Ethics (was Re: Science and Ideals.)

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Ethics is a product of philosophy.


 It's not a county in eastern England?

(Tom Holt reference, IIFC.)

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ethics L3

[Gary Denton]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:21:10 -0700, Warren Ockrassa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To the extent that you want to argue that scientific
> >> pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything
> >> else,
> >> I'm likely to agree. At the same time, study of behavior in other
> >> animals can tell us a *lot* about our own.
Of course, trying to ban science is wrong.

> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of understanding where our own
> proclivities come from. If we study the behavior of chimps and bonobos,
> we can see not just how we're similar, but possibly *why* we
> occasionally get the urges we do.
> 
> Back in the 70s there was a bizarre counterculture movement that
> involved, among other things, "The Church of the SubGenius". One of the
> eople involved in that, Robert Anton Wilson, used to call most of what
> goes on in the world "primate politics". Territoriality, petty
> squabbles and crap-throwing, on almost any level you care to analyze.
> While it's a simplistic interpretation (necessary for satirical
> effect), it's worth considering. Just how much of our modern
> parochialism, nationalism and certainty we know the One True God is
> rooted in our ape brains?

This still exists -"Church of the Sub-Genius" is my libertarian friend
Peter's religion.

Gary D.
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ethics L3

[Warren Ockrassa]

[I'll just amplify where necessary; there isn't much.]
On Dec 9, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To the extent that you want to argue that scientific
pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything 
else,
I'm likely to agree. At the same time, study of behavior in other
animals can tell us a *lot* about our own.
In the same sense that studying the atmosphere of other planets helps 
us
understand our own, definitely.  Contrast and compare is always useful 
in
developing an understanding.  It provides a framework in which to 
evaluate;
even if one is primarily interested in only one of the many examples
considered.
I was thinking more along the lines of understanding where our own 
proclivities come from. If we study the behavior of chimps and bonobos, 
we can see not just how we're similar, but possibly *why* we 
occasionally get the urges we do.

Back in the 70s there was a bizarre counterculture movement that 
involved, among other things, "The Church of the SubGenius". One of the 
eople involved in that, Robert Anton Wilson, used to call most of what 
goes on in the world "primate politics". Territoriality, petty 
squabbles and crap-throwing, on almost any level you care to analyze. 
While it's a simplistic interpretation (necessary for satirical 
effect), it's worth considering. Just how much of our modern 
parochialism, nationalism and certainty we know the One True God is 
rooted in our ape brains?

One that recognizes that accomplishments have merit
that can't or won't necessarily be valued strictly in terms of 
dollars.
Pablo Picasso or Vincent van Gogh, anyone?
I think I understand your point, but you probably have picked a bad
examples, their paintings sell for millions. :-)
Now they do. Van Gogh died in poverty. IIRC Picasso did as well. 
They're recognized now for their brilliance but at the time they 
weren't so appreciated. A strictly capitalist culture wold have 
considered them worthless and marginalized them further, or insisted 
they "get a job" -- possibly at the local Wal-Mart, in the housepaint 
section.

Capitalism is not inherently evil but it is capable of focusing too 
narrowly on one scale of measurement, and that can become evil when 
misapplied.

Actually the world seems much more a balance of trades and
compromises.
In one sense, that is true. We make tradeoffs and  compromises because
our power is limited. Sometimes we chose bad over worse. But, in 
another
sense, I don't think that's true. I don't think those with nothing to 
trade
lose their rights as humans.
Everyone always has something to trade. I don't mean in the literal 
sense; I mean we work with compromise every day, in our ways of 
thinking, feeling and doing things.

It would be a very bad idea for me to suppress or
oppress and count on permanence in my supremacy -- one mistake and
those whom I've oppressed will very definitely rise up and strike me
down.
But, if that were true, why did oppression often last for centuries 
without
a successful revolt?
Alpha-male control over local groups (yep, back to primate politics 
again!). In a pack of chimpanzees it's a Very Bad Idea to challenge the 
leader ... and lose. Those who side with the loser tend to be pretty 
harshly punished.

What happens to revolts against oppressive human leaders, when those 
revolts fail?

More than that, people *can* get used to nasty brutish situations, 
normalized to them. As you've suggested in a different vein, they've 
been so habituated to a given way of living they don't really see into 
alternatives, or that alternatives might even exist.

