Post by KenNiemann on Jun 14, 2006 1:26:00 GMT -5
In recent months, we have logged the infantile moral and scientific reasoning of presidents of chiropractic colleges. Parker's Mancini is no exception.
Some time ago, on another website, I brought up the fact that Mancini was advocating things like 75 pre-paid visits at his Parker Seminars. Someone who knows Mancini well cited at least two reasons for why he (Mancini) promotes this sort of quackery.
1) Mancini has a business to run
2) Mancini argues that he should provide a venue for a wide range of views on chiropractic practice.
If my arguments here succeed against Mancini's permissiveness toward overultilization, he will no longer have the moral authority to make any "ought" statement whatsoever.
In previous posts, I described the "undeniability of logic", arguing that the fundamental laws of logic are what are known as First Principles. First Principles are those ideas which must be assumed up front because if they are not, no intelligible thought or dialogue can take place at all. For example, without the law of non contradiction we could not make a rational distinction between "subluxation" and "not subluxation". First Principles do not need to be defended in any way because they are necessary.
Immanuel Kant forcefully argued for the First Principles of Moral Reasoning (i.e. the Categorical Imperative) which Peter Angeles describes as "the necessary and absolute moral law believed to be the ultimate foundation for all moral conduct".
In other words, the product(s) of Kant's efforts were statements so fundamental to moral reasoning that they were undeniable. Like the laws of logic, no intelligible thought or dialogue may take place without assuming them up front and they need no justification because they are rationally necessary. Here, we see the glorious union between morality and rationality.
While many of his other philosophical discourses have succumbed to counter examination, Kant's moral theory has endured. His critics focus almost exclusively on the incompleteness of the theory rather than it being wrong. For example, his deontological (rule based) ethical theory cannot account for superogatory acts ( heroism).
One such formulation by Kant holds that "we may never treat people as ONLY a means to an end". I have emphasized the word "only" not just because it is found in Kant's original work and is not just a gloss over, but many descriptions of his writings leave this out. It will become somewhat important later.
What the above means is that if Mancini is willing to treat people as only a means to an end ( i.e. use them as things without regard to their benefit or harm, in an exploitive manner), he can no longer even come to the table to discuss any moral issue. That is, if he is not willing to assume, up front, such a statement (which needs not be defended), he is rationally restricted from any moral dialogue. A complete breakdown in the coherency of an ethical/moral argument follows in the absence of such a principle. Put in very plain terms, if Mancini is willing to exploit people, he has no moral foundation and can no longer even come to the table to discuss what is right or wrong morally.
At this point I may take the phrase as the major premise of the following syllogism:
1. Treating people as only a means to an end is morally wrong.
2. Over utilization is treating people as only a means to an end.
3 Therefore, over utilization is morally wrong.
This is a valid syllogism which means that IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows ( i.e. by logical necessity). IF and WHEN the premises are shown to be true, the argument then becomes sound.
Let's back up a step and view what I am trying to accomplish here. I am not so much attempting a frontal attack on over utilization as I am a subterranean one. That is, I am wanting to remove the ground from under it's defenders such that if one even makes an attempt to defend it, their argument will collapse into incoherency because they are denying the undeniable ( a First Principle). I hope to make my case with the irresistible force of logic.
Premise 2), I would argue, is analytically true. This means it's true by definition: "v. t. 1. To exploit to the point of diminishing returns; to use excessively. " It's fair to say here that applies when a patient no longer receives benefits from the treatment, he or she is being treated for ONLY the DC's benefit and is exploited. The patient has "lost" his or her intrinsic value (it's no longer recognized by the DC) and has become a thing to be used by the DC.
Thus we have:
1) Over utilization is morally wrong.
2) 75 pre-paid visits is overutilization.
3) Therefore, 75 pre-paid visits is morally wrong.
Now, I am going to wait for a DC to come along and argue that 75 pre-paid visits is not overultilization- the last premise to be demonstrated.
The moral burden is on the DC to demonstrate he reasonably knows in advance that the patient will require this many visits ( Over 2/week in a year's time). The old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trick does not fly here. The reason is because this could apply to any treatment, not just chiropractic treatment. I could, for example, under this line of ill conceived thought, crack someone's knuckles and charge them for 75 pre-paid visits for that to cure who knows what.
