5 ms·

First, please do not get too hung up about "all people are created equal". It's just an example in this context. > If we are in search of truth and want to bui

by jabot 9y ago

First, please do not get too hung up about "all people are created equal". It's just an example in this context. > If we are in search of truth and want to build a consistent model of the world then we just can't accept this kind of reasoning. Yes, you can. It's called generalizing. Remember, we're not doing math here, this is ethics. Think about all the different situations where being treated equally to someone else is a good thing. Now you generalize that into "everyone is created equal", and that turns into a justification for all these situations. If you want to criticise the generalization into A, there is a way: Construct some C so that 1) A => C 2) C is not beneficial Alternatively, you can attack the implication "A => B" or you can question whether or not B is beneficial.

wantstosaysome 9y ago
>we're not doing math here, this is ethics. What does that even mean? Ethics is moot, if the logical eventuality of the flawed reasoning is net harm. >Think about all the different situations where being treated equally to someone else is a good thing. Now you generalize that into "everyone is created equal", and that turns into a justification for all these situations. Please clarify here. Justification for all these situations? Or Justification for the belief? If it is the latter, the belief cannot be justified if the does not reflect reality. All it help to create false expectations and what ever loss/harm it causes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Scea91 9y ago
> Think about all the different situations where being treated equally to someone else is a good thing. Now you generalize that into "everyone is created equal", and that turns into a justification for all these situations. The valid generalization would be "everyone should be treated equally" not "everyone is created equal" which is a totally different thing.
- jabot 9y ago
  Good point. EDIT: I think what you're doing here is criticising A by constructing A' and arguing that it is better (by having the same consequences while being less general). That is a good way of criticising the generalization as well.
badosu 9y ago
>> If we are in search of truth and want to build a consistent model of the world then we just can't accept this kind of reasoning. > Yes, you can. It's called generalizing. Remember, we're not doing math here, this is ethics. To strive for a consistent set of beliefs grounded in reality is more akin to most branches of Philosophy than Mathematics as far as I am concerned, and seems particularly concerning to Ethics (e.g. you can achieve a set of beliefs of what you can consider 'good' or 'evil' ignoring all perception of reality but would the result be desirable?).

by jabot 9y ago

wantstosaysome 9y ago

>we're not doing math here, this is ethics. What does that even mean? Ethics is moot, if the logical eventuality of the flawed reasoning is net harm. >Think about all the different situations where being treated equally to someone else is a good thing. Now you generalize that into "everyone is created equal", and that turns into a justification for all these situations. Please clarify here. Justification for all these situations? Or Justification for the belief? If it is the latter, the belief cannot be justified if the does not reflect reality. All it help to create false expectations and what ever loss/harm it causes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Scea91 9y ago

> Think about all the different situations where being treated equally to someone else is a good thing. Now you generalize that into "everyone is created equal", and that turns into a justification for all these situations. The valid generalization would be "everyone should be treated equally" not "everyone is created equal" which is a totally different thing.

jabot 9y ago
Good point. EDIT: I think what you're doing here is criticising A by constructing A' and arguing that it is better (by having the same consequences while being less general). That is a good way of criticising the generalization as well.

badosu 9y ago

>> If we are in search of truth and want to build a consistent model of the world then we just can't accept this kind of reasoning. > Yes, you can. It's called generalizing. Remember, we're not doing math here, this is ethics. To strive for a consistent set of beliefs grounded in reality is more akin to most branches of Philosophy than Mathematics as far as I am concerned, and seems particularly concerning to Ethics (e.g. you can achieve a set of beliefs of what you can consider 'good' or 'evil' ignoring all perception of reality but would the result be desirable?).