mirror of
https://gitlab.com/upRootNutrition/obsidian.git
synced 2025-06-15 15:45:11 -05:00
3.9 KiB
Executable file
3.9 KiB
Executable file
Shitty Argument Against Ethical Slurs
P1) If a derogatory attitude is morally defective, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
(∀x((Dx∧Mx)→WEx))
P2) Derogatory attitudes shaped by harmful ideologies are morally defective.
∀x(Dx→Mx)
P3) Slurring involves expressing a derogatory attitude in an offensive sociolinguistic register shaped by harmful ideologies, whether or not the speaker possesses the derogatory attitude in question.
(∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey)))
P4) If an act of slurring action-expresses a derogatory attitude, and that derogatory attitude is morally defective, then the act of slurring is pro tanto wrong.
(∀x((Sx∧∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My))→WEx))
P5) All acts of slurring represent action-expressions of derogatory attitudes that are morally defective.
(∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My)))
C) Therefore, all acts of slurring are pro tanto wrong.
(∴ (∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My))∧∀x((Dx∧Mx)→WEx)→∀x(Sx→WEx)))
(∀x((Dx∧Mx)→WEx))
P2) Derogatory attitudes shaped by harmful ideologies are morally defective.
∀x(Dx→Mx)
P3) Slurring involves expressing a derogatory attitude in an offensive sociolinguistic register shaped by harmful ideologies, whether or not the speaker possesses the derogatory attitude in question.
(∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey)))
P4) If an act of slurring action-expresses a derogatory attitude, and that derogatory attitude is morally defective, then the act of slurring is pro tanto wrong.
(∀x((Sx∧∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My))→WEx))
P5) All acts of slurring represent action-expressions of derogatory attitudes that are morally defective.
(∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My)))
C) Therefore, all acts of slurring are pro tanto wrong.
(∴ (∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My))∧∀x((Dx∧Mx)→WEx)→∀x(Sx→WEx)))
Valid Reformalization of the Shitty Argument Against Ethical Slurs
| Definiendum | Definiens |
|---|---|
| D | an attitude is derogatory |
| M | an attitude is morally defective |
| W | it is pro tanto wrong to express an attitude |
| H | an attitude was shaped by harmful ideologies |
| S | expressing an attitude via a slur |
P1) If an attitude is derogatory and morally defective, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
(D∧M→W)
P2) If an attitude is derogatory and was shaped my harmful ideologies, then it is morally defective.
(D∧H→M)
P3) If an attitude is expressed via a slur, then this attitude is derogatory and was shaped by harmful ideologies.
(S→D∧H)
C) Therefore, if an attitude is expressed via a slur, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
(∴S→W)
(D∧M→W)
P2) If an attitude is derogatory and was shaped my harmful ideologies, then it is morally defective.
(D∧H→M)
P3) If an attitude is expressed via a slur, then this attitude is derogatory and was shaped by harmful ideologies.
(S→D∧H)
C) Therefore, if an attitude is expressed via a slur, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
(∴S→W)
Receipts
!
Debate 1
Proposition
"Plants have a general tendency to perform an action in ways that is consistent with their self organization."
Argument
Criteria for moral value
- Autopoiesis
- self-organization
- self-maintenance
- self-regulation
- comprising a network of interrelated processes
- capable of renewing itself by regulating its composition and maintenance of form
- creating its own parts
- homeostasis
Semantics
- Homeostasis
- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements
- Tendency
- an propensity to a particular characteristic.
Analysis
Reductio
| Criteria | Atom |
|---|---|
| Tendency | Yes |
| Equilibrium | Yes |
| Interdependent elements | Yes |
- Even atoms would qualify as having moral value.
Hashtags
#debate #philosophy #sentience #autopoiesis #morality #debate_opponents