The save the wild life so that I can shoot it merchant has retired, oh wow.

[SusanDoris]

And those examples apply as well, what I was asking of Susan Doris was would she see these arguments as good in those situations.

My answer to whether the ’it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’ argument works for slavery or any other similar ill is no. But the whol context of the monarchy and the way it works does not fit into any other categories (can't think of a better word here)   or come under a sort of established different heading. I think the main difference is that one can be as logical as one likes, pointing out all the sensible reasons why such-and-ssuch is not 'right' and should be  legislated against. One can also add logical reasons why it isn't fair, or democratic, etc. But I know I am not alone in thinking that somehow this doesn’t apply to the monarchy as it is today.

I'm thinking a thumbs-up to   Udayana's posts!

My take is that she wouldn't - I may be wrong on that but it seems in contradiction of her posting history.

There is another place where logically I am as certain as I can be that once religious beliefs are seen as entirely humanly thought up, then the sooner can humanity understand itself better., But that is not going to happen in a hurry, and just banning, shutting down the CofE structure in the UK, let alone  world-wide, with no clear, established and of course better[/I] non-god replacement structure, then it won't work. It will change gradually and excrutiatingly slowly unfortunately, but not for a while. In the meantime, that is the way things are.

(I think there's a grammatical error there somewhere but I can't find it.)

[Nearly Sane]

My answer to whether the ’it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it’ argument works for slavery or any other similar ill is no. But the whol context of the monarchy and the way it works does not fit into any other categories (can't think of a better word here)   or come under a sort of established different heading. I think the main difference is that one can be as logical as one likes, pointing out all the sensible reasons why such-and-ssuch is not 'right' and should be  legislated against. One can also add logical reasons why it isn't fair, or democratic, etc. But I know I am not alone in thinking that somehow this doesn’t apply to the monarchy as it is today.

This reads as a definition of special pleading.
 

I'm thinking a thumbs-up to   Udayana's posts!There is another place where logically I am as certain as I can be that once religious beliefs are seen as entirely humanly thought up, then the sooner can humanity understand itself better., But that is not going to happen in a hurry, and just banning, shutting down the CofE structure in the UK, let alone  world-wide, with no clear, established and of course better[/I] non-god replacement structure, then it won't work. It will change gradually and excrutiatingly slowly unfortunately, but not for a while. In the meantime, that is the way things are.

(I think there's a grammatical error there somewhere but I can't find it.)

And that's a strawman.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, it's not much use you change it to 'a kind of' The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number. I can support democracy as a method of govt and happily accept that the decisions made by the majority can be wrong in my opinion.

Yes, but the "in my opinion" is key there. Your opinion is that the moral good is one thing, the opinion of the other 99 is that the moral good is the opposite thing. Absent an objective definition of goodness though, what else is it as a practical proposition but what most people think it to be?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but the "in my opinion" is key there. Your opinion is that the moral good is one thing, the opinion of the other 99 is that the moral good is the opposite thing. Absent an objective definition of goodness though, what else is it as a practical proposition but what most people think it to be?

Their opinion. There is no objective or even inter subjective way of establishing oughts. If it is taken as popular opinion, then any moral arguments are entirely specious. There is only what happens.

[SusanDoris]

NS

I'm quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre on this particular topic!

[Nearly Sane]

NS

I'm quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre on this particular topic!

In which case, given you have abandoned rational discussion, I will refrain from further comment in reply.

[Gordon]

NS

I'm quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre on this particular topic!

In other words your support of the monarchy is without reason and is based solely on your personal conviction - can't see how that differs from the position of some theists on 'God', but where you would presumably reject their personal conviction as being justification for their beliefs.

You seem as credulous regarding the monarchy as they are about 'God'.
 

[Nearly Sane]

In other words your support of the monarchy is without reason and is based solely on your personal conviction - can't see how that differs from the position of some theists on 'God', but where you would presumably reject their personal conviction as being justification for their beliefs.

