That people dispute which answer is right doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. The mere fact of disagreement says precious little.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - babyeatsdingo
Since there are some who do abuse infants for their own enjoyment, this has been shown not to be universally true.
Let's line this up.
1. Some people do not believe it is wrong to abuse infants because they abuse infants.
2. The moral judgment "it is always wrong to abuse infants for one's own pleasure" is therefore false.
Anyone see a problem with this?
The flaw of classical logic is that it depends on absolutes, particularly non-contradiction.
What does it mean to say that the law of non-contradiction is flawed? How do you know that the law is flawed?
I predict that you will depend upon and assume the validity of the law of non-contradiction in order to give meaning to the term "flaw" and, further, to argue that the law really is flawed rather than not flawed.
New information does not create a problem with logic itself. Rather, it is by logic that new information is able to contradict old information.
If I believe some proposition P then I ascribe the property of truth to P on the basis of some justification. This does not mean science proves or disproves faith.
This works fine in matters of the physical world. Things we can see, check, verify, quantify.
You say mint chocolate chip ice cream is better than pistachio nut ice cream. Your friend dissents. One of you is right only if there is some aesthetic fact of the matter to which "better" refers. While I do accept the existence of moral facts and that the the moral judgment "it is wrong to abuse infants for one's own pleasure" expresses such a moral fact, I do not know whether there are any aesthetic facts to potentially settle the dispute between you and your friend. This doesn't mean there is no fact of the matter, only that I know of no such fact. One of you may well be objectively and absolutely right and the other objectively and absolutely wrong.
I didn't say Aristotle "invented" logic. In now way did Aristotle create classical logic. He merely articulated it well and so is credited for having discovered it. The rules of classical logic express what must be true in all possible worlds.
Let's look at the flat earth example you bring up, GD.
Did some folks once depend upon classical logic (laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity) to argue and say they know that the earth is flat? Let's suppose some did. Let's suppose further that these same argued thus:
1. The Bible says the earth is flat
2. The Bible cannot be mistaken
3. The earth is flat
Is the argument valid? Yes. That's because classical logic is valid. Is the argument sound? That depends, for one, on whether or not the Bible really says the earth is flat. I don't read the Bible as saying the earth is flat. Few if any do. Did classical logic fail us? No. Those who hastily concluded that the first premise is true failed us.
All valid arguments are upheld by classical logic. That doesn't mean we can fault classical logic when we come to learn that some argument is unsound.
I suppose Aristotle is credited for properly discovering and articulating classical logic. Anyway, yes, we must assume classical logic. It is axiomatic. It is a necessary precondition for truth, knowledge, rational inference, dissent etc.