Critical thinking and political matters.

Nice post Ken.
I don't know about the red herring though. Seems to me more likely that his position is simply in keeping with the role of state in this matter.
If I read you correctly, I am agreed the issue is really whether it is insensitive of the Islamic community to build a mosque so near to ground zero.
Our government has no place deciding any such issue. Mr. Obama clearly stated the government's position on the constitutionality of the matter.
Any further position on the issue is not the purpose of our government, and I hope that's the end of it.

Now comes the issue of insensitivity.
Public opinion must be the arbiter of that, although, it remains to the Islamic community the final decision. They cannot be forced to cede their rights to public opinion.

A "red herring" is, of course, an attempt (intentional or not) to divert discussion from the real issue to an issue that appears to be the issue at hand, but is not. A shining example of that is President Obama's recent speech which supported building a mosque by a group of Muslims very near the site of the 9/11 attack which murdered so many people. President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so. Whether they ought to build such a structure so near that particular site. And whether or not they have the legal or constitutional right to do so is clearly irrelevant. There is an important distinction between having the right to do something and its being right to do that something which President Obama's speech ignores, and it is just that distinction that lies at the heart of the dispute.

Now, for another illustration of critical thinking consider the following argument:

Either President Obama realizes that his argument is irrelevant and so, is a red herring, or he does not. If he does, President Obama is being disingenuous. If he doesn't, the President is confused. So, either the President is disingenuous, or he is confused.

The above is an illustration of what logicians call "constructive dilemma".

In a conversation with Wittgenstein reported by Norman Malcolm in a memoir, Malcolm tells of how he made some political remark to Wittgenstein that infuriated him. Wittgenstein thought that the remark was stupid and it showed a lack of critical thought. And he asked Malcolm (rhetorically) what was the good of Malcolm knowing philosophy with all of its subtleties, but when it came to thinking about real life matters, Malcolm failed miserably?

Something to think about.

kennethamy wrote:

A "red herring" is, of course, an attempt (intentional or not) to divert discussion from the real issue to an issue that appears to be the issue at hand, but is not. A shining example of that is President Obama's recent speech which supported building a mosque by a group of Muslims very near the site of the 9/11 attack which murdered so many people. President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so. Whether they ought to build such a structure so near that particular site. And whether or not they have the legal or constitutional right to do so is clearly irrelevant. There is an important distinction between having the right to do something and its being right to do that something which President Obama's speech ignores, and it is just that distinction that lies at the heart of the dispute.

Now, for another illustration of critical thinking consider the following argument:

Either President Obama realizes that his argument is irrelevant and so, is a red herring, or he does not. If he does, President Obama is being disingenuous. If he doesn't, the President is confused. So, either the President is disingenuous, or he is confused.

The above is an illustration of what logicians call "constructive dilemma".

In a conversation with Wittgenstein reported by Norman Malcolm in a memoir, Malcolm tells of how he made some political remark to Wittgenstein that infuriated him. Wittgenstein thought that the remark was stupid and it showed a lack of critical thought. And he asked Malcolm (rhetorically) what was the good of Malcolm knowing philosophy with all of its subtleties, but when it came to thinking about real life matters, Malcolm failed miserably?

Something to think about.

There is absolutly no difference between having a right and it being right, and that is why right is the word for German and French law... What is good should be right, and it is natural that the rights one group has it would not share, but they should consider how much their disrespect of Islam played into the attack on 811..

What you want to say, and cannot, is that if a thing is not politically acceptable that it cannot be right... Well, the implications of religious and press rights are unacceptable, really; as are the implications of property rights which has divided and ruined this country, but so long as they have enough political support they will be rights... We are inclined to believe that democracy gives people the right to deny rights for minorities; but that is also where we are led to believe, and it is because we do not have true democracy, and the structure of government, the form cannot prtect the rights of minorities of any sort... So we are operating with an old view of rights, essentially from the eighteenth century, and a form of government that does not protect rights unless they are enumerated, which are few and do not result in the intended good...

Courts to not decide what is just, which is right, but only decide what is constitutional... They can judge according to the constitution, but not judge the constitution which is decrepit... And because the constitution allowed because it did not deny the rights of party, we have been misled into division, so the possiblitiy of changing the constitution in any meaningful fashion is dead... We cannot fix it and must suffer it, and the ideas of rights is wrong and old fashioned, and so the contitution cannot even meet its own goals, which are good, and clearly stated... Don't matter about anything else... Judge the constitution against its goals...

You mean that if I have the right to spank my child hard that I am right to exercise that right whenever I like, even if the child is, say, very ill? So if the child is dying of cancer, I am right to spank him because I have the right to spank him?

RealEyes wrote:

Very interesting read! Thanks for the contribution.

Thank you. People like to say that logic is useless or too distanced from "real life" but that isn't true. Of course, logicians can refuse to address any issues other than theoretical ones. But that is up to them and has nothing to do with logic. The great theoretical mathematician, G.H. Hardy once proposed a toast which went, "To mathematics: may it never be of use to anyone". But first of all, that was mathematics, and second of all, he may have been posturing just a little.

kennethamy wrote:

You mean that if I have the right to spank my child hard that I am right to exercise that right whenever I like, even if the child is, say, very ill? So if the child is dying of cancer, I am right to spank him because I have the right to spank him?

Do you have a valid reason to spank the child?

A "red herring" is, of course, an attempt (intentional or not)

In a conversation with Wittgenstein reported by Norman Malcolm in a memoir, Malcolm tells of how he made some political remark to Wittgenstein that infuriated him. Wittgenstein thought that the remark was stupid and it showed a lack of critical thought. And he asked Malcolm (rhetorically) what was the good of Malcolm knowing philosophy with all of its subtleties, but when it came to thinking about real life matters, Malcolm failed miserably?

Something to think about.

The issue is a moral one, namely whether it would be the right thing for the Muslim group to erect the structure. Now, the president has great persuasive power (Theodore Roosevelt called that "the bully pulpit") and, as in fact the president did, he weighed in in the moral question: not only indirectly by diverting the issue and making it appear as if the moral issue was actually a clear constitutional issue, which misleads unthinking people to say yes to the constitutional non-issue rather than no to the real moral issue, but directly by not addressing the real moral issu

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site,

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site, then he should, at least, have not done what was wrong, and actually mislead some into thinking that the issue was really a constitutional one, and actually encouraged the building. In other words, if it was wrong for him to say what he did say, he should have, at least kept quiet about it. But few, if any, politicians take the opportunity to shut up. And, anyway, I am not sure that Obama took the time to think things through, or was even capable of doing so.

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site, then he should, at least, have not done what was wrong, and actually mislead some into thinking that the issue was really a constitutional one, and actually encouraged the building. In other words, if it was wrong for him to say what he did say, he should have, at least kept quiet about it. But few, if any, politicians take the opportunity to shut up. And, anyway, I am not sure that Obama took the time to think things through, or was even capable of doing so.

Quote:

The issue is a moral one, namely whether it would be the right thing for the Muslim group to erect the structure. Now, the president has great persuasive power (Theodore Roosevelt called that "the bully pulpit") and, as in fact the president did, he weighed in in the moral question: not only indirectly by diverting the issue and making it appear as if the moral issue was actually a clear constitutional issue, which misleads unthinking people to say yes to the constitutional non-issue rather than no to the real moral issue, but directly by not addressing the real moral issu

Except your "moral" issue is based on a false premise.
Why is it immoral for muslims to build 2 blocks away from the WTC site?

The only way to call it immoral is to blame all muslims for what a few did. Do you not see the fallacy in that argument?

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so.

You seem to think that most people are unthinking puppets who follow blindly without knowing what they are doing. You do a disservice to many Americans. I not sure if you are American. I am not.