Brent Meeker wrote:
> 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".
Everybody who can reason ethically.
> 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 Sat Dec 30 2006 - 11:07:35 PST