Mistaken Syllogism in Atheism: The Case Against God


curi

Recommended Posts

Atheism: The Case Against God, in the rational morality section:

Mr. Jones wants x.

In order to obtain x, one must do y.
Therefore, Mr. Jones ought to (or should, or must) do y.

This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Atheism: The Case Against God, in the rational morality section:

Mr. Jones wants x.

In order to obtain x, one must do y.
Therefore, Mr. Jones ought to (or should, or must) do y.

This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference.

I am not too sure we have a morality section.

Like Groucho Marx, I would not join a club that would have me as a member.

Can you provide some context please.

And welcome to OL.

Are you familiar with Ayn's work?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not to sure we have a morality section.

I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false.

Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not to sure we have a morality section.

I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false.

Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

Do you usually come into peoples abodes and piss on the floor...metaphorically speaking of course.

Is there like a special way to stand to be "...Branden and Kelley aligned..."?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not to sure we have a morality section.

I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false.

Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

Why did you quote the book? A page number would help for I don't see any context. Anything to do with atheism? Is this a logic lesson?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism: The Case Against God, in the rational morality section:

Mr. Jones wants x.

In order to obtain x, one must do y.
Therefore, Mr. Jones ought to (or should, or must) do y.

This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference.

Therefore Mr. Jones ought to do y if he wants to achieve or obtain x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not to sure we have a morality section.

I'm talking about the section in the book I quoted. This is the forum section for George H. Smith, read his book if you want more context, but I did provide the full syllogism, which is enough to see that it's false.

Yes I'm familiar with Ayn Rand. I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

Why did you quote the book? A page number would help for I don't see any context. Anything to do with atheism? Is this a logic lesson?

--Brant

I quoted the book here because this is a the "George H. Smith Corner", it's his book, and he posts here. So I expected interest, here, in an error in the book. Figuring out mistakes in ideas, and figuring out better ideas, is very important to anyone interested in reason.

I don't have the page number because I have an ebook. That's why I gave the section. The section is only a few pages, so you'll have no trouble at all finding this part, if you look.

Therefore Mr. Jones ought to do y if he wants to achieve or obtain x.

But that's the same mistake from the book. That is false. It's perfectly possible that:

Mr Jones wants to achieve or obtain x.

Y is the one and only way to achieve or obtain x.

Mr Jones ought not do y. y and x are immoral. Instead he ought to change his mind to stop wanting to achieve or obtain x.

For a concrete example, consider x as "killing millions of Jews" and y as either the Holocaust (which is the only method that so far has achieved that goal) or whatever else you think would work to kill millions of Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also familiar with OL – it's Branden and Kelley aligned, not Rand aligned, which is why I don't normally post here.

This is false.

OL is not aligned with any movement, nor with any people who claim or insinuate they speak in Ayn Rand's name.

We do have Corners of Insight, including lots about Rand and her ideas.

However, OL caters to people who think with their own minds. Those who don't have not had much success here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconding #6, I think that the original objection here rests on an equivocation. "Ought" is a notoriously ambiguous word. You might call this occurrence a technical ought. If a state is to be reached or a conclusion is to be true, its necessary conditions must be satisfied. The conclusion might be unsound if you take it to state a medical or esthetic or (heaven forfend) moral ought, but you don't have to. One way to make the original quote palatable is to put just "must" in the conclusion and leave out the synonyms (in this case) "ought" or "should".

I don't understand your distinction between Rand-oriented on the one hand and Branden-oriented or Kelley-oriented on the other. I've been following OL for several years, and I see much more discussion of Rand than of the others. If volume isn't your criterion, what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reidy,

It's not true that if you want to achieve x, and y is the only way to do so, you "must" do y. You have the option to instead abandon the goal of doing x, which may be the better option.

