• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just Plain Wrong

Which fallacy?

Naturalistic. Which is different from the appeal to nature fallacy in that a naturalistic fallacy only has to resemble the appeal to nature, but is not required to be an actual appeal to nature. It can be an appeal to any number of things, like "normal" for instance. Instilling pleasure is another commonly used basis for naturalistic fallacy.
 
The naturalistic fallacy is not a strict, logical fallacy. It only applies if you accept certain modern, Enlightenment assumptions about distinguish between fact and value, is and ought and certain other nominalist and rationalist assumptions. It does not apply to those, like most pre-modern, Western and non-Western thinkers who did not accept such assumptions. Indeed it would seem close to unintelligible nonsense to a Plato or a Shankara (even those most afflicted by chronological snobbery can hardly, in a way that would totally convince themselves, write off such thinkers as simply being completely illogical and missing the obvious).
 
Last edited:
The naturalistic fallacy is not a strict, logical fallacy. It only applies if you accept certain modern, Enlightenment assumptions about distinguish between fact and value, is and ought and certain other nominalist and rationalist assumptions. It does not apply to those, like most pre-modern, Western and non-Western thinkers who did not accept such assumptions. Indeed it would see close to unintelligible nonsense to a Plato or a Shankara.

It was once normal to beat your wife. Are you saying that you think that it was therefore also moral to beat your wife when it was normal to do so?

It was once perfectly normal to own people who were darker than you. Was it therefore moral to own people who were darker than you when it was normal to do so?

The examples of the flaws in the logic can go on and on and on. It's clear that the logic employed is fallacious, regardless of whether or not an individual is willing to accept the fact that it is.

The added bonus of an "appeal to normalcy" is that if one definition of normal is used it is always an appeal to majority, and if the other common definition is used it is always circular reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Yes, those are the sorts of modern, Enlightenment assumptions I mean. :2razz:

Those aren't assumptions. They are just reiterations of the arguments used by those who make an appeal to normalcy with the terms altered and the date changed. The only assumption that is made is that which is made by the person making the argument (that assumption is that normal = good).
 
Those aren't assumptions. They are just reiterations of the arguments used by those who make an appeal to normalcy with the terms altered and the date changed. The only assumption that is made is that which is made by the person making the argument (that assumption is that normal = good).
It is clear, looking at the edit you made to your last but one post, that you are referring to normal simply in the sense of average. Obviously I would agree with you in criticising that notion if it was then used as the basis for a moral judgement. But normal isn't used in this sense alone, indeed seeing as it is based on the root 'norm' I would say it shouldn't be used simply as average anyway( but that boat has long sailed it seems), as I said it is a problematic term, at least unless it is defined succinctly.
 
Last edited:
Actually statistics WILL give you the outcome of it being 50/50 regardless of how many times it has come up heads before. The difference would be, are you measuring something with independent variables (the case you just pointed out) or something with dependent variables (like a deck of cards).

Sure if they apply the right formula. I was being facetious about it. I have seen teachers use poor examples to illustrate dependent variables though. It was the coin flip example.
 
Tucker; even when we are talking about normal in something close to the sense of the 'average' or 'usual', it is not clear that one can never use it for arguments like this. One certainly cannot use it if one simply tried to say that such and such was immoral because it was not usual. But one might be able to construct an argument relating man's usual intuitions or how, on aggregate, he has felt, reasoned and pronounced on behaviour, to what is normal in the sense of correct, proper or even moral. You'd have to lay the groundwork for this, you certainly, as noted, couldn't simply assert it; but it is not impossible to make respectable arguments of this kind. C.S Lewis certainly includes one in his excellent The Abolition of Man.

One might even argue that the pre-modern and non-Western arguments about nature and normalcy, though they don't use normal in the sense of 'usual' or 'average', can conceivably be reasonably easily stretched to give a lot of credence to a healthy individual's innate feelings on moral issues and such like.
 
Last edited:
Unless of course they had some sort of essentialist or realist philosophy or perspective, like the vast majority of people in the pre-modern West and outside the West.

This is not the pre-modern West... something that no longer exists. Outside the west would have their own concept of "normal" which fits in my philosophy perfectly.
 
Isn't some of the problem the word normal? Which has conflicting connotations. People tend to use it to both express what is right or proper or natural and also simply what is the common experience.

THIS is why I ALWAYS ask for how one is defining normal.
 
This is not the pre-modern West... something that no longer exists.
Isn't this argument analogous to that you are critiquing? You seem to be suggesting that because of the change of time you are correct and have no need to examine those uncultured bores who dare to have been born before the radiant wisdom of the Captain's time.

Outside the west would have their own concept of "normal" which fits in my philosophy perfectly.
Outside the West they often had analogous, essentialist and realist underpinnings for their views of the normal, if defined in terms of the ideal or nature, to the pre-modern West. This is certainly the case in Islam, the Jewish thought of Moses Maimonides and Kabbalah, Persian thought and much Indian thought and in most cases seems to have filtered down to the everyday level of these traditions.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this argument analogous to that you are critiquing? You seem to be suggesting that because of the change of time you are correct and have no need to examine those uncultured bores who dare to have been born before the radiant wisdom of the Captain's time.

