Comment by ziadbc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ziadbc | Hacker News Reader

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in something without external evidence, I did not say it was ok to act on those beliefs without external evidence. Huge massive difference here.

Logical Fail Here: "Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"

Actually, the question was not whether Sutcliffe was justified in committing rape, but whether he was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. If "firm inner conviction" justifies a belief, and Sutcliffe had firm inner conviction, then Sutcliffe was justified in his belief.

I have a firm inner conviction that this test is wrong, regardless of external evidence to the contrary.

Ok, just don't act on your conviction.

Well, it's a bit like this:

1. Is it justifiable to walk into a shop?

2. John Does walked into a shop and murdered all present. Was he justified in walking into the shop?

Answering yes to 1 and no to 2 is a contradiction in the same way. But, is it really valid to separate the action of walking into the shop with the murder of those present? Is it really valid to separate Sutcliffe's belief from his actions?

To answer your questions, yes and yes. It's clearly possible to walk into a shop without killing anyone, and the analogy to Sutcliffe holds: it's possible to believe that God wants you to rape and murder prostitutes, without actually doing it.

Condoning rape and murder only comes into play if you also answer that God is the source of all morality. In that case, doing God's will is by definition moral, and if he wants you to rape and murder, well, you bite the bullet.

That question often bothers me in the following form:

1. Is it justifiable to speak freely?

2. John Doe announced that a crowded theatre was afire, and people died in a resulting stampede. Was he justified in speaking?

Nobody ever addresses the separability issue you describe.

What does "justifies a belief" mean? Serious question, I really don't understand this.

Wikipedia to the rescue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

Basically, a belief is justified if there are good reasons for believing it. What are "good" reasons? It depends on your philosophy. But presumably the reasons are separate from the belief its self. If you cite certain reasons for believing one thing, but then refuse to believe something else on the same basis, you're being inconsistent.

The wording of the questions is fairly precise, although the explanations may be a bit sloppier:

  He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was  
  carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

So according to your belief system, he was justified in believing it was God's will, but he was not justified in actually doing it.

(I didn't get any wrong :-P)

But if he goes against the will of God, surely that's inconsistent - given the emphasis that (eg.) the Bible places on unquestioning obedience to God?

Unless he believes in an evil God...

There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about God allowing/condoning/performing murder and rape as well though ....

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

-- Ayjay on Fedang

That's exactly what I meant: God says "do '" - you do X, no questions asked. Assuming that you believe in the absolute will of God, of course...

I couldn't follow the logic of that question at all. If person X believes thing Y, person X believes thing Y. No logic enters into that. So if Sutcliffe thought he was doing the will of god, of course he felt justified. Obviously Sutcliffe follows a different logic to mine, so I can not argue with that.

The question "do I think it is justified that he thought like that" has no semantic meaning to me. What is it supposed to mean?

I had the same problem with it, I don't know why it bothered me so much, but it was incredibly frustrating. I shouldn't let something silly like that throw me off, bud damn! Don't throw your red stop sign at me when it is _you_ that is wrong quiz!

It is a survey on your beliefs though, not on whether you act on them. What are the differences in kind between your firm, inner convictions and Peter Sutcliffe's?

Same thing happened to me, and I thought exactly the same thing. But the FAQ says...

"...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!"

Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.

The test refers to a belief as a conviction, not a supposition. You seem to use it in the opposite manner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com