You seem as credulous regarding the monarchy as they are about 'God'.

I think this needs to qualified. It's not as if there is a doubt on the existence of the monarchy, so on that level the personal conviction is different. The approach to argument by some theists in that logical fallacies have no effect on their experience is similar but there is a difference between the 'is' claim of existence and the 'ought' claim of 'Monarchy should continue'

[SusanDoris]

In other words your support of the monarchy is without reason and is based solely on your personal conviction - can't see how that differs from the position of some theists on 'God', but where you would presumably reject their personal conviction.

You seem as credulous regarding the monarchy as they are about 'God'.

I do not think my support for the monarchy and the Head of State is without reason. My reasons: it works; there is nothing better that will match it in appeal,its attraction in so many ways; it is a story  and everyone loves a good story, a perpetually interesting drama, call it a soap opera if you like, but the characters are not fiction; as with my reference to religions, there needs to be something much superior, in all the ways the monarchy appeals, to take its place.

To say that I am as credulous about the monarchy
asbelievers are about religion is totally wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Their opinion. There is no objective or even inter subjective way of establishing oughts.

Pretty much, yes.

If it is taken as popular opinion, then any moral arguments are entirely specious. There is only what happens.

There’s a non sequitur in there somewhere. Moral arguments are fine because they rationalise opinions. When slavery was prevalent and someone said, “actually slavery is wrong because…” that idea caught the wind sufficiently for the majority to support it and so that became the prevailing moral paradigm. While I can’t imagine an argument that would persuade the majority to think slavery was good after all, nonetheless conceptually at least such a thing is possible and so that would become the moral paradigm once again.

“Only what happens” in other words is indeed morality as only what happens, but in general at least it rests on arguments that enough people have found persuasive to be accepted.

Incidentally, as a side issue I note that you said: “This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave.” This happens often – someone picks something currently thought to be morally terrible (slavery) as if that were objectively true, then complains that at one time the fact that the majority thought is was fine meant that they must have been objectively wrong. They don’t though say something like, “actually I think slavery is morally good and it’s just an ad pop to say it isn’t because most people disagree with me”.

In other words they conflate the content of a specific moral position with the generalised phenomenon of the consensus of moral good and bad itself defining contemporaneous moral good and bad.

The arguments and axioms on which morality rests are change apt in a way that, say, facts about gravity or the weak magnetic force aren’t. They can’t be certain, so the moral positions that rest on them for their force can’t be either. All we have then for moral principle is the arguments that currently are the most robust, and all we have for the practical application of morality is whichever of those arguments most people accept.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Pretty much, yes.

There’s a non sequitur in there somewhere. Moral arguments are fine because they rationalise opinions. When slavery was prevalent and someone said, “actually slavery is wrong because…” that idea caught the wind sufficiently for the majority to support it and so that became the prevailing moral paradigm. While I can’t imagine an argument that would persuade the majority to think slavery was good after all, nonetheless conceptually at least such a thing is possible and so that would become the moral paradigm once again.

“Only what happens” in other words is indeed morality as only what happens, but in general at least it rests on arguments that enough people have found persuasive to be accepted.

Incidentally, as a side issue I note that you said: “This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave.” This happens often – someone picks something currently thought to be morally terrible (slavery) is if that were objectively true, then complains that at one time the fact that the majority thought is was fine meant that they must have been objectively wrong. They don’t though say something like, “actually I think slavery is morally good and it’s just an ad pop to say it isn’t because most people disagree with me”.

In other words they conflate the content of a specific moral position with the generalised phenomenon of the consensus of moral good and bad itself defining contemporaneous moral good and bad.

he arguments and axioms on which morality rests are change apt in a way that, say, facts about gravity or the weak magnetic force aren’t. They can’t be certain, so the moral positions that rest on them for their force can’t be either. All we have then for moral principle is the arguments that currently are the most robust, and all we have for the practical application of morality is whichever of those arguments most people accept.     

That would be useful if that is what I was doing, but since it wasn't it's irrelevant. I was using it as a reductio of the apparent argument that things are good because they are agreed by most people. This appeared to be the argument, I.e. an ad populum that was being used. I wasn't arguing, and I think in context obviously not arguing, that this is objectively wrong but questioning whether those using the ad populum would agree with that as an outcome.

Anyway the monarchy, what are your thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That would be useful if that is what I was doing, but since it wasn't it's irrelevant. I was using it as a reductio of the apparent argument that things are good because they are agreed by most people.

No you weren’t. You took an example you wanted everyone to think was obviously morally bad and then complained that, as once most people thought it was fine, then “The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number” as if that was a bad thing.

Well yes, the ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number because of the number, but so what? What else would you point to for rightness and wrongness if not for what most people think it to be?

Sometimes in other words popularity is all we have, albeit resting on arguments that are themselves fluid in character.   

This appeared to be the argument, I.e. an ad populum that was being used. I wasn't arguing, and I think in context obviously not arguing, that this is objectively wring buy questioning whether those using the ad populum would agree with that as an outcome.

Then why pick an example that you imply is obviously wrong (slavery) to contrast with a previous majority opinion as if that in some way invalidated the idea that pretty much popular acceptance is all we have to define moral good and bad? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No you weren’t. You took an example you wanted everyone to think was obviously morally bad and then complained that, as once most people thought it was fine, then “The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number” as if that was a bad thing.

Well yes, the ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number because of the number, but so what? What else would you point to for rightness and wrongness if not for what most people think it to be?

Sometimes in other words popularity is all we have, albeit resting on arguments that are themselves fluid in character.   

Then why pick an example that you imply is obviously wrong (slavery) to contrast with a previous majority opinion as if that in some way invalidated the idea that pretty much popular acceptance is all we have to define moral good and bad?

Because I was picking the example as a reduction for the person making the argument, that's what a reductio is. I don't share, and made clear that I don't share the idea that what the majority think is right is useful in an argument about what is objectively right! I would appreciate if you didn't lie about my position.

And the monarchy, any thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because I was pucking the example as a reduction for the person making the argument, that's what a reductio is. I don't share, and made clear that I don't share the idea that what the majority think is right is useful in an argument about what is objectively right!

That wasn’t the point though. I agree that majority opinion tells us nothing about what’s objectively true about morality, but nor does it claim to (and nor for that matter does anything else). It does though provide an “ought” in the sense that it says, “we ought to behave as follows in respect of moral issue X” with no claims of certainty involved.

I would appreciate if you didn't lie about my position.

I didn’t. You implied that because the majority once thought slavery was good and you (and your contemporaneous majority) now think slavery is bad we shouldn’t take majority opinion for our moral oughts (because that would be just an ad pop).

I merely say that majority opinion is all we have for our moral oughts and that it makes no claim to certainty nonetheless.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That wasn’t the point though. I agree that majority opinion tells us nothing about what’s objectively true about morality, but nor does it claim to (and nor for that matter does anything else). It does though provide an “ought” in the sense that it says, “we ought to behave as follows in respect of moral issue X” with no claims of certainty involved.

I didn’t. You implied that because the majority once thought slavery was good and you (and your contemporaneous majority) now think slavery is bad we shouldn’t take majority opinion for our moral oughts (because that would be just an ad pop).

I merely say that majority opinion is all we have for our moral oughts and that it makes no claim to certainty nonetheless.

And again no, the idea that the majority thinking something is a reason to believe it was good was put forward by Susan Doris, I used a number of different reductios because I believe she would not apply that generally, I.e. that it was a form of special pleading (a charge that has since effectively been admitted).

