Text 8690, 328 rader
Skriven 2006-09-20 16:34:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9187.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <rsb3h29anaiairrs90dponda4c2g12g203@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<hpjgb2t0q37gmofuis9ffk9vgergdua653@4ax.com><ZsydnaI1X5391CTZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com><ogejb25mnq66gdc38oftc09spvgir

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:06:09 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:7jssb2hrsmclb5mjpnf6lm315b9rq5khvi@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:23:53 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>"Why am I here?"
>>>"Why am I supposed to behave in a certain way (and what happens if I
>>>don't)?"
>>>"Why will I die (and what happens afterwards)?
>>>
>>>The short answer is "Because God says so."
>>>
>>>Granted, that by itself is not particularly intellectually gratifying, bit
>>>no one promised you an answer you'll like.  Those that look for more
>>>complete answers search the texts of their faith... and hopefully beyond 
>>>to
>>>find an internal consistency between what the texts say and what seems
>>>consistent with their concept of a Creator.
>>>
>>>Having said that, "Because God says so" can, by itself be a more 
>>>emotionally
>>>gratifying to some than "Well, over a long enough period of time and 
>>>enough
>>>solar systems and planets, life was bound to happen eventually.  Have fun
>>>while you can."
>>
>> OK, but how does that differ from an atheist's trying to make sense of
>> his own moral framework? I mean, when asked "Why," you could just as
>> easily answer "Because Karl Marx said it and his philosophy is the end
>> of all philosophies."
>
>Josh... you worship Karl Marx... Now everything makes perfect sense! :-)
>
>There's two different elements in your statement.  The philosphy itself may 
>be more than sufficent for the atheist, but I don't think that Karl Marx has 
>the authority to validate the philosophy at a higher than personal level 
>(which isn't a problem for the atheist).  However, if you believe that Karl 
>Marx was a prophet for a higher authority (or the incarnation of one), then 
>it is the same thing (but atheist would be "right out").
>
><snip>
>
>>>If there was a genetic benefit to devouring the genetic material of member
>>>of the same species, does it follow that they would develop a "Do unto
>>>others" mentality?  There are a lot of possible scenerios in which an
>>>entirely different morailty could develop.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but that doesn't make morality /subjective./ It's more
>> like a gene: if it's effective, it will propagate, and if it doesn't,
>> it will die off.
>
>But that particular genetic benefit might work counter to
>"Do unto others" and not be adopted by that society,
>so the morality is subjective in the absence of a higher
>moral compass than simply propagation.

>I still see no direct correlation to species propagation
>and morality.  I see propagation as a rationalization for a morality.
>
>Within my moral framework there are things that I would die for...and would 
>have died for before I got married and had my kids (thereby failing to 
>propagate).   Does this idea violate your personal or meta moralities?

Interestingly enough, no. The solution to the problem was explained
some years back in the analogous case of genetic evolution: because we
share our DNA with others in the tribe, there are times when the
propagation of our DNA is best served through extreme altruism, that
is, personal sacrifice. For example, if a lion were attacking your
family, you might die protecting them -- but in doing so, you would
raise the chance that your offspring, and your DNA, would survive.

So too in the case of morality and, I think, social organization in
general. The morality that says, for example, that it is the duty of a
citizen to risk his life to protect his country in times of war
promotes its own survival because your fellow citizens, those you
protect, are more likely to possess the same morality than the people
in the attacking group.

As an aside, it's interesting to suppose that parasitic or pathogenic
moralities may propagate themselves along with the beneficial ones.

>>>I think you take it for granted that your morality is right and therefore
>>>would extend out into the universe.
>>
>> On the contrary, I'm a moral relativist, which is to say that I
>> believe morality is an outcome of conditions. But I don't equate that
>> with the notion that the question of good and evil can't be
>> objectively determined given the circumstances.
>
>But could you plug all of the elements into a single applicable equation and 
>*always* have it evaluate to everyone's agreement on what is right or wrong? 
>Not likely.

In principle or practice? Something can be objective without being
completely understood given our current level of knowledge. We can't
predict with complete certainty the path of a hurricane, but that
doesn't mean that the air molecules involved aren't behaving
objectively -- merely that we don't know enough to do so.

