RoR: Forum

Ted,

From Sam's list of fallacies at: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexquestion , the complex question fallacy is shown to involve tying independent points together as if they were dependent on each other (i.e., where both points must stay, or go -- where one cannot be found true without the other also being true):

Complex Question (Tying):

unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits.

For example, "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?"

The example given involved supporting freedom (in general) and supporting the right to bear arms (specifically). It is assumed that support of freedom is, simultaneously, support of the right to bear arms (that you can't support freedom without also supporting the right to bear arms). Now, Don Lindsay (the logician here?) is wrong with his example because it isn't actually a fallacy -- the support of freedom is the simultaneous support of the right to bear arms. A better example would be this:

"Do you support freedom and the embryo's right to life?"

In this example, freedom is applied to individual humans in the first case, but also to a clump of undifferentiated cells in the second case. The fallacy is to tie them together in an equivocation -- where individual humans are equivocated with clumps of cells. By doing that, you cannot support freedom (in general) without also supporting the rights of the "unborn" -- making the question a complex question.

The answer is that you can support freedom in general (for individual humans) and that supporting the rights of the unborn (the rights of mere "potential" humans) violates freedom in general (for individual humans). So, in fact, you can't have both points being true at the same time -- you have to pick one or the other. Either the "unborn" have rights, or the individual humans do.

In the case of this poll question, the specific point relates to folks who don't accept reality-based morality, and the general point relates to the general 'right-to-happiness' (rather than to the pursuit thereof). In fact, these points don't stand or fall together. The truth-value of the general right-to-happiness is independent of the specific point about which morality a human accepts.

One can ask -- and answer -- whether folks have the general 'right-to-happiness' without ever discussing their adopted morality. That's what makes this question a complex question. If it asked if folks with wrong "happiness maps" (wrong moralities) have the right to the pursuit of happiness, then the answer is: yes (not because their morals are right or wrong, but because they're human).

Ed

Post 21

Sunday, November 15, 2009 - 8:38am

Ed, you are simply mistaken in your application of that objection to this question. Read the link on restrictive versus non restrictive clauses. If the question were, "Does John Smith, who does not accept rational egoism, have a right to happiness?" then it would be a compound question with a non-restrictive clause. (Note that the offset by commas is grammatically mandatory.) The logical structure would be "Does John Smith [John Smith does not accept rational egoism], have a right to happiness?" The subject John Smith would be a separate entity of whom two separate predicates would be asserted. The question would require you to accept the implied argument, perhaps factually wrong, that John Smith does not accept rational egoism.

But the question as asked in this poll has the logical structure, "Do individuals who do not accept rational egoism have a right to happiness. There is no separate entity "individuals" of whom there is an implied argument that they do not accept rational egoism. There is no factual possibility that the "individuals" here might actually accept rational egoism. "Those who do not accept rational egoism" is the entire subject of the sentence. There are no separate individuals here as there would be if this were a non-restrictive clause. There is only one indivisible subject, those who do not accept rational egoism.

Again, Ed, I ask:

Do those who do not accept rational egoism have a right to be happy?

Post 22

Sunday, November 15, 2009 - 8:16pm

Ted,

I'll ask, and answer, this question:

Do those who do not accept rational egoism have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Yes.

Ed

Post 23

Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 11:25am

No, I am sorry, Ed, I am not going to help you fake reality just to save face. The question was perfectly valid as posted. There was no justification for Robert's concrete-bound misinterpretation of the question. Rand spoke all the time as to whether one had the moral right as opposed to the political right to do something or not:

Q Don't I have the right to be irrational?

A There is no such thing as freedom or rights that stand above and against reason and reality. Your rights are based on reality and derived by reason from the observation of reality. You don't have the moral right to be irrational. Of course, in a free society you can do whatever you want, however irrational, so long as you don't violate the rights of others.

AR Answers, p 170, emphasis original.

Further, the question is not compound, see above, repeatedly.

I have to assume you would have answered the question positively if you had not been led astray. I will confess to this. The question was purposefully worded as neutrally as possible so as to make it a "sense of life" test. Had I said, "Do individuals who reject rational egoism have a right to happiness nonetheless?" the question would have been much more debatable. Steve and George Hirniak hit on the proper issues. Once you ask the question is the individual prior to ethics or is ethics prior to the individual the answer becomes obvious. Objectivism holds that ethics is a tool for individual use, not an intrinsic standard up to which we have a duty to live.