Anyway, the monarchy, any thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And again no, the idea that the majority thinking something is a reason to believe it was good was put forward by Susan Doris, I used a number of different reductios because I believe she would not apply that generally, I.e. that it was a form of special pleading (a charge that has since effectively been admitted).

I can’t find a post in which Susan says that. Do you have a reference please?

If she did though, did she say that majority opinion gives us objective moral answers (in which case I’d disagree), or just provisional moral oughts with no certainty attached (in which case I’d agree)?   

Anyway, the monarchy, any thoughts?

Pretty much those of Wiggs I think - it’s a deferential hangover from a previous age, but I’m not sure what the consequences would be if it disappeared overnight. On a financial level though as I understand it every £ it costs generates several more in tourism income and the like. 

Either way, I’m not sure the current warmth for the Queen will survive long if and when Charlie ascends so maybe he’ll unwittingly be the republicans’ best friend in any case (something HRH perhaps suspects, which is why she’s so keen to hang on for as long as she can). 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I can’t find a post in which Susan says that. Do you have a reference please?

If she did though, did she say that majority opinion gives us objective moral answers (in which case I’d disagree), or just provisional moral oughts with no certainty attached (in which case I’d agree)?   

Pretty much those of Wiggs I think - it’s a deferential hangover from a previous age, but I’m not sure what the consequences would be if it disappeared overnight. On a financial level though as I understand it every £ it costs generates several more in tourism income and the like. 

Either way, I’m not sure the current warmth for the Queen will survive long if and when Charlie ascends so maybe he’ll unwittingly be the republicans’ best friend in any case (something HRH perhaps suspects, which is why she’s so keen to hang on for as long as she can).

The entirety of Susan's posts on here amounted to people liking it. In the end it doesn't matter whether the ad populum argument is used to claim objevtivity, or jyst to say that even if it is not objective it is an argument in favour of the proposition in any way, it isn't. It is merely descriptive. SD has agreed that she sees this as a unique thing for which she applies this argument I.e. special pleading.


I read wigginhall as saying something much stronger than saying monarchy is a hangover and he seems to me to argue that it is a problematic institution that promotes inequality and privilege, and ergo he is agin' it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The entirety of Susan's posts on here amounted to people liking it.

Liking something and thinking it to be morally good are not the same though – which is what I think you said she said.

In the end it doesn't matter whether the ad populum argument is used to claim objevtivity, or jyst to say that even if it is not objective it is an argument in favour of the proposition in any way, it isn't.

Actually I think it matters a lot. For the former, I can see no logical path from majority opinion to objective moral truths, and nor for that matter do I think “objective moral truth” to be coherent even conceptually in any case (which tends to be the terrain of clerics with their "sures and certains").     

For the latter though, the “descriptive” is all we have. If the majority says, “this is how we ought to behave to be morally good” then it’s describing what it does mean to be morally good albeit only according to its own lights.

It is merely descriptive.

Yes, but “merely” is all it claims to be and – for morality purpose – it’s all we have.

SD has agreed that she sees this as a unique thing for which she applies this argument I.e. special pleading.

I think she described the monarchy as a unique issue, but I’m not sure about whether she extends that exception to include moral significance.

I read wigginhall as saying something much stronger than saying monarchy is a hangover and he seems to me to argue that it is a problematic institution that promotes inequality and privilege, and ergo he is agin' it.

On balance so am I, but it’s not something I get particularly vexed about. Its symbolism is important I agree, but there are many other things I think to be problematic too – private schools for example.

[Gordon]

I think this needs to qualified. It's not as if there is a doubt on the existence of the monarchy, so on that level the personal conviction is different. The approach to argument by some theists in that logical fallacies have no effect on their experience is similar but there is a difference between the 'is' claim of existence and the 'ought' claim of 'Monarchy should continue'

Fair point - there is a difference between approving of the role occupied by a series of known living people and the claimed existence of divine beings, even if the level on enthusiasm for each by their respective proponents seems similar.