>> Heh -- an unintentional verbal ambiguity on my part. I didn't mean we
>> wouldn't exist, but rather that we wouldn't be part of the universe.
>> Morality is part of the universe. We're part of the universe. So the
>> universe has both morality and intelligence, or at least what passes
>> for intelligence among us earthfolk.
>
>The universe *contains* elements of intelligence and (varying degrees of) 
>morality.

>That's different than the universe being intelligent or moral.  It doesn't 
>even siggest that the universe must continue to contain intelligence or 
>morality.  It could be comletely coincidental.  My home may or may not have 
>people (and the world's greatest black lab) in it.  If so, it contains 
>elements of intelligence and morality.  If not, the house doesn't cease to 
>exist or change the underlying properties of the house.

I don't think it's coincidental.

Question: how does the fact that the universe /contains/ morality
differ from the fact that /we/ do? After all, we each have an amoral
side as well.

I think the best one can come up with -- since we aren't entirely
ruled by intelligence or morality -- is that the universe is less
entirely ruled by intelligence and morality. Or morality, anyway,
since intelligence does seem to be at the center of things depending
on which way you look at it -- in one direction of time, the universe
is getting smarter, and in the other, it's getting dumber. (But then
again, one can say the same thing about us -- reverse the arrow of
time, and we forget and unlearn things, e.g., our brain makes us
dumber.)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For the sake of this paragraph, let's assume there is no God.  You 
>>>>>>>can't
>>>>>>>determine (other than at a personal level) that cannabilsm in ANY
>>>>>>>context
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>morally right or wrong without resorting to majority rules.   There is
>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>absolute good or bad to judge against....so it's all subjective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily. I can simply note that good and bad are phenomena,
>>>>>> and describe them with regard to the local systems that they serve.
>>>>>
>>>>>And good and bad in this case are subjective with regard to the local
>>>>>systems; there is no absolute definition that applies to all local
>>>>>systems.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by an "absolute definition"? There's no laundry list,
>>>> but that doesn't mean that there's no /theory/ that leads to an
>>>> optimal set of moral precepts given known circumstances. That doesn't
>>>> make it subjective: it's our own take on it that's subjective, and
>>>> probably has to be given our evolution ("There's no one law for the
>>>> lion and the lamb." - Blake).
>>>
>>>Now you've introduced the term "optimal" into this.  Optimal to whom?
>>>The existence of our species on this planet is certainly not optimal to
>>>other species.  Another subjective term.
>>
>> I've already placed this in the context of social evolution. I meant
>> optimal from an evolutionary perspective, optimal in that the moral
>> memes survive and propagate. That may or may not be beneficial to
>> another species. In the long run, it /must/ be beneficial to at least
>> some individuals in our own.
>
>An "optimal" set of moral concepts does not mean it is
>universally objective.

I'm not sure I understand what the distinction is. There is, perhaps,
an ideal way of making tasty chicken soup, as judged by a panel of
local chicken soup eaters. We may not know that way. It may vary
depending on local conditions -- altitude, chicken quality, what have
you. We certainly do not know what it is, since we don't understand
enough about the way the brain processes taste and smell to know
exactly what techniques will please it most, and we can't try every
feasible recipe. But it is objectively optimal.

>>>And that moral calculus seems (to me) to ultimately require a significant
>>>subjective element that reduces the rest to scalars.
>>
>> I just don't agree that that element is completely subjective. A
>> society that allowed murder, for example, might soon find itself
>> depopulated, while a society that didn't allow killing in warfare
>> might find itself overrun. In both cases, the moral memes would be at
>> a competitive disadvantage vis a vis their counterparts in competing
>> societies. They would tend to die out.
>
>Let's go back to this.  In each of the following possibilities, the result 
>may or may not be moral:
>
>1 person kills 1
>1 person kills 1000
>1000 people kill 1
>1000 people kill 1000
>
>The interpretation of any of the events might lead one person to consider 
>them as moral qand another (particularly if you're the 1 or one of the 1000 
>that gets the short end of the stick).
>
>Does intent play a part?  If so, how do you possibly include that element 
>without requiring an inherently subjective element? If not, does the moral 
>judgment rely on the consequences (which may also be ambiguous and 
>subjective).  Often in moral questions both intent and outcome may be 
>considered to determine the morality of an action.
>
>Consider the common practical definition of morality: "Justice."    You're 
>arguing that eventually we'll be able to develop an equation that will in 
>all cases satisfy (even the majority) of people's definition of the word 
>"Justice?"

