tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post5872013613169818030..comments2024-01-28T06:24:50.005+00:00Comments on No Double Standards: Letter to a Lapsed Pagan IIMartin Freedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-11926381400704516482010-11-13T12:01:06.455+00:002010-11-13T12:01:06.455+00:00Hi Icthus
You are looking at my long neglected bl...Hi Icthus<br /><br />You are looking at my long neglected blog. Thanks for waking me up.<br /><br />You say: "The is-ought fallacy is a real fallacy, and is why knowledge is justified, true belief."<br />This looks like a non-sequitur as it appears you are confusing the an ontological point in the antecedent, with an epistemological point in the consequent. Lets examine your argument:<br /><br />"In order to be knowledge, a belief must both be justified by the evidence, and true by correspondence."<br />This is the tripartite theory of knowledge which has been challenged by Gettier and others. Still I now see your knowledge point is meant to be the antecedent in your original statement and you are trying to argue from this to proving that the is-ought fallacy is a "real fallacy". However I do not deny that many do commit this fallacy, and I only dispute that it is always the case. <br /><br />Now whilst I do not accept the tripartite theory of knowledge, so your argument is unsound, lets accept it for the purposes of debate and see if your argument is valid.<br /><br />"If we consider justified a belief that only corresponds, we commit the is-ought fallacy."<br />Huh? This makes no sense.<br /><br />"If we consider a belief true merely due to evidence in favor of it, we commit the ought-is fallacy."<br />Neither does this. Do you understand what this is-ought distinction actually is? This is a question of ontology not epistemology.<br /><br />"Related to moral truth--if a justified (answering the question of Ethics--"How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?") moral standard doesn't describe anything in reality, to consider it "true" commits the ought-is fallacy."<br />Rather weird terms but taking this charitably you are now confusing moral ontology with moral justification. Anyway I did give an argument as to what moral terms could refer to in the real world - corresponding to what people generally have reasons to promote and inhibit, so, according to you I have not committed the is-ought fallacy.<br /><br />"If we take something from reality and call it moral truth, neglecting to consider whether it is justified (answering the question of Ethics), we commit the is-ought fallacy."<br />Again weirdly put and again trying to understand this charitably this does make sense against, say, theistic-based morality. Theists do think, controversially, that a god exists and so is part of reality - but whatever such a god wills or commands, whether due to its eternal nature, omniscience and/or due to being the creator of everything, is insufficient and so unjustified to be a moral ought, anyone who argues otherwise is indeed committing *an* is-ought fallacy. <br /><br />"In order for there to be moral truth, it must both correspond to (a) real being, and it must be justified (answering the question of Ethics)."<br />And theism fails wrt to your latter premise. As for the first premise that is also unsound there need be no "real being" for their to be moral truth, if you mean this substantively as some form of god. Anyway since your argument is most easily used against theistic-based morality and you are, apparently an Christian apologist, your rather confused as you are producing arguments that refute your own position!<br /> <br />"Its correspondence is not its justification (is=/=ought), and its justification is not its correspondence (ought=/=is)."<br />And this,as already noted, is quite mistaken. <br /><br />So your initial confusion in your original statement over ontology and epistemology still stands and you have not only failed to make a argument but have also refuted your own position! No mean achievement but Christian apologists never surprise me any more :-)Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-17910788037651557562010-11-13T05:50:40.318+00:002010-11-13T05:50:40.318+00:00The is-ought fallacy is a real fallacy, and is why...The is-ought fallacy is a real fallacy, and is why knowledge is justified, true belief. In order to be knowledge, a belief must both be justified by the evidence, and true by correspondence. If we consider justified a belief that only corresponds, we commit the is-ought fallacy. If we consider a belief true merely due to evidence in favor of it, we commit the ought-is fallacy. Related to moral truth--if a justified (answering the question of Ethics--"How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?") moral standard doesn't describe anything in reality, to consider it "true" commits the ought-is fallacy. If we take something from reality and call it moral truth, neglecting to consider whether it is justified (answering the question of Ethics), we commit the is-ought fallacy. In order for there to be moral truth, it must both correspond to (a) real being, and it must be justified (answering the question of Ethics). Its correspondence is not its justification (is=/=ought), and its justification is not its correspondence (ought=/=is). <br /><br />http://www.theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.comMaryann Spikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11252412506351650920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-37317820804640463082010-04-25T10:15:56.805+01:002010-04-25T10:15:56.805+01:00My response, although it's more a series of qu...My response, although it's more a series of questions than a response, is <a href="http://lapsedpagan.blogspot.com/2010/04/desirism-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>Timmeh!https://www.blogger.com/profile/01952786692089125317noreply@blogger.com