OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people".

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.

Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

I hinted that reasons (note the plural) exist that are independent of ethics.

Ethical reasons such as the Golden Rule are valid. As are legal consequences such as going to jail, or social consequences such as marital breakup and the damage such behavior causes to children who witness it (directly or by seeing its effect upon their mother). But our system of laws are based on ethics, morality, and by extension, religion. However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.

[deccan]

Arryn said:
However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.

Well I guess I need this explained to me too.

Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

I believe that the problem that J.O. raised and Evil Dave further explained doesn't go away with that. Basic foundational values cannot really be justified through logic (i.e. you need some basic premises to work with and to apply logic on). Logic (and science) can explain why someone might hold a particular set of values, but that isn't the same as justifying it. On the other hand, once a set of basic foundational values exists, logic can be used to work out derivative values required to uphold the basic foundational ones and so forth.

[Arryn]

deccan said:
Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

You're getting warmer. Very warm.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

You're getting warmer. Very warm.

Now I'm really confused. Societies that have encouraged (or at least tolerated) wife-beating have been around for a long time, and still seem to be doing pretty well compared to those that object to it. It's hard to make any argument for self-preservation from that. Nor can I see it on an individual basis, for similar reasons. If anything, the evidence is the other way: in some societies, the upper classes are the most tolerant of women, but it's often observed that those classes have the lowest birth rates. (Yes, that's correlation and not causation, but still: if I was gonna bet on who would have the most descendents, I'd bet on the poor, ignorant, illogical fool who treats his wife like dirt.)

[Truper]

Welcome to the club, Johan! Point out a few more of Arryn's foibles and inconsistencies, and you too can be invited to go "back into the woodwork you crawled out of".

It appears she doesn't understand the difference between flaming and stating an obvious truth, although it is hard to understand how this can be so, since she is obviously the very personification of logic.