The criterion for philosophical alignment is what ideas are held here and popular and promoted. So, for example, Rand considered the ideas of the Brandens unacceptable, and, I believe, would have considered Kelley's ideas unacceptable. People at this forum generally, contrary to Rand, consider those ideas OK, reasonable, not necessarily perfect but a valuable perspective that is worthy of a forum section. I disagree.

I do often give people I disagree with a chance at a discussion. I did that here previously. The site owner said to me:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13420&p=186657

Curi,

You're quite a little control freak, aren't you?

Michael

I judged this very negatively. Judge for yourself.

I am still interested in discussing the error in the book, especially with people who already cared about the book before I started this thread. I thought I might be able to find such people here.

Tangentially, Rand wrote in VoS:

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of “saving everyone’s soul”—nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere “I don’t agree with you” is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one’s own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.

This gives some indication of why I'm answering questions about what I think of OL. I don't mind to share my judgment with anyone who is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To keep the thread on topic, the OP (curi, i.e., Elliot Temple) posted about his doubts on his own site and expanded on them at the link below:

Learning; Bad Syllogism

From the article (referring to George Smith):

This kind of thinking is really bad and stupid. It's so grossly wrong it's hard to explain much about it. It's a non sequitur. He missed the possibility that a want could be immoral. There isn't much more to say. It's just awful and such a basic error it doesn't require much explanation.

That people don't know better is why the world is currently burning.


This is George's corner, so I'll leave it up to him regarding what to do.

The spirit of the Corners of Insight on OL is intellectual tribute. It doesn't sound like this poster is interested in that, in clarifying doubts, or even in discussion.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curi,

You're quite a little control freak, aren't you?

Michael

Mr. Temple,

Why did you put my name in this quote?

Do you have difficulty reading?

Michael

I'm confused. I copy pasted your entire post. you included your name in the post I quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. I copy pasted your entire post. you included your name in the post I quoted.

Mr. Elliot,

This is incorrect and it's right in front of your nose.

I'll only ask one more time.

Do you have difficulty reading?

EDIT: My mistake. Mr. Temple was quoting from a different thread here. I did say that. And I stand by it in the other discussion.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. I copy pasted your entire post. you included your name in the post I quoted.

Mr. Elliot,

This is incorrect and it's right in front of your nose.

I'll only ask one more time.

Do you have difficulty reading?

Michael

Here is a screenshot. As you can see, your name is in the body of your original post that I quoted. As you can also see, hitting "quote" on that post creates a quote that includes your name. That's because it's part of the post.

http://puu.sh/hX9IB/1052b3c36f.png

1052b3c36f.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I was responding to in the other thread (it was addressed to me):

If you expect special treatment in a discussion because you own the forum, think again.

If you're going to proceed in a rational manner, please go ahead. If not, please leave me alone.

This kind of belligerent talk from someone who is not a regular on OL is not welcome.

Do it elsewhere. Not here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criterion for philosophical alignment is what ideas are held here and popular and promoted. So, for example, Rand considered the ideas of the Brandens unacceptable, and, I believe, would have considered Kelley's ideas unacceptable.

Rand endorsed their ideas prior to the break even as she broke with them. Kelley read Kipling's "If" at her burial. I'd like to know one Branden idea ahe ever labelled as "unacceptable."

You don't know shit.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VoS:

P.S. Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my philosophy or with The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter).

What do you think that was about? Some aspect of Branden not involving any ideas? Ideas are everywhere in life, there's no getting away from them.

Regarding Kelley, he laid out ideas incompatible with Objectivism after Rand died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VoS:

P.S. Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my philosophy or with The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter).

What do you think that was about? Some aspect of Branden not involving any ideas? Ideas are everywhere in life, there's no getting away from them.

Regarding Kelley, he laid out ideas incompatible with Objectivism after Rand died.

Seez who?

The Rand quote is a cut and paste. Nothing in it about ideas, either.

Try again. You are a cheap, ignorant tyro. I suspect your skull is too big for your brain.

--Brant

VoS? WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now