0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In the deductive reasoning toward universal terminal goal, my initial assumptions are all necessary, based on the definition of each words in the phrase. They are necessary because rejecting them inevitably leads to contradiction.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 12:32:33Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?A reference to such things as Pantone and BSI standard colors, but not "one universal color"!I'm happy to have a different moral code from that of a flea. I'm also happy to kill fleas because they spread bacteria whose moral code is distinctly and necessarily contrary to my best interests.
Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?
Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standard
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 14:52:18Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standardBut you have failed to demonstrate one, or even prove that the concept is meaningful. That's religion, not science!
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/07/2021 13:00:34Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 12:32:33Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?A reference to such things as Pantone and BSI standard colors, but not "one universal color"!I'm happy to have a different moral code from that of a flea. I'm also happy to kill fleas because they spread bacteria whose moral code is distinctly and necessarily contrary to my best interests. It seems like you struggle to see morality from non-individualistic point of view and self interest. Maybe you started to learn about morality from individualistic/selfish perspective and got too used to it.
"Demonstrated" = show me, or at least a decent photograph.
A demonstration (apodeixis) is “a deduction that produces knowledge”. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics contains his account of demonstrations and their role in knowledge. From a modern perspective, we might think that this subject moves outside of logic to epistemology. From Aristotle’s perspective, however, the connection of the theory of sullogismoi with the theory of knowledge is especially close.
"Meaningful" = having unique, demonstrable, and consistent implications.
One key distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is that the latter accepts that a conclusion is uncertain and may change in the future. A conclusion is either strong or weak, not right or wrong. We tend to use this type of reasoning in everyday life, drawing conclusions from experiences and then updating our beliefs.
The issue with overusing inductive reasoning is that cognitive shortcuts and biases can warp the conclusions we draw. Our world is not always as predictable as inductive reasoning suggests, and we may selectively draw upon past experiences to confirm a belief. Someone who reasons inductively that they have bad luck may recall only unlucky experiences to support that hypothesis and ignore instances of good luck.
The only problem with Aristotle is that he was wrong about almost everything.
Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs. --Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.
The so-called Animal Sentience Bill currently being debated in the UK House of Lords seeks to establish, for the first time in history, a recognition that animals can feel pain in UK law.Opposition has been raised to the bill, on the grounds that it may threaten certain institutions, such as angling, hunting, and food production, among other things. Critics of the bill seem not to realise how raising such objections only demonstrates how urgently we need it to be passed into law.--------------------------------LINKS---------------------------------Read the Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2867The Times Report: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-rebels-fear-activists-will-hijack-animal-sentience-bill-5qb97vx3lThe Times' Opinion Piece: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-animal-sentience-bill-happy-creatures-jxfkgdb9v
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits any person from inflicting, causing, or if it is the owner, permitting, unnecessary pain or suffering to be inflicted on any animal. The Act makes it a crime to beat, kick, torture, mutilate, administer an injurious substance, or cruelly kill an animal.
The only problem is that case law already requires you to quickly and humanely dispatch an injured animal if it is clearly beyond repair (or you intend to eat it). If you don't distinguish between species (and there's no scientific reason why you should) that makes human euthanasia mandatory, which will annoy a lot of religious parasites.