Logical extremes in philosophy

Basically, my question is this: Is coming up with an *artificial* extreme a reasonable criticism of ideals?

For example, a common criticism of negative utilitarianism is that its logical extreme would be for everyone to die as soon as possible.

Another example might be this from another thread:

Such extremes are very commonly used in philosophy and such, and sometimes they can become a little weird.

Discuss.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Yes, it's reasonable. Because given no other premises all the logical conclusions of a statement must be considered. To ignore the conclusions that you don't like is just silly.

edited 30th Mar '11 10:56:42 PM by Clarste

This one considers it quite valid. If nothing else, it showcases the limitations of any given philosophy, and the fact that it does not give all the answers, so sometimes it is worth considering perspectives and objections outside of one's chosen philosophy.

Besides, quite often it is not the extreme in itself that is improbable and contrived, but it's scale. And scale does not change the validity of objection itself, only serves to illustrate it better.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

The problem of course comes in when the extreme conclusion depends on an extremified basis. For example, criticizing pacifism on the basis of, say, meaning you have to watch your family get killed by a person you could easily stop without harming them, wouldn't accurately reflect many pacifists' view of violence.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Well, misrepresenting the beliefs of the other is completely different from extrapolating from their stated beliefs. It really has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

Misrepresentation is often used as and thought of as extrapolation, I mean.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I can confidently say that doing it wrong is not a way to form a reasonable criticism.

edited 30th Mar '11 11:05:40 PM by Clarste

Hm, so then one could measure how accurate a philosophy is; and just because such a limit exists, doesn't mean that the premise is *completely* wrong.

edited 30th Mar '11 11:15:02 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I agree with Beholderess. Taking two arguments to their extremes is just a way of throwing their respective limitations further into relief.

Be not afraid...

Offtopic, but you seem to be presupposing improperly there.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

It probably helps to understand the logical background of philosophical discussion. Theoretically, every argument can be schematized into a list of premises and conclusions (A therefore B, etc). This is an exercise that is often done in philosophy classes. An argument that looks nice in plain text can easily be revealed as invalid. Arguments are supposed to withstand a mathematical level of scrutiny.

So looking at the logical extremes of a proposition is no odder than asking if some equation holds true at high values. It had better, or else it's simply false and needs revisions.

I like that analogy alot.

edited 30th Mar '11 11:28:34 PM by mailedbypostman

Is that an analogy? My intro to philosophy class was mostly in logic notation. Which is a substitution cipher away from mathematical logic notation.

edited 30th Mar '11 11:30:31 PM by Tzetze

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

It's not an analogy. Deriving math from propositional logic has long been a project of philosophers.

"Is coming up with an *artificial* extreme a reasonable criticism of ideals?"

No. You can do this with any idea whatsoever, and it almost always has no practical implications. Any idea, no matter how modest it seems, is going to look very funky when it come to extremes. And the fact is, we have terrible intuitions when it comes to these extremes. It's completely outside normal experience, and relying on commonsense when it comes to this is foolhardy.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

This post was thumped by the Shillelagh of Whackingness

I believe that there is an optimal system of ethics, but do not believe that any of the currently known ones match it accurately. Thus, testing the limits of an idea is the best that anyone can do.

Negative utilitarianism has good points, for example, but taking it to its extreme shows that there is a line somewhere. That lines shows that the ideal is a little bit off center, but still a little close to the bull's-eye.

That said, I asked this question because it sometimes gets dragged out to an unwieldy extent that can almost look something like "let's assume your premise is wrong, now what?". Rather than drawing a line, it can get to the point where it somehow is circular in nature.

Oh my, first disagreeing opinion. There are good points in here as well, it seems. Rather than drawing up an impossible scenario, you suggest that using (or perhaps relying upon) extremes is foolish.

I can see how this would work. Essentially, it's like using a yardstick to measure a microbe. Any knowledge gained will be meaningless or nonsensical. Indeed, adjusting an ideal for made-up impossibilities could very well taint one's accuracy, pulling an ideal off target.

---

Looks like both items do have a case. At first I figured it was open and shut, but it seems there is more to it that I missed.

edited 31st Mar '11 12:30:52 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

There's a huge difference between saying that bad outcome B is possible (but incredibly unlikely) using philosophy A, just possible under it, encouraged by it, and finally claiming that it is almost a certainty.

So it's not just about the extremes, it's also about how likely those extremes are perceived to occur. If they're near-ridiculous (your belief in X causes a ridiculous chain of events that ends in a typhoon, somehow), then yes, the extreme requires no further consideration. However, if the event is possible enough to warrant attention, it's worth talking about.

Now how does one guard against the extremes? Typically with other, subset values/beliefs. Like a patchwork quilt or something.

Which brings me roundly to my final point that, as many may have noticed, it's pretty much impossible for one or even two beliefs to cover everything. Life is just far too complicated to boil down that simply. It's multivariable all the way, with us guessing at what we feel gives the optimum value for all our different concerns.

Think of it like a whole ream of equations, each one measuring something different, but tied to the same input variables. We're trying to optimize them all, always with incomplete pictures of the equations themselves (and often the inputs as well).

edited 31st Mar '11 12:47:42 AM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I don't think likelihood has anything to do with it, although I suppose this is probably due to a difference in what we're talking about.

If someone says their principle is, say, to maximize catness, I would take that seriously. They should be constantly breeding cats or something, and destroying farmland to create their catfarms. And when i ask about all the people who can't survive without this farmland, I can rightly accuse this person's principle of leading to murder. Because it does. That's what it means to maximize catness. *

If you actually meant "maximize catness except where it interferes with human life" then you should have said so. Your principle was incomplete and vague. You did not argue in good faith, but rather had a lot of unstated assumptions behind your words that i can't possibly know about. My extrapolation was not at fault, but rather your poorly thought out premise.

Pretty much. So extrapolations can serve to clarify the premise, not only to tear it down entirely.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

You have to take philosophies to their extremes, or it doesn't mean anything.

As an example, take the ideal "you shouldn't kill people". It's quite easy for most people to follow this in daily life. Most people, believe it or not, go their whole lives without ever killing anyone. So without going to extremes, "you shouldn't kill people" seems fine. But what if someone's about to kill you, is it okay to kill them then? What if they're going to kill the president, does that make it alright? What about your family, is that different? What if they're going to blow up the entire planet, is it okay to kill them in order to stop that?

Yes, these are extremes, and no, you're never going to be in a situation where your options are "kill a person" or "let Earth blow up". But what if you were? If you think it's okay to kill someone in that situation, then you don't actually believe "you shouldn't kill people". You believe "you shouldn't kill people unless [your requirements here]".

Bringing ideals to their extreme is the best way to refine them.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I'd say logical extremes in philosophy are necessary because it directly applies What You Are in the Dark to a way of thinking. After all, if you can't hold it up in both the best and worst situation, then you're hypocritical and the philosophy fails.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

If I'm reading this correctly, it would seem that those doing this are attempting to fidn the "correctness" of a particular philosophy. H Owever, it's my belief that no one person is beholden to the restrictions of a single philosophy, and if one works on a micro level, perhaps the ideals of another work on a macro level. There'e never been one all answering equation for how to live and operate within the world. Sadly, you can't quantify the human experience as a solvable mathmatical equation. There will always be circumstances that call for acting outside of a person's chosen philosophy in order to acheive the best possible of outcomes.

In times of change, learners inherit the Earth and the learned find themselves perfectly equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists

The point of taking things to extremes, Zed, is to find out where they apply. "Don't kill people" applies in the vast majority of daily situations. You may feel that it doesn't apply when defending your own life, or the lives of others. That's what lets you draw the line of where it does or does not apply.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

It is not reasonable to think a philosophy should be completely abandoned because of a logical extreme which, in practice, is of negligible probability, but the process of exploring logical implications in various scenarios is reasonable as an intellectual exercise aimed at providing further insight into the philosophy and spotting holes that may need to be sealed with loopholes/exceptions/etc.

Yes, though I think it's also important that the euthanasia be as painless and simultaneous as possible. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that this will ever be both physically possible and advocated by enough people to actually be carried out. Fortunately, the same goes for a global version of And I Must Scream. Of course, my problem with "minimize killing" is not the extreme where everyone is subjected to And I Must Scream; to me, the fact that it's possible for me to be subjected to it is bad enough.

edited 31st Mar '11 12:14:57 PM by Tongpu