The Idiocy of "Your Truth and My Truth"
If I have heard it once, I have heard it a million times, "You have your truth, and I have mine." Little do people know how incredibly stupid that statement is. I heard it spoken in a Graduate School class in Ethics, with no retort from the Prof. Amazing but true.
Who can tell me why this statement is so nonsensical. If not, why is it so "meaningful?" Remember, we follow the common master.
posted by Underground Logician @ 2:22 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
There can only be one truth.
"there can only be one truth," yet it's fine for some fetuses to be aborted because they are inconventient, while other fetuses are celebrated because they are answered prayers.
hm ... can there be only one definition of baby that is not dependent on the circumstances of its conception?
TS - I understand what you mean; however, the question stems from whether or not you consider a grouping of cells a fetues. As I said on a later psot, and egg is not a chicken, a grouping of cells is not a peson, not matter what it has the potential to be.
ah, so the great abortion debate boils down to the chicken or egg question, eh? guess we're not going to see any compromise on this issue for a while then. ;-P
Probably not. Underground's logical argument is interesting, but other than that, I have never heard an anti-abortion statement that wasn't resting on the Bible. The problem: I don't believe in the Bible, so if the argument rests on that, it's unconsequential to me. I'd like to hear more resons why women shouldn't have abortions that do not use religion. I understand it may be valid (not truth) to you, but it is not to me.
Just a point of clarity under the rules of the common master...Valid is the term used to describe the strength or weakness of arguments like,
"All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal."
Valid in this usage shows that the structure of the argument accomplishes what is it intends to prove.
Polanco, you are using "valid" in the place of the word "truth."
Truth or true describes propositions or premises of an argument, i.e., "All men are mortal." This would be a true statement.
Terms are to be clear and unambiguous. If propositions contain unclear or ambiguous terms, the proposistion is neither true or untrue. The jury is waiting for some definitions from the judge.
In the proposition, "All zygotes are not persons," the ambiguity may lie in the term "persons." When is something that is "human" and yet not "person?" When does personhood come, at the end of the first trimester? Second? Third? When it completely passes through the birth canal?
Science is incapable of answering this question for it cannot measure an "essence." This is the stuff left for metaphysics (the study of being), although modern philosophy has relegated metaphysics to an antiquated subject left for those who want to live in the past.
So at this point, the premise, "All zygotes are not persons." is hanging in limbo, unless you care to define it. Beware, once it is clarified, the common master gives guidelines as to identify if it is true or not.
TS:
The abortion debate is not the chicken or the egg debate. It is never a question of causation, which came first, but of essences, "What IS the fetus?"
The abortion debate is a CATACLYSMIC collision between two very different world views that is detrimental to the entire human family. How we stand in the face of reason regarding this issue is a matter of life or death, literally.
The crux of the billions of words and gestures and postures and threats and pickets and shouting and placards and rhetoric is:
"What is the fetus?"
If the fetus is human then we have an argument to contend with.
"Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
A fetus is a human being.
Therefore, Abortion is the killing of a human being."
The conclusion forms premise two in the following hypothetical syllogism:
1. If Abortion is the killing of a human being, then abortion is murder.
2. Abortion is the killing of a human being;
3. Therefore, abortion is murder.
The questions we pose to an argument is: are the terms clear? Are the propositions true? And, is the argument valid?
Since our culture is very weak in knowing metaphysics, and the modern age has roundly rejected it for over three hundred years, people are going to be all over the map regarding what is true or not true. However, the common master is in control! (The rules of logic never change.)
So it is imperitive that we know what the fetus is. If it is not a human being, then it is just like removing an appendix and the abortion issue is just a flap of dogmantic windbags. If not?
Egad! My spelling! I meant "dogmatic" windbags.
Come on, digits! Look lively, men.
"The abortion debate is not the chicken or the egg debate."
yeah, i know that underground, i was just trying to make light of what is very often a tremendously heavy topic. hence the winky-tongue emoticon.
;-P
i agree that eggs are also chickens. um ... wait, that doesn't sound right. i mean, chickens were also once eggs. no, that's not it ... er, you can eat both chickens and eggs? (continues mumbling to self.)
;-P
You get marks for diplomacy, TS! But, you don't have to do it by rolling over on your back.
I see your picture. Is that your baby? Cutie-pie!!!
"I see your picture. Is that your baby? Cutie-pie!!!"
hey, don't lie, logician. she looks like a hairless, 6.5-pound monkey in that picture. (red and squalling, too.) but i thought she was the most beautiful thing nonetheless. she's much cuter today at 3 1/2 months. you can see more of her pics on my blog.
