If we allow this filth to be taught to our seniors, the next you thing you know, it’ll be in our high schools, then our kindergartens, and before you know it, we have babies in thong underwear. Is that what you want?
For those of you studying IB Philosophy, or taking Higher but interested in going beyond the simplicities of the course, John Nolt’s Environmental Ethics for the Long Term has an excellent section on philosophical arguments in ethics.
Section 2.2.1 has one of the best explanations of the “is/ought” fallacy I have ever read. Using the terms ‘prescriptive’ and ‘descriptive’ to refer to premises that respectively contain or do not contain a sentiment of something being right or wrong, he uses the phrase ‘prescriptive reasoning’ to refer to an argument where (at least) one premise and the conclusion include some sort of moral valuing.
Of course an argument can be valid and sound if it contains no moral sentiments (1), and one which has ‘moral’ or ‘ought’ premises might lead to a valid and ‘ought’ type conclusion (2).
all volvo cars have a steering wheel
my car is a volvo
therefore my car has a steering wheel
one should intervene when one person is abusing another against the latter’s will
‘abusing another against their will’ is what happens in sex-trafficking
therefore you should be acting against sex-trafficking
Of course one might object to the ‘truth’ of each of the premises here, but if one did agree with both then it would commit you to the conclusion. This is an example of what Nolt calls ‘prescriptive reasoning’. The problem is when someone tries to move from purely ‘descriptive’ premises to a prescriptive conclusion. This is the is/ought fallacy. The example used by Nolt is the use of Social Darwinism by the Nazis, simply because the ‘strong’ or ‘fittest’ survive it certainly does not follow that one should act in a way to make this happen.
Allowing this ‘prescriptive reasoning’ to stand is not the same as believing it to be sound. In fact it can be particularly difficult to spot problematic premises. Consider the following:
We ought to eliminate suffering.
The only feasible way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate all sentient beings.
Therefore we ought to eliminate all sentient beings.*
*Nolt, J Environmental Ethics for the Long Term (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015) 39.
Jeremy Usborne: Yeah, it’s all based on the seven sacred truths from the golden tablets found in the asteroid which crashed in Siberia in 1911. It’s a really great book, you’d love the chapter on Orgones.
Mark Corrigan: Orgones?
Jeremy Usborne: Orgones are the invisible molecules of universal life energy which govern our moods and our actions. Negative Orgones are the sources of all the problems in the world.
Mark Corrigan: And you believe that?
Jeremy Usborne: Well, how do explain all the problems in the world.
Mark Corrigan: I mean, I couldn’t just… There are so many historical and economic factors.
Jeremy Usborne: Exactly. You haven’t got a clue.
Mark Corrigan: But come on, Jez? Asteroids? Orgones? What would you say if I came home one day talking about that kind of stuff?
Jeremy Usborne: I’d say “That’s sounds fascinating, please tell me more.” See you later.
Or here’s another…
Jeremy Usborne: The good news is that in my last personality chart I was thirty percent up. Which was pretty wicked.
Super Hans: Your wellness levels must be through the fucking roof. You’re right on schedule, according to the book. Hardback book, based on tablets brought by an asteroid. Something you can rely on.
Jeremy Usborne: Yeah. What do you think about the… asteroid stuff?
Super Hans: What, are you having a few doubts?
Jeremy Usborne: No. God no. More sort of… thoughts.
Or another…. Cally (Jez’s new manager) justifies her belief in the sacredness of crystal skulls…
CALLY: How could you possibly make one of these [crystal skulls] except by some type of magic?
MARK CORRIGAN: In a factory…from glass.
CALLY: Oh sure, c’mon! Could you make that?
MARK CORRIGAN: No.
CALLY: Could ANYONE?
Are one in three fifteen year olds on drugs. No. We proved it in tests.
Great for testing your critical thinking skills:
So It’s a well known fact that if we got rid of the Queen, within a couple of years we’d be a communist state led by anarchists led by Ken Livingston.
Look at the French, they got rid of the Monarchy and they’re a bunch of Ar***oles. Do we want to be like the French?
We’ve got not not actual evidence that she is a witch, but then again we have no actual evidence that she is not a witch.
If you ask yourself why has The Sun witch-hunts against paedophiles, Muslims and Gypsies but never against actual witches? conspiracy theory?
I remember being a little bit horrified when watching this live… not a word I use lightly at all…
Watching it again it’s actually quite upsetting….
In ‘Screwed the Pooch’ Brian is up in courst and the prosecution lawyer cross examines Peter…
Lawyer: Mr Griffin, which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin: Problem Drinker or African-American Haberdasher?
Peter: Uh, do I-I guess problem drinker, but that’s uh-
Lawyer: Thank-you. Now: Sexual deviant or magic picture that if you stare at it long enough, you see something?
Peter: Well, sexual deviant, but that other one’s not even, eh-
Quite a good way to revise (inspired by this video and an excellent post from http://blogorganon.blogspot.co.uk/) might be to remind yourself of the difference between an argument ‘from ignorance’ and one from ‘personal incredulity’.
We don’t have a lot of this here… Well I guess there are cases, but they usually backfire and lead us to a few years without such strategies…
thanks to organon.blogspot.co.uk for this clip….
kerosine is fuel…
red bull is fuel…
therefore kerosine is red bull…
This might seem like a fairly obvious mistake… and the reason it’s funny here is due to this – but the same error is found (arguably) at the centre of a number of complicated and high level philosophical arguments… Let’s have a look…