Post 24

Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 11:52am

Except it was NOT concrete-bound, and you refuse to see that...

Post 25

Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 3:49pm

I believe all men, no matter what the philisophical way of thinking is, have a right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a matter of what makes the man happy. As long as he does not violate or attempt to block the happiness of any others to attain his own.

Post 26

Monday, November 23, 2009 - 1:34pm

Ted,

Rand spoke all the time as to whether one had the moral right as opposed to the political right to do something or not:

Q Don't I have the right to be irrational?

A There is no such thing as freedom or rights that stand above and against reason and reality. Your rights are based on reality and derived by reason from the observation of reality. You don't have the moral right to be irrational. Of course, in a free society you can do whatever you want, however irrational, so long as you don't violate the rights of others.

But that quote bolsters Robert's argument (and mine), not yours.

The moral is about the "marriage" (relation) between the individual and reality, the political is about the "marriage" between the individual and her peers (in a social context). Rand said (above) that you don't have the moral right to be irrational. Remember, the moral relation is between yourself and reality. You have the moral right to relate to reality, but not the moral right not to (relate to reality). That's what Rand meant when she said you don't have the moral right to be irrational.

Reality isn't something that can be "used successfully" by being irrational. Therefore, there is no moral right to be irrational. You don't have a moral right to something that is metaphysically wrong. A visual would be the moral right to float in the air -- the moment that you jump off of a bridge.

For a similar (if not for the same) reason, you don't have a moral right to be either irrational or altruistic and to also be happy.

When you say that the individual is prior to ethics, you are, in a sense, right. Human life gives rise to ethics (not the other way around). But I think that you, like Nietzsche, go too far -- enter the uber-individual -- and end up with a subjective morality that is "beyond good and evil." The blank eyes and hollow smile of someone like Mother Teresa is not proof -- it is not even evidence! -- that she was happy (being irrational & altruistic).

Happiness isn't whatever you want it to be.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/23, 1:37pm)

Post 27

Monday, November 23, 2009 - 2:54pm

�Have you noticed that the imbecile always smiles? Man�s first frown is the first touch of God on his forehead. The touch of thought. But we�ll have neither God nor thought. Only voting by smiles.� � Ellsworth M. Toohey

Post 28

Monday, November 23, 2009 - 10:08pm

Noncontradictory joy? No. Happiness? No.

Post 29

Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 9:17am

Well, I said "Yes" even though I understood the question in Ted's putatively asserted sense. I understood the question to be:

"Is it is reasonable to expect to live irrationally and still be satisfied with yourself and your life?" The answer is clearly "No" -- and is so according to every school of ethics from Buddha and Confucius to Plato and Aristotle and Kant and Rand. True enough, Ayn Rand demonstrated in fiction and prose that:

the failure to establish objective (rational-empirical) premises '
and then follow them without contradiction (logically)
to conclusions that are verifiable (workable, practical)
is the reason why few (if any) (other) philosophies have been successful.

Positively stated, if you begin with the Law of Identity, you will arrive at a moral code that brings happiness.

But I said, "Yes." Here it is Thanksgiving. My wife is in her office. I am in mine. We buried our parents a few years back. We don't see our sibs or their kids. We like it that way. This morning, loading some stuff into the car, I saw a neighbor loading hers, clearly getting ready for that trip over the river and through the woods to be all warm and comfy with Cousin Edna and Uncle Charlie. She should be happy ... even if she is a Christian or a Democrat ... or even a staffer with the Ayn Rand Insitute or the Objectivist Center... or a frequent poster to SOLO or Noodle Food... I mean, who am I to tell someone else how to live their life. I have enough to do to manage my own. Personally, I follow the virtue of selfishness. I can't say how happy I appear to others.... Though... You know... I went for a cardiac physical and EKG and sonogram and the cardiologist began her report with "Michael Marotta is a pleasant 59-year old man...." My wife said that obviously they don't me very well.

