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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to