It is worth it, to save lives/We just cannot afford it

The Telus representative opined that my new Samsung A5 had the best Android camera for photo quality. I thought I would attempt my first photos with the Saint George, icon, the Hintz brought me back from Bulgaria a few years ago. I very much enjoy the art of the icon, although I do not treat it as an icon as I am Reformed, not Eastern Orthodox. I think the photo is of decent quality. It is not as clear as I would like, but the art is sort of rough by nature.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

It's worth it if it saves lives

Pirie explains that through this fallacy almost anything can be justified, regardless of the cost. (136).
It is admirable but not practical to philosophically reason that one cannot put a price on a life. The resources of a nation could not all be placed into saving one life. (136-137).

Theoretically, money could be diverted from other government services to make railways safer. (137). More funds could be placed into road safety and health services. (137).

A bottom line of what the author is stating is that there are limited financial resources to save a human life and human lives. I agree. This is true in both public and private contexts; government and corporate.

On the other hand, it would not reasonably take the entirety of a nation's gross domestic product, or more accurately, budget, to save a human life. Saving a life, would never be that costly. Perhaps a small company could bankrupt itself saving a life. Not most corporations.

Could a nation or large corporation go bankrupt attempting to save all lives? Yes, we all die, and there is no cure. But medical research and hospitals do the best they can. This makes this a moot point, because all the money in the world will not keep everyone alive.

I agree that  It's worth it if it saves lives is fallacious, but I also reason that in some contexts, a fallacy stating: We just cannot afford it, is also used.

There is not an infinite amount of funds for a human life, but there is not infinite funds for anything. It is a matter of reasonable budgeting.

Biblically, there is a strong sense that a human life takes much priority over money. The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Timothy 6), whereas there are New Testament calls to love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10), love one another in the Church (John 13-15) and to love your brother (other people) (1 John 2).

From a New Testament perspective, one is to side more on saving a life, than saving money.

Defined Out Of Possibility

Lake Como, Italy-Twitter

As always with this format, this complex entry is admittedly, non-exhaustive.

I viewed President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia on Fox News and CNN. Fascinating imagery of a vastly different culture was presented. It appeared to be a very kind welcome to the Islamic Kingdom.

To be clear, I am not attacking Islamic people. Academic evaluation is the objective in my scholarly work.

I have made friends with persons of other worldviews, including Islam. Obviously, from my writings, I am opposed to radical Islam, and any violent, radical worldview. I certainly do not hold to Islam, in any form, as being essentially true as a religion and worldview.

As a very brief, non-exhaustive, explanation, I reject Islam because it is chronologically later (claimed) revelation than the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. It is originally from Arabia, not Israel and Europe and not within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Islamic doctrine rejects essential New Testament doctrine, such the trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, the new covenant of the New Testament replaces and amplifies the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. If it replaced with outright contradiction, illogic, it would be void. The New Testament is viewed as progressive revelation from the Old Testament. The Bible is not 'flat', but neither would outright contradiction be intellectually tenable.

Yet, Islam, in part claims the divine validity of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, while denying and contradicting certain biblical essentials. This is fatal contradiction. The importance of this should not be overlooked. Being an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith in no way counters this fatal objection.

The New Testament, for example, having thousands of manuscripts in whole or in part for support which would be contradicted outright by later Islamic rejection of the trinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ.

For me the popularity of Islam is irrelevant as a truth claim. I would place more credibility in a supposed, hypothetical, religious worldview which presented something new and denied the divine inspiration of the previous biblical revelation which it contradicts in regard to certain essential theology.
---

Wikipedia

Wikipedia defines Saudi Arabia as Unitary Islamic absolute monarchy.

Cited

'Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.[108] However, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia (Islamic law) and the Quran, while the Quran and the Sunnah (the traditions of Muhammad) are declared to be the country's constitution.[109] No political parties or national elections are permitted.[108] Critics regard it as a totalitarian dictatorship.[110]'

In regard to government and significant societal influence, no other worldview is permitted, other than the Kingdom's interpretation of Islam and Islamic Law.

Essentially, all other worldviews have been dismissed and any serious intellectual challenge with premises and conclusions of Saudi interpretation of Islam, religion and worldview has been legally and culturally defined out of possibility. Other religious and worldview alternatives are defined out of possibility, by limiting intellectual thought and expression to rules within a State/Religion model.

This in my humble opinion, is connected to spiritual blindness. John 12: 37-43, 2 Corinthians 4: 3-4.

John 12:37-40

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

37 But though He had performed so many [a]signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and [b]be converted and I heal them.”