[ippy]

NS,

I can’t find a post in which Susan says that. Do you have a reference please?

If she did though, did she say that majority opinion gives us objective moral answers (in which case I’d disagree), or just provisional moral oughts with no certainty attached (in which case I’d agree)?   

Pretty much those of Wiggs I think - it’s a deferential hangover from a previous age, but I’m not sure what the consequences would be if it disappeared overnight. On a financial level though as I understand it every £ it costs generates several more in tourism income and the like.  7

Either way, I’m not sure the current warmth for the Queen will survive long if and when Charlie ascends so maybe he’ll unwittingly be the republicans’ best friend in any case (something HRH perhaps suspects, which is why she’s so keen to hang on for as long as she can).

The French system doesn't seem to have reduced tourism to France and no I wouldn't want their heads off.

Even if you assume there's a profit having these mollycoddled people supported by the rest of us here in the U K, it doesn't justify their position.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

A few more thoughts:

Why should people who want the monarchy ended - without a similarly organised, vastly less colourful or interesting and entertaining system set up to replace it - deny to the next generations the pleasure, the fun, the entertainment, etc of the current system?

There are many things in life that are not academically and logically moral, but, and here I mention a parable, if an equal sum of money is given to three different people, some will double it, some will have put it in a money box, some will have spent it all. that's human nature and much as as one may think equality would be an ideal, it never will be a reality.

On the subject of whether Charles might tilt people towards a republic, consider the interest of people in the family and remember that William Kate andtheir children are almost certain to be the focus of interest rather than Charles and Camilla themselves.

By the way, bluehillside, what I said was that I am quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre in this particular thread!

Okay, that's my say on this topic for  the day, well most of it, as I'm going to London for a meeting I have organised of a group of old girls from school. All of us are now over 80.

[ippy]

A few more thoughts:

Why should people who want the monarchy ended - without a similarly organised, vastly less colourful or interesting and entertaining system set up to replace it - deny to the next generations the pleasure, the fun, the entertainment, etc of the current system?

There are many things in life that are not academically and logically moral, but, and here I mention a parable, if an equal sum of money is given to three different people, some will double it, some will have put it in a money box, some will have spent it all. that's human nature and much as as one may think equality would be an ideal, it never will be a reality.

On the subject of whether Charles might tilt people towards a republic, consider the interest of people in the family and remember that William Kate andtheir children are almost certain to be the focus of interest rather than Charles and Camilla themselves.

By the way, bluehillside, what I said was that I am quite relaxed about committing logical fallacies right, left and centre in this particular thread!

Okay, that's my say on this topic for  the day, well most of it, as I'm going to London for a meeting I have organised of a group of old girls from school. All of us are now over 80.

It looks to me Susan going by the text of your post where you seem to know who did what to whom plus apparently an exhaustive knowledge of the family tree; why not latch on to one of the T V soaps of your choice, stop fawning over the royals and say goodbye to this unjustified unfair royal system we have to suffer, due to the general public's love of soap, oh yes very logical.

Very crudely: I love soap and need to fawn over someone, some family, so that justifies the royalist system.

It's not so much broke so don't fix it, it fell apart some time ago and now needs replacing, more it has served its time.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

You know, for a moment there, I think I heard Synthetic dave read something by Ippy! ...  I think he mentioned the royal Family, but I could well be mistaken/

Ten of us had a most enjoyable three hours today, with a great deal of chat and laughter. They all want me to organise it again next year.

[ippy]

You know, for a moment there, I think I heard Synthetic dave read something by Ippy! ...  I think he mentioned the royal Family, but I could well be mistaken/

Ten of us had a most enjoyable three hours today, with a great deal of chat and laughter. They all want me to organise it again next year.

Do you know I was just thinking, having a good day out with your friends would be a terrific and realistic way of lifting your spirits, Susan, hope you have many more days out of a similar nature, good on you.

Regards ippy.