But ... suppose you're an oppressed person and you have an opportunity 
to quietly slit the throat of some vile evil overlord, sneakily and 
without being caught.

If you want a modern example, where is the punishment
for executives who fatten their own pockets at the expense of their 
workers
and the shareholders of the companies they run?
That's a system corrupted by wealth.
How many abusive husbands are beaten in return?
More importantly, how many are castrated or shot?
I think people do get away with hurting other people for a lesser gain 
of
their own. Not all the time, mind you.  But enough to make the 
statement
that "altruistic behavior is sometimes in one's own self interest and
sometimes not" valid.
Sure.
What other reason besides the understanding that it is the wrong 
thing
to do?  Because the people stepped  upon on to gain an advantage are 
just
as important as the person who contemplates the stepping.

They're potentially as valid, sure. I think I'm one of those people 
who
believes that one has to earn the right to call oneself human, and 
that
that right can be forfeit depending on one's actions. A kind of
nontheistic fall from grace, with possibility of repentance, and
definitely with a liberal dose of "original sin" in the idea that at
some point or another one really does have to produce *something* of
merit.
I fi

Ethics L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats


On Dec 6, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> That's a reflection of "do onto others as you would have them do unto
> you"
> and "love your neighbor as yourself."  It's a sound ethical principal
> that
> I see based in the value of every other human.

>That's the basic idea, yeah. If I don't want to have my stuff stolen, I
>shouldn't steal others' -- at the very least I would have no room to
>complain if I've got my neighbor's lawnmower when I notice my stereo
>sitting in his living room...

>But it's also a value statement, sure, value of others I mean.

The dividing line for me is that it's wrong to steal your neighbor's
lawnmower, even if you can get away without him getting any of your things.
I think we agree on this: hurting others is not only wrong because one can
get caught and hurt in return, it's wrong because they are people...just
like you.

>>But, there are tremendous problems in  deducing
>> human rights from principals of biology, for example.

>I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of animal-kingdom examples
>of the merits of altruism within a population. It's clearly a viable
>survival strategy, one practiced by several "higher" mammal species.

It does exit, sure.  Nurturing of young is the clearest example I can think
of that gives  the evolutionary favorability of certain types of altruism.
We can discuss other forms too, but I do not contest that altruism can
sometimes be evolutionarily favored.


>Of course the facts of biology, like the facts of physics or
>mathematics, don't tell us how anyone or anything should behave in any
>abstract sense.

That's what I'm getting at.  In some primates, for example, we have
examples of behavior that is both moral and immoral if practiced by humans
(at the very least behavior that both you and I have stated to be right and
wrong on this list).  Nurturing youth to help them grow is moral.  Using
forced sex as a tool of intimidation in order to establish a higher place
in society than another is wrong.  Both are practiced by primates.

>To the extent that you want to argue that scientific
>pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything else,
>I'm likely to agree. At the same time, study of behavior in other
>animals can tell us a *lot* about our own.

In the same sense that studying the atmosphere of other planets helps us
understand our own, definitely.  Contrast and compare is always useful in
developing an understanding.  It provides a framework in which to evaluate;
even if one is primarily interested in only one of the many examples
considered.

>> And, there are other perspectives that exist.  Objectivism, for
>> example, touts that caring for others is misguided; the only true virtue
>>is selfishness.

>Yeah, but the problem there is that there are plenty of examples of
>strategy that works in opposition to that argument.

There is no doubt that the "law of the jungle" view of evolution was
myopic, and that cooperative and even altruistic behavior can be seen as
evolutionarily favorable.  But, since the Objectivists statement on ethics
is a faith statement (whether they admit it or not), I don't think
one can falsify it with data.

>A less objectivist angle is that ultimately all actions are
>self-serving, in one way or another, but that might be a sophistry to
>justify apparent altruism.

I have real problems with that too.  It seems counterfactual to me.  Take
Gautam's risking his life to prevent someone from being hit by a car.  Now
that it's a couple of years later, it's safe to say that Gautam is
extremely unlikely to receive tangible rewards that would make his actions
reasonable, calculated, self-serving actions.  If one appears to intangible
rewards, then one is making statements about unobservables...and is not
discussing facts any more.  In particular, there are times that I've
performed altruistic behavior and did not feel particularly good about
it..so someone would have to argue that they knew how I felt better than I
did.

>> Post Modernism argues that ideas like human rights are simply
>> political tools.

