises, and you're trying to derive an "ought" from an "is."

I'd suggest a course in logic.

This is one of many duties that follow from the basic principle. Of course I know you don't accept the principle. But you can hardly pooh-pooh it as historically or ethically irrelevant. It's been the foundation of Western morality for 2000 years.

Well, no, it hasn't. It is just a dogma often recited from pulpits, but honored more in the breach than the observance.

If you think there is no duty to care for your children, love your neighbor, and do unto others, that's your prerogative -- just as it is mine to think your negative philosophy is like a black hole, sucking the light from the universe.

Oh, there is a duty to care for your children --- you brought them into the world. As I said, duties arise from acts of the agent. But there is no duty to "love your neighbor" (and if there is, hardly anyone honors it). You do have a moral constraint with regard to your neighbor, i.e., not to violate his rights. But no duty to provide for him.

This is all nonsense. Postulates need not be self evident. They can be whatever I want them to be. At least I offered mine -- while you duck and weave.

I am,it is true, guessing at what "most people want". But I think I'm right. Also, the "masochist" argument has been used before to object to the Golden Rule. The Golden rule applies to "reasonable people of normal sensitivities", a phrase which is commonly used in legal terminology, and is accepted by the courts. You keep repeating, "you have no duty to provide for your neighbor". I know that's your opinion, GE. Simply repeating it is neither an argument nor an interesting discussion point. Do we have a duty to care for our neighbors? That's the issue at hand.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
All I hear in your replies is a reminder I didn't need: that being members of a group doesn't take away the individuality of those members. A group can usefully be viewed as an entity in itself.

For some purposes, yes. Describing a group is a shorthand way of describing the members of the group. Other than statistical properties, groups have no properties not reducible to properties of their members. E.g., we can say, "Utah is a Mormon state." Or, "Utah has a population of 3.3 million." Only the latter is a property of the group; the former is a shorthand for a property of some (large) fraction of its members.

We have to keep that in mind when we speak of "the good" for a group: whatever that "good" is, it will only be a good for some members of that group, if any, but not likely all. It will also likely be a "bad" for other members of the group. If so, and you ignore that fact, you do indeed "take way the individuality" of those members.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 9:11 am All I hear in your replies is a reminder I didn't need: that being members of a group doesn't take away the individuality of those members. A group can usefully be viewed as an entity in itself.

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 1:00 pm For some purposes, yes. Describing a group is a shorthand way of describing the members of the group. Other than statistical properties, groups have no properties not reducible to properties of their members. E.g., we can say, "Utah is a Mormon state." Or, "Utah has a population of 3.3 million." Only the latter is a property of the group; the former is a shorthand for a property of some (large) fraction of its members.

We have to keep that in mind when we speak of "the good" for a group: whatever that "good" is, it will only be a good for some members of that group, if any, but not likely all. It will also likely be a "bad" for other members of the group. If so, and you ignore that fact, you do indeed "take way the individuality" of those members.

A group has properties that its members do not share. They can't; how could they? The group properties relate to the nature of the group itself, and no individual is (in this sense) a group, so that's why the members do not share these properties. In the grossest and most black-and-white example I can think of, crowds of people flowing through (say) a shopping centre [Am: mall] can be usefully modelled using the equations of fluid dynamics. They flow through the centre like a liquid. This property is not reflected in the members of the crowd; it is a parent-only property, that its 'children' do not share.

Please don't respond to tell me that these properties would and could not be present without the individual members. That is obvious and accepted. But there is more to these things than your tunnel-vision Individualist perspective. Yours is a useful perspective, but it is only one of many. Your refusal to explore the rest of the "many" is a constraint you place upon yourself, from which others do not suffer. Your move, your choice.

Ecurb wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 11:37 am
i assure you I understand the ad populum fallacy perfectly. I also agree that everyone's belief that something is true does not constitute proof that it is true. Nonetheless, it DOES constitute evidence.