Since the pre-modern West no longer exists, what they believed was normal is irrelevant in the context of the modern West. Which ALSO fits perfectly in my philosophy of normal.

I have no doubt that Shankara and Al-Farabi are shaking in their boots to hear that.:2razz:

They probably would just be marveling at how I can break down the barriers between all cultures and types of philosophies.
 
Since the pre-modern West no longer exists, what they believed was normal is irrelevant in the context of the modern West. Which ALSO fits perfectly in my philosophy of normal.
It does matter if you're using normal in terms of ideal or nature, of course. This is certainly how they would have used such a concept as normal in a discussion such as this. What they considered average though is obviously largely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
It does matter if you're using normal in terms of ideal or nature, of course. This is certainly how they would have used such a concept as normal in a discussion such as this. What they considered average though is obviously largely irrelevant.

When one of them is around to discuss this, I'll debate it with him.

See what I'm getting at?
 
When one of them is around to discuss this, I'll debate it with him.

See what I'm getting at?
Scholasticism is still the official thought of the Catholic Church. Patristic thought is heavily Platonic and very important to the Orthodox, Catholics and traditional Christians of all stripes. This traditional Christian thought itself can also be included in the perspective I'm describing.

You can debate it with the Pope, who is an Augustinian.
 
Last edited:
Scholasticism is still the official thought of the Catholic Church. Patristic thought is heavily Platonic and very important to the Orthodox, Catholics and traditional Christians of all stripes. This traditional Christian thought itself can also be included in the perspective I'm describing.

You can debate it with the Pope, who is an Augustinian.

Again, what those long dead pre-modern Westerners thought was normal is irrelevant to what we think is normal. Different time periods, different contexts, different perspectives. I understand that you are enthralled with pre-modern philosophy, and that's fine. However, there is a difference between that philosophy and the real word application of the contexts of those beliefs, not those beliefs themselves. The beliefs can apply, but the context does not.
 
Again, what those long dead pre-modern Westerners thought was normal is irrelevant to what we think is normal. Different time periods, different contexts, different perspectives. I understand that you are enthralled with pre-modern philosophy, and that's fine. However, there is a difference between that philosophy and the real word application of the contexts of those beliefs, not those beliefs themselves. The beliefs can apply, but the context does not.
Again you really have to define which way you are using the term normal.

As pre-modern thought defined normal, in the sense of nature and ideal, as something timeless( because anyhow time is a modality of formal existence) then I'm not sure how the context matters too much.
 
Last edited:
Again you really have to define which way you are using the term normal.

I'm not using the term normal in any specific way, since the word normal is nothing but a relative term, based on one's own experience, unless one is using it in some form of statistical analysis.

As pre-modern thought defined normal, in the sense of nature and ideal, as something timeless( because anyhow time is a modality of formal existence) then I'm not sure how the context matters too much.

This is the fallacy. Normal is not timeless. This is why context matters, and the pre-modern context of what normal is, is irrelevant.
 
I'm not using the term normal in any specific way, since the word normal is nothing but a relative term, based on one's own experience, unless one is using it in some form of statistical analysis.
Normal can mean 'norm', like nature or something like idea, or it can mean average or usual. You are just asserting norms are relative.
This is the fallacy. Normal is not timeless. This is why context matters, and the pre-modern context of what normal is, is irrelevant.
You are not diagnosing a logical fallacy here, you are just asserting they are wrong and you are right. If that gives you your jollies then more power to you.
 
Normal can mean 'norm', like nature or something like idea, or it can mean average or usual. You are just asserting norms are relative.

I think that's what I've been saying. Of course norms are relative.

You are not diagnosing a logical fallacy here, you are just asserting they are wrong and you are right. If that gives you your jollies then more power to you.

I've clearly demonstrated how I am right. Tucker has also demonstrated the accuracy of my position. You cannot demonstrate that norms are timeless. My position is that norms are contextual and relative. If you think differently, that's fine, but you will be hard pressed to prove your position.
 
Meh, I was simply pointing out that your view on norms being relative is itself a very parochial and modern assumption and that its philosophical underpinnings have not been generally shared, indeed would have often looked on them as nonsensical. This is not a formal refutation of course, just an interesting observation and perhaps a pause for thought. Such a debate will not be settled on a message board though.
 
Last edited:
Meh, I was simply pointing out that your view on norms being relative is itself a very parochial and modern assumption and that its philosophical underpinnings have not been generally shared, indeed would have often looked on them as nonsensical. This is not a formal refutation of course, just an interesting observation and perhaps a pause for thought. Such a debate will not be settled on a message board though.

There are lots of beliefs that folks held in the past that we now know are incorrect. Besides, philosophy in and of itself is pretty relative.
 
There are lots of beliefs that folks held in the past that we now know are incorrect.
In this case it appears that what you think is completely obvious few before Hobbes, Locke and Hume had any inkling of. All this is chronological snobbery; the strange idea that what has been argued in the past must have refuted and what is believed now must be right. That Pre-Cartesian thought, except a few Greco-Romans, badly interpreted, is largely ignored you do not take into account. This is quite an ironic position for someone so intent on disparaging those who try and appeal to normalcy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom