Sorry to be so slow at responding here but life [domestic], the universe
and everything else right now is competing savagely with this
interesting discussion. [But one must always think positive; 'Bah,
Humbug!' is not appropriate, even though the temptation is great some
times :-]
Stathis,
I am not entirely convinced when you say: 'And the psychopath is right:
no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic'
That would only be right if we allowed that his [psychopathy is mostly a
male affliction I believe] use of words is easily as reasonable as yours
or mine. However, where the said psycho. is purporting to make
authoritative statements about the world, it is not OK for him to
purport that what he describes is unquestionably factual and his
reasoning from the facts as he sees them is necessarily authoritative
for anyone else. This is because, qua psychopath, he is not able to make
the fullest possible free decisions about what makes people tick or even
about what is reality for the rest of us. He is, in a sense, mortally
wounded, and forever impaired; condemned always to make only 'logical'
decisions. :-)
The way I see it, roughly and readily, is that there are in fact certain
statements/descriptions about the world and our place in it which are
MUCH MORE REASONABLE than a whole lot of others. I think therefore that,
even though you might be right from a 'purely logical' point of view
when you say the following: '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'
in fact, from the point of view of practical living and the necessities
of survival, the correct approach is to assert what amounts to a set of
practical axioms, including:
* the mere fact of existence is the basis of value, that good and
bad are expressed differently within - and between - different
cultures and their sub-cultures but ultimately there is an
objective, absolute basis for the concept of 'goodness', because
in all normal circumstances it is better to exist than not to exist,
* related to this and arising out of it is the realisation that all
normal, healthy humans understand what is meant by both 'harm' and
'suffering', certainly those who have reached adulthood,
* furthermore, insofar as it is clearly recognisable that continuing
to exist as a human being requires access to and consumption of
all manner of natural resources and human-made goods and services,
it is in our interests to nurture and further the inclinations in
ourselves and others to behave in ways supportive of cooperation
for mutual and general benefit wherever this is reasonably
possible, and certainly not to act destructively or disruptively
unless it is clear that doing so will prevent a much greater harm
from occurring.
It ought to be clear to all reasonable persons not engaged in self
deception that in this modern era each and everyone of us is dependent -
always - on at least a thousand other people doing the right thing, or
trying to anyway. Thus the idea of 'manly', rugged, individualism is a
romantic nonsense unless it also incorporates a recognition of mutual
interdependence and the need for real fairness in social dealings at
every level. Unless compassion, democracy and ethics are recognised
[along with scientific method] as fundamental prerequisites for OUR
survival, policies and practices will pretty much inevitably become
self-defeating and destructive, no matter how well-intentioned to start
with.
In the interest of brevity I add the following quasi-axioms.
* the advent of scientific method on Earth between 400 and 500 years
ago has irreversibly transformed the human species so that now we
can reasonably assert that the human universe is always
potentially infinite, so long as it exists and we believe it to be so
* to be fully human requires taking responsibility for one's actions
and this means consciously choosing to do things or accepting that
one has made a choice even if one cannot remember consciously choosing
* nobody knows the future, so all statements about the future are
either guesswork or statements of desires. Furthermore our lack of
knowledge of times to come is very deep, such that we have no
truly reasonable basis for dismissing the right to survive of any
persons on the planet - or other living species for that matter -
unless it can be clearly shown that such killing or allowing to
die, is necessary to prevent some far greater harm and the
assertion of this is of course hampered precisely by our lack of
knowledge of the future
This feels incomplete but it needs to be sent.
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
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. 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.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
> http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Fri Dec 22 2006 - 11:33:25 PST