Don’t discount yourself. One of the reasons I left academic philosophy
is the de facto acceptance of espousals made by proven experts to be
worthy of consideration.

The other was the shift to linguistic gaming which allows the use of
words to change meaning and be considered proof.

The true paradox of this entire discussion is you can not prove impossibility.

Or is it a paradox at all? Couldn’t an argument asking you to consider a
premise that can not be proved in the first place be considered a red herring
itself?

I think you have two choices to resolve your dilemma:

1. calculate the probability of failure for a given policy goal
and create an argument that shows pursuing such a minimal chance
of success is morally wrong

2. prove the argument that led to the pursuit of a policy is
not valid and/or not sound. This would allow you to conclude the
pursuit is not only wrong but also insane.

It’s a daunting task for sure because the creators of such
arguments are trained at concealing fallacies to promote their
causes.

Vince

Let’s try to step through this together. I am with you in thinking there is
something fundamentally and structurally wrong with this argument in regards
to Y.

Here’s my gut reaction. It goes to Ayn Rand’s clarification that something
can not both be and not be. Thus you can not both do and not do. The argument
asserts that DOING something that CAN NOT BE DONE is wrong. However you can
never DO what CAN NOT BE DONE and the question whether DOING it is right or
wrong can not even be asked because you have to have DONE IT in order ask
whether what’s been DONE is right or wrong. Something that HAS BEEN DONE can
not be something that CAN NOT BE DONE.

It may end up that this entire argument is fallacious due to the equivocation
of doing with attempting. All right, to the argument step by step.

Let’s start with the first two statements:

(1) To do something that cannot be done without something wrong being done
would itself be wrong.

So given the presumption that to do something wrong is wrong this is obvious
right? If I can’t open a particular door, a door that can not be opened,
without also killing someone, an act accepted as being wrong, then the fact
that the door can not be opened is irrelevant to the question of right or wrong
because the death that results would make it wrong in and of itself. This is
really no more than a trivial statement that doing something wrong is wrong.

It looks like here doing something that can’t be done is the red herring.

But (2) what cannot be done at all cannot be done either with or without
something wrong being done.

Again trivial, you can not do something that can not be done. The doing or
not of something wrong seems to be the red herring here.

So how are we doing here? Is this entire paradox a meaningless red herring
altogether?

Looking forward to your perspective.

Professor Homunculus sez:

Vince, those were pretty much my thoughts, too. But knowing me, I think I am probably missing something. I was hoping someone who has dealt with this paradox from a “professional” point-of-view would fill me in on what I was missing.

I think the key lies in that conclusion that what is wrong is “forbidden” (not just wrong). I’m not sure about that, though. What I am pretty sure about is that something that has gotten as much attention from brainiacs as much as deontic logic has, probably has some deeper meaning behind it. That’s not a definite, but usually things I find trivial, that did not originate from trivial minds (like, say, “Survivor”) has something that I can learn from.

My pragmatic interest in this is that one of the things that I believe, but do not have a good logical proof for (by proof, I mean formal proof) is that if something is impossible, or cannot be done without creating a bigger wrong than if it is not done at all, then it is wrong to ask someone to do it.

Aside from politics and empire-building, my interest in this is pedagogical. I’m trying to figure out an iron-clad argument against unfunded and impossible-to-fulfill mandates like “No Child Left Behind.” Even the name is bullcrap. No society will ever exist without leaving some member of it behind, and children are usually first.

Of course the common-sense argument is iron-clad against this atrocity, but common sense is not really within the purview of most people. Not that formal logic is, but I guess I need it to make myself feel better. You know the old saw - “When everyone is crazy, the sane man seems insane,” or something like that. Sometimes I need the comfort of math to prop up my war-weary soul.