In some recent political conversation’s I’ve had with friends and strangers, I’ve come across a fallacious argument that’s so common that it deserves a name. I’ve already done a little re-search if there’s a term for this fallacy but have failed to find anything. The argument in short, is that one’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or it’s founders. Here are a few examples of this fallacy.

Charles: I agree with Obama that we ought to double our foreign aid to poor nations.

David: Yes, I hear that’s something he intends on doing, I don’t agree with him on that though.

Charles: I don’t get it, why are you opposed to that? Are you against helping poor nations? Don’t you think poor people should have food?

or

Charles: You know, obesity is a big problem, which is why I’m happy they passed a “trans fat” ban here in California.

David: I’m not happy at all, I don’t feel comfortable with the government regulating whether or not I can eat fatty foods.
Charles: …but don’t you want people have a healthier diet? Do you approve of people getting overweight?

The reasoning that motivates the questions asked by Charles is that David’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or its founders. What’s wrong with this? The error is that what is in question is not the intentions but the methods. The question on whether or governmental policy is just and should be supported is not solely determined by the intentions of the policy, but other considerations. Will the policy achieve its objective? Are there superior forms of that policy that will achieve the objective more efficiently? Does the government have the legal or constitutional right to do what is in question? Does the policy strip rights away from others? These are just a few important considerations that should determine whether a policy should be supported or exist at all.

I’m going to call this fallacy the “State Intervention Opposition Fallacy,” since the reasoning behind it is always in response to someone’s opposition to the state’s intervention.

Let’s consider the case of foreign aid. It’s obvious that the intentions of foreign aid are in part to help poor nations, if so why oppose it? For starters you could argue that giving poor nations food does address why they are poor in the first place but instead gives temporary assistance. Second, it’s clear that it’s unconstitutional and illegal. Here are some quotes by our founders and other political leaders:

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Third, there’s data out there (I don’t have on hand) that suggest the amount of money given by American’s voluntarily is much higher than given by our government in the form of tax dollars, therefore rending idea of foreign aid unnecessary. These are all legitimate reasons to oppose foreign aid, and none of them require that you hate poor people.

Atheism & Meaning

The following is a response to a small dinner table conversation that was made yesterday on the topic of meaning in the context of an atheistic worldview (godless worldview). I was asked whether, as an atheist, I find meaning in things, and whether I find there is a purpose to life.

First let's try to figure out what's being said, and what it means.

MEANING

The most basic form of meaning is the meaning of words. "Cat" refers to a specific animal, with specific features (mammal, furry etc). The word "Cat" itself would be meaningless if it did not refer to something outside of itself. One can't imagine a set of symbols simply meaning something intrinsically. Lopletrox is a meaningless for the very reason that those symbols do not refer to any object or state of affairs, however, the moment a object/state of affairs is designated for the word Lepletrox the word has a meaning.

So it appears that meaning in the context of language is relational to objects/states of affairs. The meaning of words is therefore extrinsic (not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality), and not intrinsic (belonging to a thing by its very nature)

The meaning of words therefore can be summarized as: Word X has meaning IF X refers to Y

What about the meaning of objects or persons? Think about something that has meaning, or means something to you, and try and pin down what about that thing or person is different that it is meaningful?

I have a small teddy bear I named Taker (for when I was younger, I took him everywhere). It's the same bear that was given to me when I was born. This small teddy bear has a great deal of meaning to me. When I put taker next to another teddy bear that does not have meaning it becomes clear why Taker has meaning while the other does not. Taker has been with me my entire life and is probably one of the first objects I've ever touched. Taker has meaning because it's associated with certain valued memories or certain rare moments. So again, it appears that the meaning of taker is relational and extrinsic. However, not like words, taker refers to certain mental/subjective states. Taker's meaning exists under the conditions that he refers to certain valued or rare events/memories.

So the meaning of objects & persons can be summarized as: X has meaning IF X refers to certain valued mental-states in person P

The commonality of these types of meaning are that they are A) Relational (quality only exists in relation to something else) B) Extrinsic (not inherent) C) Subjective (requires a mind to exist to make the reference of words, requires a mind to be referred to in objects/persons)

Now, when I was asked about meaning I tried my best to summerise this. Mike E. after I was done, said 'basically, there is no meaning' to which I replied that there was, he replied 'it's not objective meaning'

OBJECTIVE MEANING?

What about objective meaning? What does this mean? Let's first make the distinction between objective and subjective.

Subjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject
2. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience
 

Objective
1. existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

2.  intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

"The earth is round" is objective since it's truth is independent of thought or minds. The existence of agents is not a condition that is required for such a statement to be true. "The sun is warm" is subjective in the sense that 'warmth' is a feeling. Sensations exist in minds. The statement 'the sun is warm' can only be true if there exists agents/minds. Now, there is another sharp distinction that needs to be made before everyone gets confused. A subjective statement can be objectively true and still remain subjective. "I am warm" refers to a subjective state of the mind, but it's truth is objective since my my feeling of warmth remains to be true regardless of other minds. You can objectively measure my subjective feeling. Now, with the sun, we may label 100 degrees as 'hot' and therefore the sun was hot before the existence of life. But that's simply a label referring to an objective state of affairs, namely the measurable temperature. The subjective experience of such objective states of affairs, such as warmth is still subjective although its of objective states of affairs! Sorry, just read that twice and you'll understand.

So can something have 'objective meaning?' - After thinking about whats required for something to have meaning the answer it clearly no. If [X has meaning IF X refers to certain valued mental-states in person P] is true, then objective meaning becomes an oxymoron. Things have meaning in relation to subjects, so how can you have a subjective-objective thing? It would be like saying "It's my objective thought" - If objective means 'existing independent of thought' how can you have a thought that is independent of thought? I'll give you $500 if you have an objective thought.

So if all that has been said is true, then Mike is right, under atheism there is no objective meaning - but that's only true because objective meaning is an oxymoron.

PURPOSE?

For something to have a purpose, by definition, it must be something that is designed/formed/created with an intention/goal in mind. A fork has a purpose only by virtue that it was designed with the intention of a certain use. Intentionality is the key to purpose. So of course in an atheistic universe, the universe and man has no purpose since it was not designed with any intentionality. Forks, houses, TVs, job classes still have purpose, since they are motivated by intention. So to say "if atheism is true there is no purpose" is simply false.

Some may say, and Mike E. will or has "Yeah, but it's not ultimate purpose." If what is meant by this is, ultimately the entire cosmos has no purpose. Of course, but that's true with god as well. Was god created/designed with a goal in mind? No, by definition god just exists eternally. So the same argument could made against theism "Since god has no purpose, there's no ultimate purpose in a theistic universe"

Again, one may respond with "(1) God gives himself purpose!" or "(2) He has intrinsic purpose!" - First if (1) is true, then the claim "there's no purpose in an atheist universe" becomes false, because man could then assign purpose to himself or the cosmos. Second, (2) is just nonsense. 'intrinsic purpose' is a compete oxymoron. For something to be intrinsic, it must be inherent or 'by its very nature' - How can something be "designed with an intention" by its very nature? Purpose by definition is a quality that is only possible in relation to a mind. If it's a properties is intrinsic, it's not in relation to anything. So the whole idea of 'intrinsic purpose' is  contradictory.

Conclusion: In an atheistic worldview there can be meaning, it's not objective since that's impossible and contradictory. There is no purpose to life or the cosmos, but that's true of a god himself.

- By: David Campbell

Wednesday, March 21, 2007