1Z wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Brent meeker writes:
>>
>>
>> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Brent meeker writes:
>> > >
>> > >> > Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't
>> explain
>> > >> why > good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care about
>> good
>> > >> and > bad
>> > >> That's asking why we should care about what we should care about,
>> i.e.
>> > >> good and bad. Good feels as it does because it is (or was)
>> > >> evolutionarily advantageous to do that, e.g. have sex. Bad feels as
>> > >> it does because it is (or was) evolutionarily advantageous to not do
>> > >> that, e.g. hold your hand in the fire. If it felt good you'd do it,
>> > >> because that's what "feels good" means, a feeling you want to have.
>> > >
>> > > But it is not an absurd question to ask whether something we have
>> > > evolved to think is good really is good. You are focussing on the
>> > > descriptive aspect of ethics and ignoring the normative.
>> >
>> > Right - because I don't think there is an normative aspect in the
>> objective sense.
>> >
>> > >Even if it
>> > > could be shown that a certain ethical belief has been hardwired
>> into our
>> > > brains this does not make the qustion of whether the belief is one we
>> > > ought to have an absurd one. We could decide that evolution sucks
>> and we
>> > > have to deliberately flout it in every way we can.
>> >
>> > But we could only decide that by showing a conflict with something
>> else we consider good.
>> >
>> > >It might not be a
>> > > wise policy but it is not *wrong* in the way it would be wrong to
>> claim
>> > > that God made the world 6000 years ago.
>> >
>> > I agree, because I think there is a objective sense in which the
>> world is more than 6000yrs old.
>> >
>> > >> >beyond following some imperative of evolution. For example, the
>> Nazis
>> > >> > argued that eliminating inferior specimens from the gene pool
>> would
>> > >> ultimately > produce a superior species. Aside from their irrational
>> > >> inclusion of certain > groups as inferior, they were right: we could
>> > >> breed superior humans following > Nazi eugenic programs, and perhaps
>> > >> on other worlds evolution has made such > programs a natural part of
>> > >> life, regarded by everyone as "good". Yet most of > us would regard
>> > >> them as bad, regardless of their practical benefits.
>> > >>
>> > >> Would we? Before the Nazis gave it a bad name, eugenics was a
>> popular
>> > >> movement in the U.S. mostly directed at sterilizing mentally
>> retarded
>> > >> people. I think it would be regarded as bad simply because we don't
>> > >> trust government power to be exercised prudently or to be easily
>> > >> limited - both practical considerations. If eugenics is practiced
>> > >> voluntarily, as it is being practiced in the U.S., I don't think
>> > >> anyone will object (well a few fundamentalist luddites will).
>> > >
>> > > What about if we tested every child and allowed only the superior
>> ones
>> > > to reproduce? The point is, many people would just say this is wrong,
>> > > regardless of the potential benefits to society or the species,
>> and the
>> > > response to this is not that it is absurd to hold it as wrong
>> (leaving
>> > > aside emotional rhetoric).
>> >
>> > But people wouldn't *just* say this is wrong. This example is a
>> question of societal policy. It's about what *we* will impose on
>> *them*. It is a question of ethics, not good and bad. So in fact
>> people would give reasons it was wrong: Who's gonna say what
>> "superior" means? Who gets to decide? They might say, "I just think
>> it's bad." - but that would just be an implicit appeal to you to see
>> whether you thought is was bad too. Social policy can only be judged
>> in terms of what the individual members of society think is good or bad.
>> >
>> > I think I'm losing the thread of what we're discussing here. Are
>> you holding that there are absolute norms of good/bad - as in your
>> example of eugenics?
>>
>> Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree. Let
>> me see if I
>> can summarise:
>>
>> Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs for a
>> reason, whether that be
>> evolution, what their parents taught them, or what it says in a book
>> believed to be divinely
>> inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under
>> "evolution" if that term can
>> be extended beyond genetics to include all the ideas, beliefs, customs
>> etc. that help a
>> society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take this and
>> formalise it in some way
>> so that we can discuss ethical questions rationally:
>>
>> Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness in society -
>> Utilitarianism
>>
>> Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment - Judaism and
>> Christianity
>> (interesting that this only no. 6 on a list of 10: God knows his
>> priorities)
>>
>> Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The meta-ethical
>> explanation of evolution,
>> broadly understood, as generating the various ethical systems is also
>> objective. However,
>> it is possible for someone at the bottom of the heap to go over the
>> head of utilitarianism,
>> evolution, even God and say:
>>
>> "Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest good for
>> the greatest number,
>> I don't care if the species dies out, and I think God is a bastard and
>> will shout it from hell if
>> sends me there for killing people for fun and profit. This is my own
>> personal ethical belief,
>> and you can't tell me I'm wrong!
>>
>> And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point
>> of fact or a point of
>> logic.
>
> The psychopath is wrong. He doesn't want to be murdered, but
> he wants to murder. His "ethical rule" is therefore inconsistent and
> not
> really ethical at all.
It was his personal belief - not a rule for everyone. You seem to be invoking a principle that personal values must be universal, but why should anyone believe that? I like vanilla; you like chocolate. I like to kill people; you think it's bad.
>> In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or
>> logic, and if it seems
>> that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere.
>
> Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they
> are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but
> he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject
> 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of
> definition.
But who is "everybody". Must the rules be the same for men and women, for adults and children, for me and you? And what about animals - do they count?
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Dec 20 2006 - 13:27:24 PST