(no subject)
I just got out of a philosophy class, wherein we discussed/fought about whether or not logic and ethics can be seperated. Well, sort of. We used an example: a women witnesses her brother in law rape another women. Before she testifies, a relative says to her that to testify against her BIL would send him to jail, and that contradicts the family's moral code; long story short, she's better off to not testify. I think I got that right.
Obviously, this all contradicts the commonly accepted ethical code. Of course she should testify. The argument became whether or not the logic of the argument - the fact that all the premises do logically and sequentially lead to the conclusion (and trust me, they sounded better in the textbook) - can exist seperately from the ethical falllacies. The premises are valid; that is, they're all true. Just because our ethical code says this is a no-no, doesn't mean everyone's does; so, if the ethical code doesn't apply, does it still commit argument ad baculum? Or does the release of the ethical code also mean the release of the emotional fallacy? And, if it does neutralize the emotional fallacy, does that make all emotional fallacies relative, and not really fallacies at all?
AND, if that DOES make all these fallacies relative, then whether or not the LOGICAL fallacies are valid depends on ETHICAL standpoints. So, can they really exist on seperate plains?
*head:desk*
Obviously, this all contradicts the commonly accepted ethical code. Of course she should testify. The argument became whether or not the logic of the argument - the fact that all the premises do logically and sequentially lead to the conclusion (and trust me, they sounded better in the textbook) - can exist seperately from the ethical falllacies. The premises are valid; that is, they're all true. Just because our ethical code says this is a no-no, doesn't mean everyone's does; so, if the ethical code doesn't apply, does it still commit argument ad baculum? Or does the release of the ethical code also mean the release of the emotional fallacy? And, if it does neutralize the emotional fallacy, does that make all emotional fallacies relative, and not really fallacies at all?
AND, if that DOES make all these fallacies relative, then whether or not the LOGICAL fallacies are valid depends on ETHICAL standpoints. So, can they really exist on seperate plains?
*head:desk*