Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Moral Authority Fallacy
Topic Started: Jun 26 2006, 12:00 PM (476 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
This I found to be an interesting self-reflective editorial, self-reflective for a forum as a whole, since what is a forum, but a place for people to express opinions. The editorial is on opinions, and the moral authority behind them.

I'll leave a lot out, the part that uses Noam Chomsky out as an extended example of someone who just because he is an expert in one area (linguistics) it not necessarily an expert in another (political morality). Heck, he's even wrong in his theory of semantics, lol.

It's long, perhaps, but things are slow...


The Chomsky Fallacy
Quote:
 
Opinions, it's often said, are like anuses: Everybody has one. Should I pay attention to anyone else's opinion, given that I have my own, or given that I'm capable of forming my own? And if I do pay attention to someone else's opinion, whose? Peter Singer has an opinion about the killing of "defective" newborns. He thinks it's sometimes the right thing to do. Robert P. George, who is equally opinionated, thinks it's never the right thing to do. Paul Krugman has an opinion about tax increases on the wealthy to fund programs for the poor. He thinks it's the right thing to do. George W. Bush, who is equally opinionated (albeit more powerful), thinks it's the wrong thing to do.

Pick an issue. Capital punishment. The war in Iraq. Animal rights. Affirmative action. Homosexual marriage. Teaching Design Theory in public-school science classrooms. Drilling in ANWR. Cloning. Abortion. Nationalized health care. Climate change. Divorce. Opinions differ on all of these -- and on every other issue of public concern. What's a person to do?

Ultimately, each of us must make up his or her own mind on each issue. There are no moral authorities. If you decide to accept whatever the Pope says on moral matters, then you've made the Pope your moral authority; but the decision was yours. You decided to submit to the Pope rather than think things through for yourself. So maybe I should qualify what I said. There are no externally imposed moral authorities, i.e., there is nobody who, by dint of training, practice, or experience, has special insight into the good, the right, or the just....

If Noam Chomsky were not a famous linguist, nobody would care a whit about his moral or political opinions. That people do care shows only that they are committing a fallacy -- that of transferring authority from a realm in which he is expert (linguistics) to one in which he is not (political morality).
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Ultimately, each of us must make up his or her own mind on each issue. There are no moral authorities. If you decide to accept whatever the Pope says on moral matters, then you've made the Pope your moral authority; but the decision was yours. You decided to submit to the Pope rather than think things through for yourself. So maybe I should qualify what I said. There are no externally imposed moral authorities, i.e., there is nobody who, by dint of training, practice, or experience, has special insight into the good, the right, or the just....


I'll agree and disagree with this.
Granted, there is no ABSOLUTE source for moral authority. We have only ourselves, and are sometimes mistaken.
But
Since this is all we have... ourselves... it is natural for us to seek confirmation or corroboration of our ideas.
So we look for expert advice.
I look to the pope... not because I think he is infallible, but because he surrounds himself with numerous experts and draws on their advice as much as possible. Looking to Rome is looking to team of people, not one man, and these people are theologians AND scientists. (they learned something from their galileo error)
And, because the rc church is world wide, encompassing many cultures, it strives to answer to ALL, not just me. It looks for unity through generality.

But I look at the infallibility thing differently than most catholics.
I don't see it as a guarantee of truth... an absolute. I see it as an assurance that we are not held accountable for honest mistakes. (if we are held accountable at all)

Now, I can do what a lot of people do. I can seek out experts myself and read and think and study and work on it, but I'd rather let somebody else do all that hard work... most of it, anyway, and also, I know that human beings tend to look for people who agree with them instead of just looking for truth no matter how sour it is.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I'll agree, the author diminishes the potential influences of others too much to make his point. Like you, I don't trust myself alone, but seek others to question and challenge that, and assemble the pieces best I can into a system of morality.

I won't even argue the Pope is not a good source of morality for the reasons you give, for you, just not me. That is what the author is trying to get at, that no one person or book or thing can be appealed to as an absolute authority.

If that's so, then what is truth? And let's not get into silly metaphysics!
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 26 2006, 04:10 PM
If that's so, then what is truth? And let's not get into silly metaphysics!

Yes, lets not!

God (the truth through the bible) is my moral authority.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
Jun 26 2006, 06:21 PM
God (the truth through the bible) is my moral authority.

Assuming (without any means other than self-referential) that the bible is telling the truth.

Oh, ugly tautology!
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
If that's so, then what is truth?


the truth is, we don't know. ;)

all we can do is do the best we can with the most sincerity we can muster and move forward.... leaving open the possibility we might have to say we made an error and start again.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Well, but, is truth something found only individually--my truth, or can it be found somehow socially--our truth?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Well, but, is truth something found only individually--my truth, or can it be found somehow socially--our truth?


I don't know know.
It seems to me that people generally agree on some of the basics like lying, stealing and murder. I don't know of any society that promotes those things as okay within their respective societies.
I mean, the native americans didn't steal from each other, but raiding another tribe was ok. (and they are only one example of such behavior... lots of other societies felt the same way, even through today)
the idea that if it's wrong for me to do it to my next door neighbor, it's wrong for me to do it to a stranger, or even my enemy, developed late in man's social/moral history, and is still in the growing stage.
So it seems that individuals or small groups, along the way, act as catalysts, pushing their societies to amend their moral codes. This works if the idea catches on and is accepted by the majority of the society, but that takes time.

