作者catawu ( ggg)
看板W-Philosophy
标题Re: 一个伦理学上的论证问题
时间Mon Mar 14 02:26:36 2005
※ 引述《staminafish (再见了)》之铭言：
: 1.If everyone promotes his/her own greatest good, then the greatest good
: for all will result.
: 2.We ought to promote the greatest good for all
: _______________________________________________________________________
: Everyone ought to promote his/her greatest good
: 请问这个论证为何是一个无效论证呢?
: 我唯一想到的可能是第一个前提丐题
: 但要如何修正才会成为一个有效论证呢?
: 请各位前辈告诉我
: 我想了很久想不出来> <
: 谢谢
The problem is partly from the concept of obligation(ought to) is not a
suitable concept for the standard formalization of first order logic. Let
OUG- be the modal operator stand for "It ought to be the case that...",
(moral necessity), we can formalize the argument as following:
If P then Q
OUG-Q
___________________
OUG-P
Is this a valid argument?
Sry I am tired, lets talk tomorrow..................
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.143.99