IS IT ALWAYS WRONG FOR ANYBODY TO...?
Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth, The Problem With Knowledge
To address this question, for clarity, we can define "wrong for anybody" as "what everybody ought not do". Let us look at an example form of this question, "Is it the case that, at all times, everybody ought not (perform the action of littering on a public street)?". This question suggests that "littering on a public street" might have consequences against a predetermined goal that make it something that one ought or ought not do. In turn, that presupposes that there might be a predetermined goal, and that goal could or must be the same for everybody, at all times.
We can evaluate any goal and look at the contrary to find that, "it is not the case that (example: the desire to keep the street clean, so one does not trip over garbage), is the same for everybody, at all times", is not a contradiction and is coherent. Therefore, "the goal is the same for everybody, at all times" is not a necessity ("must be the case"). What we have here is a truth value evaluation, as the contrary is coherent, or "can be the case". That the contrary "can be the case" does not mean that it ever is the case, however, we can not rule out that the contrary is not the case for anybody, at any time. It is possible that it is the case that "it is always wrong for anybody to...", however, it is not necessary.
When we deal with truth values, where the contrary "can be the case", we can have justification for which belief we are supporting. What one can say is "I believe it is true...", or "I believe it is false...". Based on the justification given, the inquisitor can proportion their confidence in the content of the belief they received to determine if they "believe it to be true or false" themselves.
August 2019
To address this question, for clarity, we can define "wrong for anybody" as "what everybody ought not do". Let us look at an example form of this question, "Is it the case that, at all times, everybody ought not (perform the action of littering on a public street)?". This question suggests that "littering on a public street" might have consequences against a predetermined goal that make it something that one ought or ought not do. In turn, that presupposes that there might be a predetermined goal, and that goal could or must be the same for everybody, at all times.
We can evaluate any goal and look at the contrary to find that, "it is not the case that (example: the desire to keep the street clean, so one does not trip over garbage), is the same for everybody, at all times", is not a contradiction and is coherent. Therefore, "the goal is the same for everybody, at all times" is not a necessity ("must be the case"). What we have here is a truth value evaluation, as the contrary is coherent, or "can be the case". That the contrary "can be the case" does not mean that it ever is the case, however, we can not rule out that the contrary is not the case for anybody, at any time. It is possible that it is the case that "it is always wrong for anybody to...", however, it is not necessary.
When we deal with truth values, where the contrary "can be the case", we can have justification for which belief we are supporting. What one can say is "I believe it is true...", or "I believe it is false...". Based on the justification given, the inquisitor can proportion their confidence in the content of the belief they received to determine if they "believe it to be true or false" themselves.
August 2019
Comments
Post a Comment