@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Quote:Some years ago, when a group of Catholic nuns decided to pray for the souls of the dead at the death camp at Auschwitz where the great majority of the murdered victims were Jews, and there was a protest by Jews concerning this, Pope John told the nuns that although he understood their good intentions, he wanted them to understand the sensitivity of the protesters, and he ordered them to do their praying for the dead at Auschwitz elsewhere. Maybe the president should have learned from that example.
By your analogy of the story about the Pope and the protesters, you seem to be weighing in on the side of those who hold that it is morally wrong to build the mosque there. If so, you are making an appeal to emotion.
Why, for heaven's sake is the reason that something is wrong an appeal to emotion? If I tell you that it would be wrong for you to rape a little child would you reply, "That is just an appeal to emotion"?
My daughter failed her first course ever on argumentative writing, and one of the things she was gigged for was an appeal to emotion, and that from a liberal professor.... The point he did not get is that nearly all political arguments are made from emotions because that is what sways great numbers, and it is upon slight majorities that great power is enjoyed... Morally, the Muslims in this land, if their citizenship means something, should not give offense; and morally, if people take freedom of religion seriously they should not take offense where ever a mosque is built, since it is legal, it should also be just, and all should desire and embrace justice... If they do not like the law of their land they should change it to exclude Muslims, if they think they can find enough stupid people to support them
The problem is that church people want no part of justice or religious freedom... As a matter of course they feel about the law that they alone deserve protection and are surrounded by sin and sinners, and they also feel like they are above the law when the law does not do as they desire... There is no part of religious freedom I support for anyone except the right to do as they please so long as it injures no person... No tax advantage, no right to make sweeping political statements or organize for political purposes should be allowed... The Christians in this country are no better than, and no different from the Muslims... Scratch a true believe and you find a terrorist...They have their higher justification and that is all they need....
Although all appeals to emotion are out of place in making an argument, no moral reasons are appeals to emotion. So it follow that just because a moral reason is given, that does not mean it is an appeal to emotion. And just because my reasons are motivated by my emotions, it does not follow that they are appeals to the emotions. After all, my reason for arguing that someone is innocent of the crime he is accused of, and therefore, that he should not be found guilty, may be motivated by my liking or loving the accused. But what has that to do with the fact that it does follow from the premise that the man did not do the crime, that the man should not be found guilty. It is a fallacy to argue that what motivates an argument has anything to do with the validity of the argument. This fallacy even has a name. It is called "the genetic fallacy". You can look it up.
You are a lunatic or ignorant to say morality, no moral reasons are appeals to emotions... All morality is based upon emotions, primarily based upon pre reational bonds between child and mother which is where we get our sense of nation, for natal, navel... You must see the connection between ethics, and ethnic, or are you blind... And you must know, that all rational areguments have the target of individual good, that is, a certain fixed perspective; that his is not true of morality for which only the most general and infinite definition of good is evident... Consider for example, that if a person runs into a burning building to save a child not his own, that he is being moral, but not rational since no reason can justify the loss of ones certain life (in which all reason is found) for an uncertain life of a stranger...One acts morally as opposed to rationally because there is no clear rational for what one does out of a sense of morality, because there, self interest is never the motivation, but community good, which once again is an infinite... Morality is not just unrational, but purely irrational, based only on emotion, rationalized, but not rational, and for that reason, that there is no logic to it, that it has never been possible to teach... When you teach you teach the logic of the subject, the cause and effect... No such chain of events can be surmised for moral action... We just do it because of who we are, and not because of what we think...