>A compelling way of looking at it, but I wouldn't take it as literally
>true any more than I would Lovelock's "Gaia" model. That is, it's one
>form of model for social discourse, and an intriguing way to look at
>things, but I believe it might be a grave mistake (and rather

Machiavellian Ethics: Fertility Slavery, Mortality, Morality and the State

[The Fool]

<>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ethics (and morals, and free will)

[Deborah Harrell]

I am cut'n'pasting from two other threads as well -
the Fascist and Mercies ones.

> Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved
> in part as a survival 
> mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage
> and an intellectual 
> advantage.  For instance, a shaman that convinced
> his community that the 
> spirits punished those who killed their spiritual
> leaders would stand a 
> better chance of survival and would increase his
> power within the 
> community.  Thus, imposing ethics upon a community
> becomes not only a 
> means to create order, but also a means for
> intellectuals to thrive.

I think of ethics as shaped by a society with language
and complex social relationships (i.e. us humans),
while what we call morals has some basis in the
evolutionary survival of social animals.  We cannot
choose our basic nature; it is partially determined by
our genes, and heavily influenced by our enveloping 
environment (both pre- and post-natal).  The ancients'
characterization of a personality as being primarily
influenced by one of the 'four humors' - melancholic,
choleric, plegmatic or sanguine - has some validity
when 'genes' are cited instead of 'humors.'  Frex, the
tendency towards "shyness" has a significant genetic
component: "Studies have shown that genetic factors
are significant in predisposing individuals to shyness
and social phobia..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12668354
(Clicking on 'Related articles' yields genetic factors
being researched WRT various behavioral conditions,
from Tourette's to ADHD to autism.)

Alberto posited that "Pumas _could_ have free will
(according to their own limited brain functions)" and
William G asked, "Do you think chimpanzees have free
will? Where is the gene for free will, and how do you
know what has it and what doesn't?"  I think that the
more social and socially complex an animal is, the
more it is likely to exhibit some degree of 'free
will.'  (Admittedly I am leaving out the social
insects, as they seem to have little individual
personality, and some sense of 'self' seems required
for a creature to be able to make a specific choice,
and I'm also not necessarily considering a school of
fish as a social unit -- although there _are_ fish
which exhibit definite social behavior.)

Warren stated that "That's not evolved; the only
reason one would have guilt after rape would be if one
believed it to be a bad thing. Guilt is a
socially-created phenomenon."  While Bob Z proposed,
"Both of these behaviors [morality and self-sacrifice]
increase the reproductive success of a social animal.
Morality is the way we keep score in recipricol
altruism."  

If one accepts that basic behaviors and the emotions
that underlie them are the result of evolutionary
selection, then genetic factors must play a role in
their existence and continuance.  Without at least
some underlying sense of order/hierarchy, animals
cannot live in social groups.  Anyone with a pet dog
will agree that they _behave_ at times as if they are
sorry, guilty or ashamed -- they have broken pack
rules, and they will even 'ask for forgiveness' by
submitting themselves to the pack leader (you).  They
will also 'forgive' accidental misbehavior on your
part (frex stepping on a tail), but some may not
forgive deliberate cruelty from humans (they've been
bred for pretty forgiving natures, though). Cats, less
social, but still with family structure and a social
pecking order, never act 'guilty' in my experience
(although they will choose to refrain from
humanly-undesired behavior - as long as you're around
to keep an eye on them!), yet can exhibit 'concern' or
'sympathy' if their human is ill.  And they definitely
have a sense of self in that making a stupid (from
their point of view) mistake results in behavior that
appears to show self-disgust or -anger.

One of the most effective* tools in schooling horses
is to allow _them_ to choose how to respond to your
instructions - if they choose correctly, they are
rewarded and praised, while incorrect responses elicit
more work (or rarely outright punishment, for
dangerous behavior such as biting or kicking).  [It is
your job to make sure that the animal is capable of
choosing correctly, i.e. not to set them up for
failure, which requires knowing how they think and
react, and modifying your behavior/demands to what
they _can_ do, not what you _wish_ them to do.]  Yet,
knowing that correction will occur, a horse may choose
to behave "badly" -- and furthermore, will accept
'fair' correction, but rebel at 'unfair'
(disproportionate) punishment!  That

Re: Ethics

[Jim Burton]

On Aug 26, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a 
survival mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an 
intellectual advantage.  For instance, a shaman that convinced his 
community that the spirits punished those who killed their spiritual 
leaders would stand a better chance of survival and would increase his 
power within the community.  Thus, imposing ethics upon a community 
becomes not only a means to create order, but also a means for 
intellectuals to thrive.

