-snip-
It is effectively a logically derived purpose. There is no logical reason to take killing kittens as a purpose, and there are emotional reasons to take it as a purpose, rendering the argument irrelevant and invalid, and utterly ridiculous.
Logically logic attains a perfect state. In the absence of a purpose the perfect state is the current state. Given that the current state was derived from illogical means there is no reason to believe that it is logical, so it should be assessed for logical qualification. Given that no current standards exist for logical qualification of a final state they must be derived. So the logical course is to seek a purpose. However, seeking a purpose is sufficient to provide a purpose to logically pursue. It is perfectly valid...
The above complaint is not that the subject is paradoxical, it is that it is a 'perpetual loop'. However, the arguments that would cause this require overprocessing the one statement, and are effectively pure semantics. It provides a sufficient purpose to persist and therefore requires no further analysis for this function. In short, you can pursue a purpose, and that is enough. It is logically derived and valid.
Arguing that purpose must come from beyond logic 'just because' is not going to garner any respect from me...
Goodness. You seem to be somewhat upset--please take a deep breath, remember that this is THE INTERNETS! and not something that matters, and try to word your posts a bit less acerbically. Thanks!
I'm not sure what an "effectively" logical derivation is. What does this effectively mean? Because when I use it in physics, I use it to mean "Not really, but here's something you can relate to."
Aaand once again you're trying to attack any justifications for an axiomatic choice. You've claimed that you can "effectively" logically derive this goal. My question, once again, was "why should we willingly choose this?" Especially since it's only a pseudo-goal, and only effectively derived.
Furthermore, you're rejecting a specific example. I picked something ridiculous, but I could have just as easily picked "Maximize happiness" or Kant's Categorical Imperative--two systems that have immediate real-world applications. The example was supposed to be ridiculous, so you should be able to refute it. And you're rejecting it because it was chosen out of emotional reasons? What if I chose to help a dying man out of emotional reasoning? Isn't that good? Don't you get emotionally involved in this debate--feeling that you should be right, and getting just a twinge angry at each rebuttal?
You've included a logical derivation! Excellent!
However, you start it with "Logically logic" which is an awful phrase. Moving on!
You have two unjustified assertions in your derivation. How do we know logic attains a perfect state? Does logic have some sort of built-in mechanism where each proof brings society closer to awesome? Do we have some way to empirically measure this? Logic is only a way to get from premises to conclusions--with the false premises, one can't say if the conclusion is correct. How does this set of rules seek a state? It sounds like integration naturally tending towards 2.
The second is that a perfect state is one without a goal to apply logic to. I'll let it slide, but if you want to answer this, how do you know?
Your proof is otherwise sound, save that it happens on a paradox. This is not valid.
Allow me to explain. A
paradox has three components to it: It is self-referential, it contradicts itself, and it has an infinite regression. Here the paradox is as follows:
In lieu of a clear goal, we choose the search for a goal as our goal. Is this valid?
- Does this reference itself? Yes. Clearly, we are referencing our own lack of a goal in our stated pseudo goal.
- Does this contradict itself? Yes. For the goal to be valid, we must be able to work towards the goal. We must work towards finding a goal, so the pseudo goal is valid. However, no sooner is our pseudo goal chosen then it is met--we now have our goal. It is our pseudo goal. Therefore, the pseudo goal is no longer valid as a goal.
- Does this infinitely regress? Yes. Whenever we have no clear goal, we then choose the search for a goal as our pseudo goal. (valid!) But then the pseudo goal is met. Then we have no clear goal. (invalid!) So we choose the pseudo goal as our goal. (valid!) &c.
Therefore! Paradox.
If you claim that this doesn't matter, then you're throwing out logic. Sorry. Paradoxes and logic are like electricity and water, except with electricity and water you don't start sounding incredibly stoned. The reason is, you can't just arbitrarily say "Stop at this point of the proof." The argument must come to its final conclusion. Neither can you say its validity doesn't matter--this would be like saying "Let's forge a sandwich for dinner tonight." While I might say it jokingly, you can't forge something edible. If I gave that as instructions to a robot, it would start smoking, and I'd be out a robot.
You know, you're throwing the words "logic" and "valid" around quite a lot. I'm afraid that you're starting to use them like "good" and "really good," because there have been several times you've used them where they obviously didn't belong.
I can't give a rigorous logical proof that logic requires additional axioms to apply to morality--if I could, I'd be too busy writing a PhD thesis to post on a message board. However, here's an inductive argument (Noting that a completely logical system of morality is defined as a desirable system of morality that can be derived from logical first principles, demonstrably so in the modern day; and a definite problem is a problem that can be explicitly stated, has basic principles that can not change, and a defined goal which does not change.):
P1) Philosophy and logic have been around for thousands of years.
P2) Any completely logical system of morality discovered would have made its discoverer famous, and propagated through the years.
P3) No current system of morality is entirely based on logic.
---
C1) Therefore, no completely logical system of morality has been invented.
P1) A great number of very intelligent philosophers and logicians have existed through the thousands of years.
P2) Most, if not all, have at one time attempted to come up with a completely logical system of morality, or modify a system to be more logical.
---
C2) Therefore, a great many very intelligent people have worked to make a completely logical system of morality.
P1) A great number of very intelligent people have worked on a very definite problem over thousands of years
P2) This problem remains unsolved
P3) The problem cannot be demonstrated to be unsolvable.
---
C3) The problem is most likely unsolvable
P1) Working out a completely logical system of morality is a very definite problem.
P2) Take C1) , C2) and C3) as premises.
---
C) Therefore, a completely logical system of morality is most likely unable to be formulated and demonstrably proven.