Some time ago, on another website, I brought up the fact that Mancini was advocating things like 75 pre-paid visits at his Parker Seminars. Someone who knows Mancini well cited at least two reasons for why he (Mancini) promotes this sort of quackery.
1) Mancini has a business to run
2) Mancini argues that he should provide a venue for a wide range of views on chiropractic practice.
If my arguments here succeed against Mancini's permissiveness toward overultilization, he will no longer have the moral authority to make any "ought" statement whatsoever.
In previous posts, I described the "undeniability of logic", arguing that the fundamental laws of logic are what are known as First Principles. First Principles are those ideas which must be assumed up front because if they are not, no intelligible thought or dialogue can take place at all. For example, without the law of non contradiction we could not make a rational distinction between "subluxation" and "not subluxation". First Principles do not need to be defended in any way because they are necessary.
Immanuel Kant forcefully argued for the First Principles of Moral Reasoning (i.e. the Categorical Imperative) which Peter Angeles describes as "the necessary and absolute moral law believed to be the ultimate foundation for all moral conduct".
In other words, the product(s) of Kant's efforts were statements so fundamental to moral reasoning that they were undeniable. Like the laws of logic, no intelligible thought or dialogue may take place without assuming them up front and they need no justification because they are rationally necessary. Here, we see the glorious union between morality and rationality.
While many of his other philosophical discourses have succumbed to counter examination, Kant's moral theory has endured. His critics focus almost exclusively on the incompleteness of the theory rather than it being wrong. For example, his deontological (rule based) ethical theory cannot account for superogatory acts ( heroism).
One such formulation by Kant holds that "we may never treat people as ONLY a means to an end". I have emphasized the word "only" not just because it is found in Kant's original work and is not just a gloss over, but many descriptions of his writings leave this out. It will become somewhat important later.
What the above means is that if Mancini is willing to treat people as only a means to an end ( i.e. use them as things without regard to their benefit or harm, in an exploitive manner), he can no longer even come to the table to discuss any moral issue. That is, if he is not willing to assume, up front, such a statement (which needs not be defended), he is rationally restricted from any moral dialogue. A complete breakdown in the coherency of an ethical/moral argument follows in the absence of such a principle. Put in very plain terms, if Mancini is willing to exploit people, he has no moral foundation and can no longer even come to the table to discuss what is right or wrong morally.
At this point I may take the phrase as the major premise of the following syllogism:
1. Treating people as only a means to an end is morally wrong.
2. Over utilization is treating people as only a means to an end.
3 Therefore, over utilization is morally wrong.
This is a valid syllogism which means that IF the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows ( i.e. by logical necessity). IF and WHEN the premises are shown to be true, the argument then becomes sound.
Let's back up a step and view what I am trying to accomplish here. I am not so much attempting a frontal attack on over utilization as I am a subterranean one. That is, I am wanting to remove the ground from under it's defenders such that if one even makes an attempt to defend it, their argument will collapse into incoherency because they are denying the undeniable ( a First Principle). I hope to make my case with the irresistible force of logic.
Premise 2), I would argue, is analytically true. This means it's true by definition: "v. t. 1. To exploit to the point of diminishing returns; to use excessively. " It's fair to say here that applies when a patient no longer receives benefits from the treatment, he or she is being treated for ONLY the DC's benefit and is exploited. The patient has "lost" his or her intrinsic value (it's no longer recognized by the DC) and has become a thing to be used by the DC.
Thus we have:
1) Over utilization is morally wrong.
2) 75 pre-paid visits is overutilization.
3) Therefore, 75 pre-paid visits is morally wrong.
Now, I am going to wait for a DC to come along and argue that 75 pre-paid visits is not overultilization- the last premise to be demonstrated.
The moral burden is on the DC to demonstrate he reasonably knows in advance that the patient will require this many visits ( Over 2/week in a year's time). The old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trick does not fly here. The reason is because this could apply to any treatment, not just chiropractic treatment. I could, for example, under this line of ill conceived thought, crack someone's knuckles and charge them for 75 pre-paid visits for that to cure who knows what.