The Wrong One

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lol, nice try. Logic is one part of objectivity. Empirical data is the other part. Which is exactly what I said is needed.

So yes, here it does end, it appears. Still no demonstration that worldviews can't be coherent.

Because you can't use logic and objectivity on everything. You just admitted that.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Because you can't use logic and objectivity on everything. You just admitted that.

Regards
Mikkel

I never claimed you can use logic and objectivity "on everything." You're knocking down strawmen left and right.

The discussion was about whether worldviews can be coherent. You have yet to demonstrate they can't be. If anything, you've admitted that logic is a necessary component to accurately understand the world. Do you have anything else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never claimed you can use logic and objectivity "on everything." You're knocking down strawmen left and right.

The discussion was about whether worldviews can be coherent. You have yet to demonstrate they can't be. If anything, you've admitted that logic is a necessary component to accurately understand the world. Do you have anything else?

Yes: (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent. But you can't use logic alone, because you can't use logic to decide between 2 possible choices.
I get what you are saying, but you don't get what I am saying.

So here is an example:
Someone to somebody else: I am going to kill you.
The other: That is not logical, because... (Is shot in the body center and when lying down 3 rounds are placed in the head)
The first one: I did everything according to how the world works and it is logical.

Nothing follows form something being logical other than being logical. It tells you nothing about the "ought".

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Yes: (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent. But you can't use logic alone, because you can't use logic to decide between 2 possible choices.
I get what you are saying, but you don't get what I am saying.

So here is an example:
Someone to somebody else: I am going to kill you.
The other: That is not logical, because... (Is shot in the body center and when lying down 3 rounds are placed in the head)
The first one: I did everything according to how the world works and it is logical.

Nothing follows form something being logical other than being logical. It tells you nothing about the "ought".

Regards
Mikkel

You are bouncing all over the place. It's like whack-a-mole trying to pin down your real objection here.

Moral oughts are derived from the goals of your moral system. I agree, those goals are subjective. Once we agree on those goals, then we can start talking about what one ought or ought not do, and can do so objectively. So whether the killer in your example was acting logically depends entirely on what his goals were.

But that has nothing to do with our earlier conversation, which is whether a worldview can be logically coherent (ie non-contradictory, not logically fallacious).