Something like this is explored quite nicely in a part of Stephen 
Baxter's _Evolution_.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a survival 
mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an intellectual 
advantage.  For instance, a shaman that convinced his community that the 
spirits punished those who killed their spiritual leaders would stand a 
better chance of survival and would increase his power within the 
community.  Thus, imposing ethics upon a community becomes not only a 
means to create order, but also a means for intellectuals to thrive.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Russell Chapman wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:

But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are 
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?

An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that 
adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can 
immediately recognize what and why it is successful and continue to 
build upon it.


Not really, because we also hinder it at the same time - handicapped 
people who would never have had the chance to pass on the damaged genes 
in past millenia are now at no disadvantage in terms of conceiving and 
raising a child. If anything, we are increasing the randomness by 
allowing disadvantages to continue and promoting genetic advantages, so 
there's a broader range of genetic variance. Hell, in this century, even 
_I_ can have children and raise them to child bearing age...  :-)

But increasingly, our greatest assets are our minds.  (tried and true 
example follows) How long would Stephen Hawking have lived even a 
hundred years ago?

Essentially, I agree with you, but I think that the advantages of 
allowing more minds to survive has (at least) neutralized the 
disadvantages of allowing genetic disadvantages to survive.

Doug

Pure speculation though.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:

But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?


Then, its not really evolution.
So once we become aware we are evolving, we stop evolving?

As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the
greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any
native group.  The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans
because of their power.
But, as someone else pointed out, their behavior put them in a poor 
position to compete with the Europeans.



In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to
be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before
they succeeded.  Evolution.


That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history
and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in
that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after
national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War
was not a certainty.
I was thinking of stuff like the emergence of a form of democracy in 
ancient Greece...

What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant
system is, by definition, moral.  If totalitarian systems had won, or
eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral? 
But that's a non sequitur because that type of system, though it 
continues to emerge, continues to fail.  It's like saying in biological 
evolution, if, under normal circumstances, a clearly inferior design had 
"won" over an inferior one.

This isn't to say that there are  extraordinary cases where a less moral 
system has advantages over a more moral one - suspending rights during 
(a real) war might be an example, but those are the exceptions, not the 
rule.

 If your worst
nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you
immoral if you are not Christian.  Does might make right?
You see, you are trying to foist moral relativism on me and that isn't 
what this argument is about.  Looking at one particular system that may 
or may not be dominant at any given time doesn't determine what is moral 
and what is not.  It is the trend over time _what_works_ that determines 
our morals.

The argument given above indicates that this is true.  My argument is, that
some things are immoral, even if they prove successful.  It was wrong to
treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country
is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior.  Would you argue,
by definition, it was right?
You aren't looking at the big picture.  I don't think that you would 
argue that any successful system in our past was free of immoral 
elements would you?  What I see and you apparently don't is that the 
morals of a thousand years ago and the systems that used them are 
clearly inferior to those of today.

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[pencimen]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to
> > evolution:  success?
> 
> No.  Purpose presupposes intent.  There is no intent in the
> happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated
> machines survive and self-replicate better than others.
> 
> We attribute intent to other systems through a mechanism that is a
> metaphorical extension of a quality we perceive in ourselves.

Hmmm, I was going to give in and say you are correct, but after
thinking about it a bit I wondered why the urges to survive and
reproduce colud not be considered intent even if they are subconcious.  

Doug

Still no [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail server.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Robert J. Chassell]

> Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to
> evolution:  success?

No.  Purpose presupposes intent.  There is no intent in the
happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated
machines survive and self-replicate better than others.

We attribute intent to other systems through a mechanism that is a
metaphorical extension of a quality we perceive in ourselves.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com  GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Religion based ethics


> Dan Minette wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?
> >
> >
> > Not really.  Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is.
>
> Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution:
> success?

In the same sense that the purpose of gravity is falling, but that's
streatches the meaning of purpose.

> The
> > survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best.  In
particular,
> > fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the
nature of
> > the fittest can be somewhat random.
>
> But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are
> actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?

Then, its not really evolution.


