--- Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is anything wrong _by definition_? Only, I suggest, > a definition can be wrong > by way of a definition - and even here the > definition is just a stipulation > that we are not compelled to accept - it being a > mere convention as to the > permissible use of words. *You "suggest," but you don't make an argument that things cannot be wrong by definition. You are merely assuming that the others are supposed to agree with you from some undefined reason. Is "murder" wrong by definition, or is it only wrong in some circumstances ? How about "rape" ? Once we have decided that something corresponds to the definition of "murder" or "rape" (an agreed upon definition - I hardly need to DMCE to teach me how definitions work), can we still maintain that it could be justified ? > Of course 'ordinary language' is occasionally > littered with expressions like > 'By definition it is clear that...', 'It is a > contradiction-in-terms to > suggest that...', 'The only logical conclusion given > the terms of the > debate..'. Insofar as such expressions, and others, > are attempts to win an > argument by (covert or overt) appeal to a > definition, no deviation from which > is logically permissible, they are another muddled > aspect of ordinary usage > or commonsense - which after all frequently abuses > the appeal to 'logic' (eg. > 'The only logical to do is x) when logic can only > strictly decide points of > logic and not between proposals as to what we ought > or ought not to do. * It wasn't suggested that logic by itself will decide what is right or wrong. Rather, it is proposed that universal human values will decide, assuming that we have agreed on definitions, descriptions etc. (Indeed, those who seek to defend torture will usually maintain that the techniques used do not amount to the accepted definition of torture etc.) I might be wrong about this but your lecture about "ordinary language" etc. will hardly persuade me that is so. > Here is a possible example of a genuine > contradiction (provided we > interpolate the parenthetical words): "...I think > that killing humans is > also wrong by definition, i.e. in itself (and no > matter what the > circumstances). It might be > justified only in special circumstances when > committing the wrong would prevent a greater wrong." *Why would you feel that you need to interpolate words in order to drive me into a contradiction ? To say that something is "justified" is not the same as saying that it is a good thing. > It is not a contradiction if we read Omar as saying > merely: "I think killing > is, on the face of it, wrong - unless someone shows > special circumstances > that justify it." > But then, to me at least, it is hard to see how this > position is not merely > "a purely semantic distinction" away from LK's > position that whether killing > is wrong depends entirely on the context (say, on > the existence or > non-existence of "special circumstances"). *See below. > It is a separate point entirely whether we put the > burden on the killer to > justify his killing (which seems sensible) or on > ourselves to show the > killing is unjustified; *It is not "a separate matter entirely". Normally, we place the burden of proof on the accuser to prove guilt, and this supposed to be an important principle. However, in cases where it has been factually established that a killing of a person took place, we tend to place the burden of proof on the killer to show that it was justified. That's because we intuitively feel that there is something inherently problematic with the act of killing. but even here I doubt there > would be much practical > difference given that, even if we placed the > theoretical burden on ourselves > to show the killing was unjustified, our moral > intuitions/instincts would _in > most ordinary circumstances_ guide us to often find > that burden easily > discharged (eg. when someone went up and shot a > stranger in the street). *I am afraid that I don't understand this passage. > The use and abuse of so-called 'definitional' or > 'logical' arguments does not > clarify debate on these matters and is, I suggest, > best avoided. *I would appreciate it if you would look elsewhere for obedient students. O.K. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html