Footnotes:

John 12:37 Or attesting signs
John 12:40 Lit be turned; i.e. turn about 

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled [a]to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this [b]world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving [c]so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Footnotes:
2 Corinthians 4:3 Lit in
2 Corinthians 4:4 Lit age
2 Corinthians 4:4 Or that the light...image of God, would not dawn upon them

Also, notably this concept in Isaiah.

A few other philosophical considerations within worldview, not of salvific nature where alternative premises and conclusions can be defined out of possibility.

Secondary Christian doctrine
Politics
Nationalism
Sports philosophy
Ageism, dating and marriage

Defining alternatives out of possibility can be a fallacious method of deleting, philosophical, religious and worldview risk and potential exposed error. A correct worldview and related views within, may have been reached, but if this is done by defining away other worldviews, philosophical and theological views, this is more likely achieved fortuitously than through reason and research.

This significantly increases the possibility of spiritual and intellectual error.

For clarity:

Humanity does not have infinite knowledge and absolute (100%) certainty. If something is defined out of possibility, this needs to be done through reason and research, not by lazy intellectual thinking and risk avoidance. Something can be defined out of reasonable possibility without absolute certainty, through reason and research. I would add that seeking divine guidance through Scripture and the Holy Spirit is essential.
---

Encountering The New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Part or All of the New Testament. 
Page 10.

Papyri Cataloged 127
Uncial Mss. Cataloged 318
Minuscule Mss. Cataloged 2, 880
Lectionaries Cataloged 2, 436
Total 5, 761 (Numbers in all categories inch up periodically with new discoveries) German numbers from 1994 and 2011 are accessed.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

This is less than, but not in this case

Yesterday

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

From the previous entry:

Langer states that Class A and Class B differ in intensions, but they are identical by their extensions. (125). The extension of Class A is the extension of Class B. The two classes, A and B, define the same class. (125). Intension is the pure meaning. (125). Extension is the exemplifications of concepts. (125). Extension allows the reader to observe how classes relate to each other, in common membership. (125-126).
---

The idea that Class A in included in Class B, allows for the use of a symbol to be employed. (134).

Here I should acknowledge that the Langer text becomes potentially confusing. She admits that the symbol < within mathematics stands for 'is less than'. (134). However, the author provides an exception from this common case (134) and suggests that within symbolic logic the symbol can stand for 'is included in.' (134).

Therefore her example:

A < B

Class A is included in Class B (Symbolic logic) (134-135).

This opposed to

A < B

Class A is less than Class B (Mathematics).

A reminder that in academics identical terms and symbols may vary from discipline to discipline. This was also the case in archived entries on this website in regard to certain terms with philosophy versus statistical mathematics/social research methods.

≡df=Equivalence by definition (135).

: (Equal (s) )
ε (Epsilon and means is)
⊃ (Is the same as)
⊨ (Entails)

Based on Langer's definition from 135.

A < B ≡df  (x) : (x ε A) ⊃ (x ε  B)

Class A is included in Class B, is defined as the equivalent of x which equals x is A, which is the same as x is B.

It could also be stated

A ⊨ B 

Class A entails Class B.

A reminder that the usefulness of learning symbolic logic is in reading some academic philosophical work that contains symbol logic within argumentation.

This learning may also assist one in understanding mathematics. Philosophy of religion does overlap with theology that overlaps with biblical studies. That is a main reason I am reviewing and learning the text.

A twisted crown of thorns.com

Adding Extension For Context

Venice: trekearth.com

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

The author's example (125).

Mayflower passengers (Class A).

Founders of Plymouth (Class B).

These are two very different defining concepts. (125). However, every one of the members of Class A was also a member of Class B. (125).

The two classes are mutually inclusive as they have the same membership. (125).

Langer states that Class A and Class B differ in intensions, but they are identical by their extensions. (125). The extension of Class A is the extension of Class B. The two classes, A and B, define the same class. (125).

Intension is the pure meaning. (125).

Extension is the exemplifications of concepts. (125).

Extension allows the reader to observe how classes relate to each other, in common membership. (125-126). If one is left with intension as concept for class alone, it becomes very difficult to systematize such concepts. (126). Without an extension for context, one would see no common connection between Class A and Class B in Langer's example.

Quote

(a) : (a ε B) ⊃ (a ε A) and A includes B and B includes A. (127).

:  (Equal (s) )
ε  (Epsilon and means is)
⊃ (Is the same as)
⊨  (Entails)

Class A equals Class A is Class B and is the same as Class A is Class A and includes Class B and Class B includes Class A.

a ⊃ b (Class a is the same as Class b)

a ⊨ b (Class a entails Class b).

Simply put by Langer.

A=B (127).

a ⊃ b : a ⊨ b : a = b : a ε b

Class A is the same as Class B equals Class A entails Class B equals Class A equals Class B equals Class A is Class B.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Reddit: Interesting theory