See above. You seem to be equating our ability to accurately discern
something with objectivity, whereas I'm suggesting that the truth is
out there and we can but see it dimly. To me, that is our objective
morality. And here, I think, the old-fashioned "solutions" of the
systematizing philosophers meets the nihilism of the postmodernists --
proving both wrong.

>>>>>>>You're starting with the arbitrary moral that life and evolution are
>>>>>>>"good." That's a common and very helpful one to start with,
>>>>>>>but if there was no life on Earth, would the universe care?
>>>>>>>If there were an arbitrary number of beings on the planet that
>>>>>>>were generally happy and never aged or died, would
>>>>>>>they care about evolution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unless you can prove the answer is yes, it's a common personal
>>>>>>>philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Common personal philosophy" is a bit oxymoronic for my taste.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which part?  "Do unto others" fits that definition as well.
>>>>
>>>> If it's commonly held, how is it personal? Or did you mean "a common
>>>> philosophy held by a number of individuals"?
>>>
>>>A number of people sharing the same basic philosphy, but a philosphy that
>>>is not universally shared, which by implication leads to it being
>>>subjective.
>>
>> It could be objective but local . . .
>
>It would be perfectly objective only to the people that agree/believe the 
>underlying elements of any given moral question conform to a common 
>understanding and evaluation.
>
>Getting back to the "Justice" example, 12 people may come up with the same 
>verdict for different reasons...weighing each element differently.  The 
>resulting judgement might suggest a common morality, but certainly doesn't 
>require it.

Did you read about the study that found that the average of the
estimates of a number of people on the number of beans in a jar was
more accurate that the estimates of the individuals? This, I think, is
why we rely on multiple jurors.

>>>> It's not entirely subjective, in fact it's anything but. I think you
>>>> really have to be careful with that distinction, because if you don't,
>>>> you'll end up equating New Age hocus pocus with mathematical physics.
>>>> Rather, what I'm doing is applying theory to observed phenomena that
>>>> most people don't think about even to the extent of achieving an
>>>> understanding that equals the philosophical state-of-the-art of 2500
>>>> years ago. And the hypotheses are testable: in many cases the
>>>> observations have already been made, e.g., anthropologists have
>>>> researched the incest taboo.
>>>
>>>Anthropologists may study what a taboo or a moral is and how... or even 
>>>why
>>>it was adopted
>>>by a society, but that's not the question Philosphy is interested in.
>>
>> I think we've established that we take a different view of the limits
>> of philosophy. From my perspective, science remains "natural
>> philosophy." And I think contemporary philosophers hurt themselves to
>> the extent that they distance themselves too far from science. It's
>> not something Aristotle would have done.
>
>If you want to define science that way, that's fine, but the "Why" questions
>often try to address spiritual philosophy (which may or may not be
>different from religious philosophy).

Though I'd argue that they're ultimately the province of science as
well -- and that if philosophy doesn't recognize this, as, say, the
logical positivists did, philosophy's purview and saliency will
continue to diminish.

>>>> For example, killing one's brother to get his money might amoral,
>>>> whereas killing one's brother as the only alternative to having him
>>>> detonate a nuclear weapon might be moral. That can only be said within
>>>> the context of a local system and local circumstances and as a matter
>>>> of probability, but it isn't completely subjective.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unless one's philosphy is absolute pacifism, in which case both actions
>>>are immoral.... and which philosphy you choose is subjective.
>>
>> The choice is always subjective, but that doesn't mean that there
>> isn't an objective morality, specific to local circumstances, that can
>> assess it.
>
>I think we've gone around this merry-go-round often enough.
>Agree to disagree?

OK -- I'll end this here.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
                                                                               
     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)