I am sort of with Joe Maurone on this -- Happiness is something you earn. Only an idiot smiles all the time. I am happy to wake up every morning. After that, I sort of take things as they come. Sometimes I gather bountiful rewards for productive effort and other days I just get the dregs. In the famous words of insurance capitalist Thomas Caldecott Chubb, "If there were no losses, there would be premiums." Happiness is not infallibility. To me, happiness is the opportunity to find the premiums in the losses.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/26, 9:25am)

Post 30

Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 9:41am

Do people who advocate gun control have a right to bear and keep arms?
Do people who vote Democratic have a right to private property?
Does a woman who voted for Ron Paul have a right to an abortion?
Do people who practice astrology have a right to safe airline travel?
Does a man who advocates the privatization of the post office have a right to mail a letter?
Do members of the Green Party have a right to heat their homes with electricity from nuclear power?
Do people who advocate communism have a right to life?
Do Catholics have a right to life?
Do homosexuals have a right to a family?
Does an Objectivist have a right to be a beggar?
Does Britney Spears have a right to privacy?

Post 31

Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 10:01am

Gee, Michael, ye stretching on that last one... ;-)

Post 32

Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 5:20pm

None of MEM's questions is a proper analogy to the negatively worded poll question, "Do individuals who do not accept rational egoism have a right to happiness nonetheless?" There is a radical logical difference between rejecting or opposing rational egoism and merely not having accepted it.

Post 33

Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 6:21pm

TK: "None of MEM's questions is a proper analogy to the negatively worded poll question ..."

Well, excu-u-u-se me.

Do people who refuse to recognize the right to bear and keep arms have a right to bear and keep arms?

Do people who do not vote against Democratic candidates have a right to private property?

Does a woman who refused to vote for Nancy Pelosi have a right to an abortion?

Do people who do not practice astrology have a right to safe airline travel?

Does a man who does not advocate the privatization of the post office have a right to mail a letter?

Do members of the Green Party have no right not to heat their homes without electricity from non-nuclear power?

Do people who do not advocate anti-communism have a right to life?

Do non-Catholics have a right to living death qua Humanae Vitae by Paul VI?

Do heterosexuals have a right to a family?

Does an Objectivist have a right to give money to a beggar?

Does anyone who is not Britney Spears have a right to publicity?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/26, 6:21pm)

Post 34

Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 6:54pm

To "refuse" to recognize the right to keep and bear arms is not logically the same thing as simply not to recognize the right to keep and bear arms.

The logical form of the question is "Do those who have not affirmed an objective morality have the moral right to a fundamental good?" Not one of MEM's original or "revised" analogies fits this.

If MEM wishes to be irrational, he can do so well enough on his own without having to pretend he is doing it to spite me.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/26, 7:19pm)

Post 35

Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 8:19am

Ted, let's say for the sake of argument that those who do not accept rational egoism have no right to be happy. You encounter a person who doesn't accept rational egoism, but who is happy nonetheless.

What are you going to do about it? Do something to make the person unhappy? Pout and sulk about how unfair it is that this person is happy?

It's a silly question.

Post 36

Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 10:54am

I am sorry, Laure, I missed where the question was asked whether someone should one pout and sulk because someone else is happy.

No where have I ever argued that it is one's duty to become ethics cop for other people. In fact, I have argued against it in many places, including this article.

I happen to agree that it is silly to answer this question in the negative, and quite silly to reword it the way you did. But given Rand's pronunciations on the matter, and her exhortation that people judge and prepare to be judged, and the way she acted upon it, I think your argument is more with her than me.

Post 37

Monday, November 30, 2009 - 7:26am

Ted, your point is taken in the context of "right to happiness," that one doesn't have the right to have happiness provided. But you cannot use the same "'right' never means 'right to be provided with,'" when we speak of the "right" to an education. Every parent must submit their child to some form of process of education, and while I would like to be able to say this "right" only means that one cannot be prevented from gaining an education, we make education necessary by law "to promote the general welfare." And while the right to happiness is not the same as the right to an education, in this case it does mean "the right to be provided with."

Post 38

Monday, November 30, 2009 - 3:40pm

You are absolutely right, Curtis, but there is a limited amount of space available to word a poll, and the wording was chosen assuming that Objectivists would assume an Objectivist meaning in an Objectivist context. If this question were posed to the general public it would have required a lot more explanation.

Post 39

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 9:50pm