Well, then don't understand what evidence is, either:

"In the sciences, evidence is understood as what confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. The term "confirmation" is sometimes used synonymously with that of "evidential support". Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity. This is especially relevant for choosing between competing theories. So in the case above, evidence plays the role of neutral arbiter between Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation. This is only possible if scientific evidence is public and uncontroversial so that proponents of competing scientific theories agree on what evidence is available. These requirements suggest scientific evidence consists not of private mental states but of public physical objects or events. [Italics in original]

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

That Alfie believes P is never evidence that P, for any P or any number of Alfies.

If everyone in the world tells you you are not Napoleon and were not even alive when the battle of Borodino was fought, you might consider listening to them.

Oh, I would listen to them. But I wouldn't believe them until I'd personally reviewed the evidence they offered. That evidence might persuade me to change my mind, but not their mere assertions. Their beliefs are evidence of nothing.

Egads. You're now questioning the meanings of "hold" and "have"? What's next --- the meanings of "this" and "that"?

Hold: Grasp or support with your hands

Have: Possess or own

Of course if we "have" something, we "possess or own" it -- by definition. My objections stand.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Do you have a life and (some) liberty? If so, then (per statement above) you own them. But earlier you said, "We don't 'own' liberty; we sometimes have it, and we sometimes don't have it. Life and liberty are states of being, not 'possessions.'"

This is all nonsense. Postulates need not be self evident. They can be whatever I want them to be.

Well, yes, they do. Otherwise the postulates must be justified per some "meta" theory, and the postulates of that theory justified, ad infinitum. You launch yourself into an infinite regress.

I'd suggest a couse in philosophy of science to go along with that logic course. Or perhaps a perusal of Carl Hempel:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel/#ScieExpl

I am,it is true, guessing at what "most people want". But I think I'm right. Also, the "masochist" argument has been used before to object to the Golden Rule. The Golden rule applies to "reasonable people of normal sensitivities", a phrase which is commonly used in legal terminology, and is accepted by the courts.

Heh. Well, "what most people want" is hardly an argument for any moral duty. But since you see no problem with ad populum arguments, you naturally think they suffice to establish such duties. (A sound moral theory, BTW, must apply universally, to all moral agents in a social setting, not only to those with "normal sensitivities").

You keep repeating, "you have no duty to provide for your neighbor". I know that's your opinion, GE. Simply repeating it is neither an argument nor an interesting discussion point. Do we have a duty to care for our neighbors? That's the issue at hand.

Yes, it is. And since you hold the affirmative, the burden is upon you to supply a rational moral argument for that alleged duty (and, of course, ad populum arguments are not rational arguments).

Moral duties and constraints derive from moral theories; they are not innate or natural properties of persons. So please set forth the theory from whuich you derive that duty.

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 2:18 pm

Ecurb wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 11:37 am
i assure you I understand the ad populum fallacy perfectly. I also agree that everyone's belief that something is true does not constitute proof that it is true. Nonetheless, it DOES constitute evidence.

Well, then don't understand what evidence is, either:

"In the sciences, evidence is understood as what confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. The term "confirmation" is sometimes used synonymously with that of "evidential support". Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity. This is especially relevant for choosing between competing theories. So in the case above, evidence plays the role of neutral arbiter between Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation. This is only possible if scientific evidence is public and uncontroversial so that proponents of competing scientific theories agree on what evidence is available. These requirements suggest scientific evidence consists not of private mental states but of public physical objects or events. [Italics in original]

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

That Alfie believes P is never evidence that P, for any P or any number of Alfies.

If everyone in the world tells you you are not Napoleon and were not even alive when the battle of Borodino was fought, you might consider listening to them.

Oh, I would listen to them. But I wouldn't believe them until I'd personally reviewed the evidence they offered. That evidence might persuade me to change my mind, but not their mere assertions. Their beliefs are evidence of nothing.

Egads. You're now questioning the meanings of "hold" and "have"? What's next --- the meanings of "this" and "that"?

Hold: Grasp or support with your hands

Have: Possess or own

Of course if we "have" something, we "possess or own" it -- by definition. My objections stand.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Do you have a life and (some) liberty? If so, then (per statement above) you own them. But earlier you said, "We don't 'own' liberty; we sometimes have it, and we sometimes don't have it. Life and liberty are states of being, not 'possessions.'"

This is all nonsense. Postulates need not be self evident. They can be whatever I want them to be.

Well, yes, they do. Otherwise the postulates must be justified per some "meta" theory, and the postulates of that theory justified, ad infinitum. You launch yourself into an infinite regress.

I'd suggest a couse in philosophy of science to go along with that logic course. Or perhaps a perusal of Carl Hempel:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel/#ScieExpl

I am,it is true, guessing at what "most people want". But I think I'm right. Also, the "masochist" argument has been used before to object to the Golden Rule. The Golden rule applies to "reasonable people of normal sensitivities", a phrase which is commonly used in legal terminology, and is accepted by the courts.

Heh. Well, "what most people want" is hardly an argument for any moral duty. But since you see no problem with ad populum arguments, you naturally think they suffice to establish such duties. (A sound moral theory, BTW, must apply universally, to all moral agents in a social setting, not only to those with "normal sensitivities").

You keep repeating, "you have no duty to provide for your neighbor". I know that's your opinion, GE. Simply repeating it is neither an argument nor an interesting discussion point. Do we have a duty to care for our neighbors? That's the issue at hand.

Yes, it is. And since you hold the affirmative, the burden is upon you to supply a rational moral argument for that alleged duty (and, of course, ad populum arguments are not rational arguments).

Moral duties and constraints derive from moral theories; they are not innate or natural properties of persons. So please set forth the theory from whuich you derive that duty.

This discussion is going nowhere.; If you don't think that Napoleon's troops fought the battle of Borodino despite the fact that all historians say he did, I can't help you. Of course the actual historians may have access to other kinds of evidence. But you and I don't. We must either accept the historical ad populum verdict or not.

As far as what comprises our "duties", your ideas are no more objective than anyone elses, including mine. Personally, I think it is my duty to always be kind, and never dishonorable. True: I sometimes shirk the first part of this duty when people annoy me on philosophy fora. But it's reasonable for me to assign such duties, and your notion that I have a "duty" to supply a rational moral argument in its support contradicts your own theories about duty. So there.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 1st, 2023, 1:10 pm
For some purposes, yes. Describing a group is a shorthand way of describing the members of the group. Other than statistical properties, groups have no properties not reducible to properties of their members. E.g., we can say, "Utah is a Mormon state." Or, "Utah has a population of 3.3 million." Only the latter is a property of the group; the former is a shorthand for a property of some (large) fraction of its members.

We have to keep that in mind when we speak of "the good" for a group: whatever that "good" is, it will only be a good for some members of that group, if any, but not likely all. It will also likely be a "bad" for other members of the group. If so, and you ignore that fact, you do indeed "take way the individuality" of those members.

A group has properties that its members do not share. They can't; how could they? The group properties relate to the nature of the group itself, and no individual is (in this sense) a group, so that's why the members do not share these properties. In the grossest and most black-and-white example I can think of, crowds of people flowing through (say) a shopping centre [Am: mall] can be usefully modelled using the equations of fluid dynamics. They flow through the centre like a liquid. This property is not reflected in the members of the crowd; it is a parent-only property, that its 'children' do not share.[/quote]

That is one of the statistical properties I mentioned. It is not true of any person in Utah that he/she "has a population of 3.3 million." It is only true of the group as a whole. Your fluid dynamics example is similar.

But when we begin speaking of "the good" for a group, we're no longer speaking of the group as a whole, but of its members, and usually, only some of them.