As a catholic, I was taught that if you believe something is a sin and you do it anyway, it's a sin... for you... whether it's REALLY a sin or not, because it's basically a personal, defiant act against God.
But does it work the other way around? Suppose you don't believe it's a sin? Suppose you believe God wants you to rip the heart out of a living human sacrifice?
Or whatever.....
Is ignorance a valid excuse?
Given man's history of violence done in God's name, I have to think it is.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I think those things are moral prohibitions, Jane, that, yes, we can most all of us agree on. But I'm concerned here more with how you, how do we arrive at truth. We all can witness the same events, have before us the same set of facts, assuming no one turns a blind eye, but we argue different opinions about what it means to us, and how we should act in response.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
ngc1514
Jun 26 2006, 05:26 PM
abradf2519
Jun 26 2006, 06:21 PM
God (the truth through the bible) is my moral authority.

Assuming (without any means other than self-referential) that the bible is telling the truth.

Oh, ugly tautology!

Where do you get tautology?

By faith, I accept the Bible as truth. This is the essence of religion. It is not empirical like science.

Faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (from dictionary.com)
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
My favorite economist, Arnold Kling, writes in That's Your Cue
Quote:
 
Empiricism is a rigorous approach to the subject of truth. Frederick Crews, author of Follies of the Wise, a book that attacks Freudian psychology and other weak intellectual fads, describes empiricism as "the ethic of respecting what is known, acknowledging what is still unknown, and acting as if one cared about the difference."(p. 305)

In modern philosophy, the empiricist tradition is often traced to John Locke and David Hume. Hume argued that truths are either matters of logic (such as mathematical theorems) or matters of observation (such as the law of gravity). Beliefs that cannot be verified by examining data or by reference to logic constitute dogma.

Although empiricism has become a standard philosophy in the West, dogma persists. I believe that the main reason that non-verifiable ideas survive is that they serve as trust cues. People still need to demonstrate their commitment to membership in groups, and recitation of dogma is a low-cost method of doing so.


Of course that's just his opinion.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
Jun 27 2006, 12:43 PM
Where do you get tautology?

By faith, I accept the Bible as truth. This is the essence of religion. It is not empirical like science.

Faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (from dictionary.com)

The bible is true because you accept the bible is true.

The Koran is true because people accept the Koran is true.

The Book of Mormon is true because people accept the Book of Mormon is true.

LaVey's Satanist bible is true because people accept the Satanist bible is true.

Does anyone see a pattern here?
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
cmoehle
Jun 27 2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:
 
Although empiricism has become a standard philosophy in the West, dogma persists. I believe that the main reason that non-verifiable ideas survive is that they serve as trust cues. People still need to demonstrate their commitment to membership in groups, and recitation of dogma is a low-cost method of doing so.


Or, as Vonnegut calls these "memberships in groups" a granfalloon.

From the Wikipedia's "Granfalloon" entry:

Quote:
 
In social psychology the concept stems from Henri Tajfel's research on the minimum group paradigm, in which he found that strangers would form groups on the basis of completely inconsequential criteria, such as the flip of a coin. Subjects within such meaningless associations have consistently been found to act towards other members as if they were kin or close friends. The granfalloon technique is a method of persuasion in which individuals are encouraged to identify with a particular granfalloon, such as a pressure group or political campaign, as a means of securing for that group the individual's loyalty and commitment through adoption of its symbols, rituals and beliefs.


and:

Quote:
 
A granfalloon, in the religion of Bokononism (invented by Kurt Vonnegut in his 1963 novel Cat's Cradle), is defined as a "false karass". That is, it is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless in terms of fulfilling God's design. The most common granfalloons are associations and societies based on a shared but ultimately fabricated premise. As examples, Vonnegut cites: "the Communist Party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company, the International Order of Odd Fellows -- and any nation, anytime, anywhere." A more general and often-cited quote defines a granfalloon as "a proud and meaningless association of human beings." Another granfalloon example illustrated in the book was Hoosiers, of which the narrator (and Vonnegut himself) was a member (however grudgingly).
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
But I'm concerned here more with how you, how do we arrive at truth. We all can witness the same events, have before us the same set of facts, assuming no one turns a blind eye, but we argue different opinions about what it means to us, and how we should act in response.


you're right. we do.
even those who use the Bible as their source of truth cannot agree in entirety.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. What the heck does that mean?

It looks to me that He meant we should strive to live as He lived. (and died)

but His way of life was a self-sacrificing life, giving to the last breath.

very few people REALLY want to do that, me included.
so the answer for me is, the real truth hurts, so I'd rather dance around it than take it on as my partner.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
ngc1514
Jun 27 2006, 12:00 PM
abradf2519
Jun 27 2006, 12:43 PM
Where do you get tautology?

By faith, I accept the Bible as truth. This is the essence of religion. It is not empirical like science.

Faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (from dictionary.com)

The bible is true because you accept the bible is true.

The Koran is true because people accept the Koran is true.

The Book of Mormon is true because people accept the Book of Mormon is true.

LaVey's Satanist bible is true because people accept the Satanist bible is true.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

This pattern does not prove the conclusion being drawn.

For example....

Ford trucks are the best because people who own them say they are.

Chevy trucks are the best because people who own them say they are.

Dodge trucks are the best because people who own them say they are.

Nissan trucks are the best because people who own them say they are.

Toyota trucks are the best because people who own them say they are.

Using your logic you would have to assume that it is impossible for any truck to be the best one, because people disagree on which one is the best. Illogical.

Pick a criteria, apply it and then you can choose accurately which one is the best.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply