Worst Arguments

[dgswaim]

So... today has been dreadfully boring. Given how slow things seem to be moving today, I thought maybe I would start a fun little opinion thread to pass the time.

 

So here's the question: Of all of the famous arguments in the history of philosophy, which do you feel is the worst.

 

I'm throwing a vote in for Anselm's version of the "Ontological Argument."

[Monadology]

G.E. Moore's proof of an external world. 

Edited February 19, 2014 by Monadology

[philstudent1991]

I second Anselm

[Cottagecheeseman]

G. E. Moore's open question argument is one that comes to mind. Another is Descartes proof that God exists, which is absolutely atrocious. I don't think anyone thinks either of those arguments are good anymore, or at least not in the form those two guys presented them.

 

In terms of recent horrible arguments, I think Huemer's argument for non-naturalism in "Ethical Intuitionism" is horrible, like soooo bad, but Huemer seems like the guy who you either love or hate, and he has a very condescending writing style that irks me while reading him.

[MattDest]

Can we say recent ones? I loathe Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. It's such an awful argument. 

[Weltgeist]

any argument that argues that Wittgenstein has an argument

[philstudent1991]

G. E. Moore's open question argument is one that comes to mind. Another is Descartes proof that God exists, which is absolutely atrocious. I don't think anyone thinks either of those arguments are good anymore, or at least not in the form those two guys presented them.

 

 

Ohhh ya know what, I might have to change my vote. Descartes' proof of God is so bad that some think he just threw it in there to avoid charges of heresy.

[dgswaim]

Ohhh ya know what, I might have to change my vote. Descartes' proof of God is so bad that some think he just threw it in there to avoid charges of heresy.

I would agree, except I never really thought of Descartes as really attempting to give a proof for the existence of God. As the Meditations go, I don't see his "proof for God" as very central to the text. Seems almost like it was thrown in there in a rather ad hoc way, almost as though he simply thought it in some sense obligatory. To be honest, I think he might have been a closet atheist.

[dgswaim]

Can we say recent ones? I loathe Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. It's such an awful argument. 

Recent arguments surely count as existing within the history of philosophy, I'd say.

 

As to Plantinga, I think I probably agree with you. Although, I don't think his work on evolution (particularly in "Where the Conflict Really Lies") is meant to be a knock-down against naturalism. I do make use of some of his work on the area to suggest that non-naturalists (such as myself) do indeed have some interesting conceptual questions to explore relative to contemporary science. I think, however, that there are better people doing similar work. 

[Establishment]

<insert your favorite philosopher here> is the worst philosopher I've ever read. His argument in <insert your favorite book of his> in chapter <insert number here> is paradigmatic of piss poor philosophy.

[philosophe]

G.E. Moore's proof of an external world. 

 

Out of upvotes, so voicing my agreement! 

[greencoloredpencil]

Any argument for utilitarianism...

[Sophist]

Descartes' version of the ontologically argument is worse than Anselm's. "Worse" in the sense that, unlike Anselm's, it doesn't have any modern defenders; also the fallacies of it are more obvious.

[Dialectica]

I feel that this thread would be much more interesting, as well as more fruitful, if folks stated why an argument is the worst.

 

I also fear this thread might turn into disgracefully dancing on the graves of long dead philosophers. These were human beings, who thought long and hard on these things, whose arguments are well known for good reason. 

[dgswaim]

I feel that this thread would be much more interesting, as well as more fruitful, if folks stated why an argument is the worst.

 

I also fear this thread might turn into disgracefully dancing on the graves of long dead philosophers. These were human beings, who thought long and hard on these things, whose arguments are well known for good reason. 

It's all in jest. A way to pass the time. No more, no less.

[philstudent1991]

Any argument for utilitarianism...

Idk. If I wasn't a moral skeptic I'd probably favor utilitarianism. The only way to think about ethics that seems to make sense to me is the consequentialist framework (other than the error theory framework, to which I subscribe).

[dgswaim]

Idk. If I wasn't a moral skeptic I'd probably favor utilitarianism. The only way to think about ethics that seems to make sense to me is the consequentialist framework (other than the error theory framework, to which I subscribe).

Just out of curiosity, are you a skeptic relative to ethics on all construals of the subject, or just relative to metaethics and its ambitions toward securing the theoretical conditions that satisfy ethics? Put another way: do you still hold to something like a form of substantive ethics, or do you think people are simply reporting psychological preference when they talk about ethical/moral frameworks?

[philstudent1991]

Just out of curiosity, are you a skeptic relative to ethics on all construals of the subject, or just relative to metaethics and its ambitions toward securing the theoretical conditions that satisfy ethics? Put another way: do you still hold to something like a form of substantive ethics, or do you think people are simply reporting psychological preference when they talk about ethical/moral frameworks?

I think that people are simply reporting a psychological preference when they talk about moral frameworks and I don't believe that any moral claims correspond with a reality. However, in my actions I think I end up with contractualism. I don't run red lights and rob banks not because I think it's wrong but because I know that we are all better off if we all play by certain rules. If I had a bank, I wouldn't want people to rob it. This is not to be confused with Kantian universal maxims however, because if I'm alone at an intersection late at night and there are no contract enforcers around, I may well break the law.

[dgswaim]

I think that people are simply reporting a psychological preference when they talk about moral frameworks and I don't believe that any moral claims correspond with a reality. However, in my actions I think I end up with contractualism. I don't run red lights and rob banks not because I think it's wrong but because I know that we are all better off if we all play by certain rules. If I had a bank, I wouldn't want people to rob it. This is not to be confused with Kantian universal maxims however, because if I'm alone at an intersection late at night and there are no contract enforcers around, I may well break the law.

I guess I would too... if the traffic lights in my town didn't have those stupid cameras...

[Table]

G. E. Moore's open question argument is one that comes to mind. … I don't think anyone thinks either of those arguments are good anymore, or at least not in the form those two guys presented them.

 

There are plenty of people who still think he was on to something, though. 

 

I also like Moore's proof of an external world.

 

doodedoo

[ianfaircloud]

There are plenty of people who still think he was on to something, though. 

 

I also like Moore's proof of an external world.

 

My view: the open question argument is good.  The proof of an external world isn't.

[TheVineyard]

I think, therefore I am