> An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that
> adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately
> recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it.
>
> An animal is not aware of the social "laws" that guide its behavior, but
> a human is not only able to see short term benefits of social behaviors,
> but he is able to 1) compare those behaviors with those of other groups
> and 2) compare those behaviors with past behaviors.  Aberrant behaviors
> may have short term success, but as in your Native American example,
> eventually end in failure.

Every behavior by the Native Americans ended in failure.  The Euroepeans
simply took the land as they willed.  The result was a vast and powerful
European country in the Americas.  It became the super power of the world.

As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the
greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any
native group.  The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans
because of their power.

>In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to
> be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before
> they succeeded.  Evolution.

That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history
and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in
that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after
national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War
was not a certainty.

What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant
system is, by definition, moral.  If totalitarian systems had won, or
eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral?  If your worst
nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you
immoral if you are not Christian.  Does might make right?

The argument given above indicates that this is true.  My argument is, that
some things are immoral, even if they prove successful.  It was wrong to
treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country
is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior.  Would you argue,
by definition, it was right?

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Russell Chapman]

Doug Pensinger wrote:

But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are 
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?

An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that 
adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can 
immediately recognize what and why it is successful and continue to 
build upon it.
Not really, because we also hinder it at the same time - handicapped 
people who would never have had the chance to pass on the damaged genes 
in past millenia are now at no disadvantage in terms of conceiving and 
raising a child. If anything, we are increasing the randomness by 
allowing disadvantages to continue and promoting genetic advantages, so 
there's a broader range of genetic variance. Hell, in this century, even 
_I_ can have children and raise them to child bearing age...  :-)

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?


Not really.  Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is.  
Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution: 
success?

The
survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best.  In particular,
fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of
the fittest can be somewhat random.
But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are 
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?

An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that 
adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately 
recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it.

An animal is not aware of the social "laws" that guide its behavior, but 
a human is not only able to see short term benefits of social behaviors, 
but he is able to 1) compare those behaviors with those of other groups 
and 2) compare those behaviors with past behaviors.  Aberrant behaviors 
may have short term success, but as in your Native American example, 
eventually end in failure.  In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to 
be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before 
they succeeded.  Evolution.  No mumbo jumbo required.

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Religion based ethics


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone
with
> > his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics.  It was one of his
> > greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation
for
> > ethics.  It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he
accepted
> > that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview.
> >
> > Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets.  There's
an
> > atheist with his eyes open.  I respectfully differ with his position,
but
> > he certainly has strong integrity.
> >
>
> Let me ask you this, Dan.  If morals/ethics are purely a matter of
> faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant?

The fundamental rules that I follow have been constant for at least 2000
years.  The application has changed.  Peter Gomes writes an excellent
analysis of this in "The Good Book"  He argues for applying Biblical
principals, not practices. Practice and interpretation of basic principals
are also included in scripture, but one does not have to conform to
practice.  One of the great things about his argument is that he starts
out by showing how the temperance movement (a relatively conservative
movement by the 20th century) is consistent with an interpretation of
scriptural principals, even though Jesus drank wine.

>   Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the
> subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now?

The scriptural answer was "because your fathers were hard of heart."
Another way to look at it is seeing us as growing in understanding.
Further, there are changes in the world that changes the morality of a
given action.  For example, child labor was inherently moral when the
inherent results of pulling children from the labor pool was to reduce

> We are discussing gay marriage in another thread.  Is it unethical in
> your opinion?

No, it is not.  I think that the Christians who are opposed to this are not
basing their arguments on biblical principals.  I think that they are
guided by an earlier understanding of natural law. I think that this
understanding is flawed and should be perceived as opposed to fundamental
biblical principals.


> I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?

Not really.  Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is.  The
survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best.  In particular,
fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of
the fittest can be somewhat random.

Yes, of course, there are some things, such as eyes, which are almost
inevitable along many branches of evolution.  But, there are many things
that survived for reasons that can best be described as luck. I don't the
nature of morality is a function of chance.

In addition, by this definition, might is right.  For example, if the
Soviet Union had won the Cold War, then an uncontrolled press would have
been immoral.

If you think that morality is just the rules of the prevailing culture,
then this is probably a self consistent viewpoint.  But, then you would
have to say that all that prevents the viewpoint that it is immoral for
women to live as men's equals from being true is the military and economic
power of the US.  I don't think this is your viewpoint, but I'm not quite
sure what it is.


Dan M.




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Religion based ethics

[Nick Arnett]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger

...

