Yuku free message boards
Username or E-mail:
Password:
Forgot
Password?
Sign Up
Grab the Yuku app
Search:
My Community
Mark Sebring Discussion Group Archive
>
Other Groups
>
OUR : One of the things that you can lose - Respect!
0 Points
Search this Topic:
Remove this ad
Meaning of Life
Other Groups
Lives of Quiet Desperation
Humor
Songs, Poems, Short Stories
Puzzles, Trivia, Movies. etc.
Lives of Quiet Desperation
Mark Sebring on Multiply
More "Things I've Written"
Philosophy Discussion Forum
General Discussion Forum
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Re: OUR : One of the things that you can lose - Respect!
Author
Comment
MSebring
#1
[url]
[-]
Dec 11 08 3:46 PM
Alglenne (41)
:
You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.
I did not say that there are only two possible definitions of the word "respect". In fact, I recommended that people read the web site that you provided the link to because it provides a good explanation of the different concepts that the word "respect" is used to stand for (post 34).
I am in no way suggesting that there are straightforward black and white answers to philosophical problems.
I am trying to explain how verbal communication works (words are symbols that stand for ideas, and sometimes they stand for more than one idea, and sometimes this causes confusion), and I am suggesting that in order to be a good critical thinker one must be able to distinguish between philosophical differences and semantics differences.
And, I am suggesting that the problem you have presented us with in the initial post of this thread is really a semantics problem rather than a philosophical problem.
From post 1 of this thread
:
I have often seen or heard it argued that people have to earn other peoples respect
which seems to me to be a perverse way of puttings things.
I want to argue that every human being has the right to respect from every other human being
, that is, until they have lost it - the respect I mean. Isn't that the democratic rule and if that fails, isn't that a given in the natural order of things?
Why should anyone have to earn the respect of any other person?
And, what is it that you get by earning other peoples respect - class systems riddled with brutal discrimination?
I believe that what you are saying here implies an argument which may be represented by the following mixed hypothetical syllogism using the form "modus ponens" (the second premise affirms the antecedent of the first premise allowing the conclusion to affirm the consequent):
P1: IF every human being has the right to
respect(1)
from every other human being
THEN people should not have to earn other people's
respect(2)
.
P2: Every human being has the right to
respect(1)
from every other human being.
C: People should not have to earn other people's
respect(2)
.
What I am suggesting here is that your implied argument is invalid because it contains the logical fallacy of equivocation - because two different definitions of the word "respect" (which I have labeled 1 and 2) are being used interchangeably within the argument.
You say you have heard people argue that people have to earn other peoples respect. When people argue that, they are obviously using the evaluative definition of the word "respect" (which I have labeled as definition 2).
You go on to say "I want to argue that every human being has the right to respect from every other human being". When you say this it is apparent that you are using a different definition of the word "respect" (which I have labeled as definition 1) - probably the definiton that has to do with thoughtfulness or consideration. I say this because that's the only way that your statement seems to make sense.
IF you contend that in both cases you are using "respect" definition 1 (thoughtfulness) THEN my response is that you apparently don't understand what people mean when they argue that "people have to earn other peoples respect" because your argument does nothing to refute what they are actually saying.
On the other hand, IF you contend that in both cases you are using "respect" definition 2 (evaluative respect) THEN my response is that instead of your argument being invalid because it contains the logical fallacy of equivocation, it is unsound because at least one of your premises is not true. In this case though, it would be a philosophical problem rather than a semantics problem (because the argument would not contain the fallacy of equivocation) and the next thing to do would be to examine your premises.
So, Do you agree that I have accurately represented the argument that is implied in your first post?
If so, Do you see that it contains the logical fallacy of equivocation because you are using more than one definition of the word "respect" within the argument, OR Do you contend that you are using the same definition of the word "respect" throughout the argument?
And, If you contend that you are using the same definition of the word "respect" throughout the argument, What definition of the word "respect" are you using?
My Recent Posts
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Meaning of Life
Other Groups
Lives of Quiet Desperation
Humor
Songs, Poems, Short Stories
Puzzles, Trivia, Movies. etc.
Lives of Quiet Desperation
Mark Sebring on Multiply
More "Things I've Written"
Philosophy Discussion Forum
General Discussion Forum
Email to Friend
del.icio.us
Digg it
Facebook
Blogger
Yahoo MyWeb
Mark Sebring Discussion Group Archive
>
Other Groups
>
OUR : One of the things that you can lose - Respect!
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies