Quote:
MaxWilson said:
Quote:
K said:
And that is the crux of our disagreement. I've been making logical arguments and you've been making moral arguments. Logical arguments have winners and losers by determining who has the stronger argument, and moral arguments have two losers (since there is no criteria for strength of argument and which should prevail).
|
Logical arguments have the same criteria for "winning" as moral arguments: can you convince your audience? You're aware that there's no way to prove that a logical proof is correct without an invoking a shared metalogic. In practice nobody reasons about their metalogic, they just declare victory, as both you and Jim have done, or come to an understanding, as great men do.
|
Actually, that's wrong.
Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.
Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.