John Page

This is logical, since human beings do not always behave according to the predictions of logic. Your example proves that human thought is at times illogical. (Note: If you are wrong, Marlowe, you're still right because your conclusion was illogical....)

Cheers, John

the_cave

I think it's the ethical nature of such questions that makes them difficult. There is no standard manner of reasoning when it comes to ethics, which is why ethical debates get so heated--indeed, it is all about underlying assumptions.

The only way to truly (justly, rationally, satisfactorally) resolve such debates, would be to arrive at a set of assumptions that all reasoning, empathetic individuals could adhere to (but is that statement just another assumption?) I think that scientific reason can contribute to this process, by helping to show what is true and what is not true--merely educating ourselves about the facts can help move us towards agreeing on common assumptions, but of course, since we are emotional, irrational beings, it can never get us all the way t
here.)

I don't think ethical debates are unsolveable--we just have to be extremely patient, and ask a lot of very difficult, and even uncomfortable, questions. We might even have to admit that we were wrong (shocking!)

Pyrrho

But the points of disagreement are not simple, straightforward matters of fact ("the_cave" touches on this above with his or her post about ethical matters). To use your examples (though with slightly altered wording):

'Killing a fetus is wrong.'

'A woman has a right to use her body as it pleases her.'

These are not statements that can easily be settled by taking a few measurements, like deciding how much something weighs, or how long it is, or even how many people prefer one thing over another. Both involve people telling other people what to do, and what not to do. They are essentially prescriptive, rather than descriptive (at least, they are not descriptive in an obvious way, like "the dog weighs 40 pounds").

Now tell me, how do you give any evidence for either claim? Most people, when attempting to do such a thing, appeal to other prescriptions as being relevant to the matter at hand, hoping that the other person agrees with these other prescriptions. It often works with some people, but it almost invariably, if not invariably, is unconvincing to some.

(If you prefer, we can use the term "normative" in place of talk of prescriptions; it will all work out the same.)

And many times, a statement that appears to be about a straightforward matter of fact in reality contains a normative element, as in most occurrences of:

'A fetus is a human being.'

With such a sentence, one typically means to convey not simply a definition of a term, but a normative element, as people typically say things like:

'All human beings have rights.'

So, even after recognizing that there are different kinds of statements, one may often find that the different types are not always designated with the usual signs of the type of sentence it really is.

This reminds me of something that David Hume noticed about how people often smuggle normative statements into their claims of ordinary matters of fact:

(If you want to read Hume's theory of ethics, you can read the Treatise, though I think most readers would be better served by reading his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.)


As a side note, it is rather ironic that the people who do things to try to bring about your "ideal solution" of unwanted pregnancies never occurring are almost always those who favor allowing abortions, yet those who are opposed to abortions, in virtually all cases (though not quite all), work to prevent that from happening (by opposing sex education, birth control, etc.). In other words, many of the people who profess to abhor abortions actively work to make sure that others will want abortions!

One of the problems with what you are saying is that some positions may very well be absurd, or appear absurd to some people. It will not be possible for everyone to objectively consider every position that someone might take. If I were to tell you that God were speaking to me, telling me to type this message to you, would you really be able to seriously consider this as a real possibility?

You also seem to be forgetting that most people regard faith as an acceptable method of belief formation, so reason and evidence are often irrelevant to what people believe. Consequently, they may easily develop conflicting faiths, such that they will never agree.

I think, if you wanted universal agreement (now that is rather funny!), you would first have to agree on a method of determining what is true and what is false. And it would be necessary to reject all forms of faith*, otherwise, there are bound to be different choices made on what to believe.


* By "faith", I mean "belief in the absence of evidence". For more on this idea, see William Kingdon Clifford's The Ethics of Belief (make sure you find a complete version, with all three parts). Of course, Clifford's idea that we should reject faith has never been popular, so we can expect that we will continue to find that people have intractable disagreements.

yguy

I don't buy it as stated. Both sides may have good points, but the illusion of both sides being right is caused by the fact that some on the right side are obviously bad people, while some on the wrong side are obviously good people.

Nowhere357

Hey there yguy.

People come in all flavors. You have admitted here that good and bad people are found on both sides of a true controversy.

Maybe the "illusion" is in thinking one side is "right" and the other "wrong". How can you tell?

yguy

My approach is to try to look at my own reactions, which will tell me whether I am disagreeing for personal or egotistical reasons rather than for substantive reasons. For instance, some here appear to be contemptuous of my intellect, demeanor, or whatever. If I take that personally, I'll try to manufacture errors on their part so as to cast them in a bad light. And if you can't admit when you're wrong, it's that much harder to know when you're right.

Nowhere357

We should bottle this stuff up, and put some in our drinking water.

Pyrrho

In addition to what I stated previously, you may wish to consider the fact that there are generally more than two positions on any controversial issue, though often people tend to group people together such that they only consider two positions (which, of course, is generally the result of slovenly thinking). Using your abortion issue as an example, here are some real positions people have taken (and this list is by NO means exhaustive):

1) Anyone should be allowed to have an abortion at any time for any reason.

2) No one should be allowed to have an abortion at any time for any reason.

3) Anyone should be allowed to have an abortion in the first trimester for any reason, but afterwards only if there is a medical problem for the woman if she continues the pregnancy.

4) The only cases when anyone should be allowed to have an abortion are in cases of rape, incest, or if there is a medical problem for the woman if she continues the pregnancy.

5) The only case when an abortion should be allowed is if the life of the woman is in danger if she continues the pregnancy.

& etc., with other positions specifying different times and circumstances, and different combinations of the circumstances already mentioned, etc.

So, if we are to really follow your policy, for each issue, we must consider an indefinitely long list of positions that people actually believe. And, of course, it may be that, on a particular issue, the correct answer will be a position that no one actually believes.

Normally, people don't consider each position separately, as that would not be efficient, so one tries to eliminate groups of possibilities together. Though some people improperly group things together so that their reasoning on these matters is faulty, it still does not seem to me to be bad, in principle, to try to eliminate as many possibilities as possible all at once rather than consider all of them individually, as you seem to suggest.

Nowhere357

Good point. I mentioned at least once the idea of "two (or more) sides". In the abortion examples you gave, I think they all can be seen as subdivisions within the two "main" sides.

I'm having trouble thinking of any example where there are three or more diametrically opposed positions, but I assume there are some.

I understand the point. Clearly it's not as simple as I tried to make it sound.

A compromise may leave no-one satisfied. I don't see any way around that.
In terms of "solving" the controversy, all I have is the idea of an "immediate" solution, and an "ideal" solution. I think this is inadequate, or doesn't always apply. For example, I can think of no ideal solution to gun control. If there were no guns would work, but how could that ever be brought about? If people were 100% resposible would work, but how would that ever be brought about? (And I really don't want to give up my .357!)

So compromise, and "immediate and ideal", both have problems. I can't think of any other methods, and that's partly what I'm fishing for here.

I agree. How we recognize positions that aren't worthy of consideration, is an interesting question, but not really my focus here. My starting point assumes the "foolish" or "unworthy" positions have been eliminated, and all that remains are the "true" controversies.

I'm interested in comments on the "immediate vs ideal" concept, and in any other general methods of controversy resolution.

Thanks for the reading tips. I'm reading Hume now, on the subject of personal identity, and I find it difficult. I wish he used concrete examples more often. I feel like I'm reading Shakespear, or something - the language use seems odd. Anyway, I'm sure this reflects more on me, than on him.

Pyrrho

I think it is extremely useful to think in those terms. Many will settle for nothing less than what they perceive to be "ideal", which leads to conflict with others who do not share their views. You are also showing an awareness of the fact that the world does not conform to our wishes and desires, which may seem extremely obvious, but many people appear to fail to ever grasp this concept.

Hume wrote in the 1700's, in English. English has changed since his day, and therefore he is not as easy to read as many who write today. But he is newer than Shakespeare, as well as the original King James translation of the Bible, so you should be able, if you take sufficient care, to read him. And feel free to read whatever commentaries you find on him, keeping in mind, of course, that they may have misread Hume themselves; not to mention the fact that they may have an agenda for "disproving" Hume (which is often the case when discussing, for example, his essay "Of Miracles", which is section X of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding). So, if you read some commentaries, I recommend that you read more than one, with differing points of view, and I recommend that you favor those who are more interested in explaining him rather than arguing with him. Bertrand Russell has said of Hume:

So many people want Hume to be wrong, that it often clouds their judgment when considering him, and more often than not, they end up demonstrating their own prejudices rather than anything about Hume.