Thanks for the lesson! I responded on a different post and innocent bystander helpfully defined fetus for us. A fetus is the embryo after 8 weeks. Before that, it is of human, as a tumor is, but it not yet A human.
PC, you're not serious...are you? Up to 8 weeks a fetus and a tumor are both 'of human?' Did you say that because you believe it, or are you just trying to pull my chain?
If you are going to make an assertion like that, PC, I'm sorry, there is absolutely no more discussion, though you may try to explain. It is light years beyond the realm of the common master. Out among the Quasars out! I will not take the time to explain the gross catagory confusion you have with the term "human." How an intelligent person as yourself can hold to such an imbecilic notion? I am just...stupified!
Give me a break, I'm not stupid, just trying to argue the other side of a debate people have obviously made up their minds about. I have learned a lot from this discussion, mostly by riling a few feathers (sorry), but I find that I learn more hwen people passionately (but nicely) discuss their views. We should have to work hard to defend out beliefs. How else would we be sure of what we truly believe?
Give you a break? You are not arguing, you are making declarations. You are pushing a viewpoint. You state it and restate it. Believe me, you are not arguing. Before 8 weeks, a fetus is OF human,like a tumor is, not A human. That is a statement. You give no support for it to be true. You want us just to believe it.
I don't think you know how to argue, so let me help you get started.
Remember to have a sound argument, you must have clear, unambiguous terms, true propositions, and a valid argument.
Let's try to put your argument in the form of hypothetical syllogisms that aren't fallacious according to the following three forms.
Pure hypothetical:
If P, then Q.
If Q, then R.
P, therefore R.
1. If fetuses before 8 weeks gestation are "of human" things, then abortion before 8 weeks gestation is a medical procedure.
2. If abortion before 8 weeks gestation is a medical procedure, then abortions are like removing tumors.
3. Fetuses before 8 weeks gestation are "of human" things, therefore abortions are like removing tumors.
Denying the consequent:
If P, then Q.
not-Q,
Therefore, not-P.
1. If abortion kills a human being, then abortion is murder.
2. Abortion is not murder.
3. Therefore, abortion doesn't kill a human being.
Affirming the antecedent:
If P, then Q.
P, therefore Q.
1. If fetuses before 8 weeks gestation are "of human," then abortion is not murder.
2. Fetuses before 8 weeks gestation are "of human,"
3. Therefore, abortion is not murder.
There, we have three valid forms. Now, are the antecedents and consequents true or false?
And are the terms clear? If the propositions are true and the terms clear, then the conclusions MUST be true.
So let's list the terms.
Abortion;
Fetus before 8 weeks gestation;
Tumors;
medical procedures;
human being;
murder;
"of human."
Any problems?
Antecedents in #1:
1. Fetuses before 8 weeks gestation are "of human (not a human)." True? Better be.
This antecedent must be sufficiently true for the conclusion to be true. Is it true? Are you sure. Is there any question? If so, then we must err in favor of saving the fetus.
Denying the consequent in #2:
1. Abortion is murder of a human being. How is this false? Are you sure? Is there any question? What do you need to know? If the fetus is human or not. Which is it? Are you sure? For if there is anything unsubstantiated, justice tells us we can't abort.
Affirming antecedent in #3:
1. If fetuses before 8 weeks old are "of human," This is the same premise as in #1.
You see polanco, for you to make the assertions that you do, you must prove to be absolutely true that fetuses that are under 8 weeks old are not "a human," only "of human." If you fudge on it, you could be killing a human being. In addition, to deny that abortion is not murder, you have to prove that a fetus is not human.
These are your VALID arguments. Prove the propositions true and be clear in your terminology. I will wait and see what you do.
I need to correct my late night musings. Hypothetical argument three, affirming the antecedent, the predicate term "not murder" can be confusing, since it is in the form of a negative. Change "not murder" to "a medical procedure." This makes the term a positive 'Q' and still keeps the argument valid. The burden of the argument still rests on the antecedent, "Fetuses that are under 8 weeks old are "of human," which must be true for the conclusion to be true.
What? No response yet? And after all that I've done to help!
Are the antecedents or the consequents TRUE or FALSE?
Do you not like working with the Common Master? Are you afraid of what it might mean?
In he interest of giving a concise, correct response, I am doing some research.
Besides that, I'm gettin some help on this one and have had to translate for those who are not as well versed in the rules of logic.
OK, I'm sorry for being impatient. More personal development required. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home