5 ms·

Given the focus on arguments that are alleged to be purely semantic, it would have been helpful to have a good example of such an argument. He describes the deb

by foldr 6y ago

Given the focus on arguments that are alleged to be purely semantic, it would have been helpful to have a good example of such an argument. He describes the debate over abortion as a canonical example. The idea here seems to be that the debate over whether a foetus is 'alive' is a purely semantic dispute over the definition of the word 'life'. This strikes me as simply a mistake. It's certainly very difficult to have a sensible debate about abortion (and let's definitely not have one here!), but it's not plausible to characterize the disagreement between pro- and anti-abortion folks as a mere disagreement over the meanings of words. In the case of disagreements that are truly merely semantic, it's possible for each side to either (i) come to an agreement on terminology or (ii) agree that they disagree only about terminology. Perhaps the broader issue here is that everyone loves to tell themselves they're leaving a community because they're too good for it, rather than just admitting that's it's become bad for their mental health to get involved in frequent anonymous arguments on the internet.

30f0fn 6y ago
Indeed. The disagreement over abortion is, roughly, whether killing a human fetus should ever be legal. The disagreement is hard to resolve because it’s not clear which principles to apply, so that arguments pro or con can take on a semantic flavor, but there’s nothing semantic about the underlying issue. (It might be that the author harbors some feeling that all ethical questions are merely semantic; this is putting a lot of weight on a distinction which became discredited in 1951).
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  What happened in 1951?
- rsynnott 6y ago
  I mean, I think there _is_ some semantic debate, in that there are always semantic debates about what is life and what isn't on the edges (see the endless rather tedious argument about whether viruses, or, more esoterically, mitochondria, are life whenever anyone brings it up), but it's largely irrelevant to the actual question.
Ma8ee 6y ago
I actually agree, and have thought so for a long time, that the discussion about abortion is very much about the meaning of the term life. One side is convinced that a human life starts at the conception. And if you think that, it is very simple: Abortion is taking a human life, i.e., killing a person. Then nothing else matters. We can bring up all social, economic, feminist, psychological, health, etc. arguments in the world, all in vain. We all agree that we don't go around and kill people, so if you think that life starts at the conception, there's nothing more to argue about. So in this case, we disagree only about meaning. The only way to have fruitful discussion would be to talk about what we mean by a human life. Then I'm not sure that is possible when one side's main argument is "the Bible says so". But there's nothing inconsistent or contradictory that could be resolved between the premises "a human life starts at conception" and "taking a human life is always wrong", and the conclusion "abortion is wrong".
- foldr 6y ago
  You're then talking about 'meaning' in a deeper sense than just the arbitrary definitions of words, so it's no longer a purely semantic dispute. (Note that the author characterizes semantic disputes as disputes over arbitrary definitions.)
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    I reread the relevant parts of the text again, and I don't find anything that supports that the author meant anything else with "semantics" than I do. Semantics is about "meaning", not only on a superficial level.
    - foldr 6y ago
      "Semantic arguments are particularly insidious. Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary (unless the actual argument is about language). The worst thing you can do is to have an argument in which you talk past each other because you each have a different idea about what the words mean." It doesn't make sense to dismiss an argument as merely semantic if you are talking about something more than just arbitrary definitions. In many cases, pro- and anti-abortion people have a genuine disagreement about the point at which life begins. This isn't merely a disagreement about how to define a particular word. You can, if you want to, characterize it as a dispute about what it 'means' for something to be alive, but that's a much deeper issue than a mere semantic quibble. (The debate can't, for example, be resolved by introducing two new terms alive* and alive†, with both sides of the debate agreeing that a foetus is alive* but not alive†.)

by foldr 6y ago

30f0fn 6y ago

Indeed. The disagreement over abortion is, roughly, whether killing a human fetus should ever be legal. The disagreement is hard to resolve because it’s not clear which principles to apply, so that arguments pro or con can take on a semantic flavor, but there’s nothing semantic about the underlying issue. (It might be that the author harbors some feeling that all ethical questions are merely semantic; this is putting a lot of weight on a distinction which became discredited in 1951).

Ma8ee 6y ago
What happened in 1951?
rsynnott 6y ago
I mean, I think there _is_ some semantic debate, in that there are always semantic debates about what is life and what isn't on the edges (see the endless rather tedious argument about whether viruses, or, more esoterically, mitochondria, are life whenever anyone brings it up), but it's largely irrelevant to the actual question.

Ma8ee 6y ago

I actually agree, and have thought so for a long time, that the discussion about abortion is very much about the meaning of the term life. One side is convinced that a human life starts at the conception. And if you think that, it is very simple: Abortion is taking a human life, i.e., killing a person. Then nothing else matters. We can bring up all social, economic, feminist, psychological, health, etc. arguments in the world, all in vain. We all agree that we don't go around and kill people, so if you think that life starts at the conception, there's nothing more to argue about. So in this case, we disagree only about meaning. The only way to have fruitful discussion would be to talk about what we mean by a human life. Then I'm not sure that is possible when one side's main argument is "the Bible says so". But there's nothing inconsistent or contradictory that could be resolved between the premises "a human life starts at conception" and "taking a human life is always wrong", and the conclusion "abortion is wrong".

foldr 6y ago
You're then talking about 'meaning' in a deeper sense than just the arbitrary definitions of words, so it's no longer a purely semantic dispute. (Note that the author characterizes semantic disputes as disputes over arbitrary definitions.)
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  I reread the relevant parts of the text again, and I don't find anything that supports that the author meant anything else with "semantics" than I do. Semantics is about "meaning", not only on a superficial level.
  - foldr 6y ago
    "Semantic arguments are particularly insidious. Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary (unless the actual argument is about language). The worst thing you can do is to have an argument in which you talk past each other because you each have a different idea about what the words mean." It doesn't make sense to dismiss an argument as merely semantic if you are talking about something more than just arbitrary definitions. In many cases, pro- and anti-abortion people have a genuine disagreement about the point at which life begins. This isn't merely a disagreement about how to define a particular word. You can, if you want to, characterize it as a dispute about what it 'means' for something to be alive, but that's a much deeper issue than a mere semantic quibble. (The debate can't, for example, be resolved by introducing two new terms alive* and alive†, with both sides of the debate agreeing that a foetus is alive* but not alive†.)