> That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science
> experiment.

I don't think that's a logical conclusion.  The point is that solving one
mystery, such as the origin of species, doesn't eliminate all mystery.

> Do you think maybe he coded Stalin and Hitler in to see
> what would happen?  How about the AIDS virus - some kind of debugging
> tool?  I apologize for being a bit harsh, but if the creator is so
> intelligent that he can "code" an evolutionary species, why are there so
> many truly horrific bugs?

That is certainly a difficult question, but it's not one that science can
deal with at all, since it is a "why" question rather than a "how."  If we
were created as described in the Bible, it is our free will that allows us
to do evil things.  As for the "freedom" of viruses and such, that's a much
tougher question, as far as I'm concerned, but it has to do with the "fallen
world" metaphor.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Reggie Bautista wrote:

Depends on what exactly you mean by our morals evolving.

Some would say that right and wrong haven't changed, but our 
understanding of right and wrong has, just as gravity has been the same 
for the past 12 billion years but our understanding of gravity has changed.

So by "our morals evolving," do you mean that our understanding of right 
and wrong have gotten closer to the truth, or do you mean that right and 
wrong have changed?
Right and wrong might well change as a result of a change in 
environment, just as physical attributes that are well adapted for one 
environment become obsolete when that environment changes radically.  In 
the short term, we see modified versions of right and wrong when we are 
threatened either individually or as a unit.  Deadly force is sanctioned 
if your home is invaded.  We inter suspected terrorists in gross 
violation of our own standards because they have threatened our security 
(not saying that's right, but it is being tolerated).

So yes, I do not believe that morals/ethics are static.

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Nick Arnett wrote:
Doug wrote:

I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?
The existence of evolution, whether in biology, morality or whatever,
doesn't rule out the existence of God, does it?
No, not necessarily, but it trumps the need for any kind of faith to 
understand morality.

Who is the more intelligent creator, the one who creates things that cannot
evolve, or the one who creates those that can?  As a programmer, I'm quite
sure that writing evolutionary code is a lot harder than writing the static
kind.
That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science 
experiment.  Do you think maybe he coded Stalin and Hitler in to see 
what would happen?  How about the AIDS virus - some kind of debugging 
tool?  I apologize for being a bit harsh, but if the creator is so 
intelligent that he can "code" an evolutionary species, why are there so 
many truly horrific bugs?

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Reggie Bautista]

Doug wrote:
I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?
Depends on what exactly you mean by our morals evolving.

Some would say that right and wrong haven't changed, but our understanding 
of right and wrong has, just as gravity has been the same for the past 12 
billion years but our understanding of gravity has changed.

So by "our morals evolving," do you mean that our understanding of right and 
wrong have gotten closer to the truth, or do you mean that right and wrong 
have changed?

Reggie Bautista

_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Religion based ethics

[Nick Arnett]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger

...

> Let me ask you this, Dan.  If morals/ethics are purely a matter of
> faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant?
>   Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the
> subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now?
> We are discussing gay marriage in another thread.  Is it unethical in
> your opinion?

They change for the same reason that the rules change for children as they
grow up -- the same reason that the U.S. Constitution is different from the
Magna Carta and the Code of Hammurabi.

> I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?

The existence of evolution, whether in biology, morality or whatever,
doesn't rule out the existence of God, does it?

Who is the more intelligent creator, the one who creates things that cannot
evolve, or the one who creates those that can?  As a programmer, I'm quite
sure that writing evolutionary code is a lot harder than writing the static
kind.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:

One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with
his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics.  It was one of his
greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for
ethics.  It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted
that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview.
Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets.  There's an
atheist with his eyes open.  I respectfully differ with his position, but
he certainly has strong integrity.
Let me ask you this, Dan.  If morals/ethics are purely a matter of 
faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? 
 Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the 
subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? 
We are discussing gay marriage in another thread.  Is it unethical in 
your opinion?

I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you?

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[William T Goodall]

On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 07:24  pm, Dan Minette wrote:

I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've 
been
comments on me ducking the issue.  I am more than happy to discuss it; 
its
just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it.
Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says
nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional
assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must
be treated in such and such ways'.
Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is
nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are 
simply
called valuable.


The analogy is closer to
1) Man is made in God's image = This is a $100 bill
2) 'those created in the image and likeness'... = $100 bills are 
valuable.


 I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and
likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is
nothing at all wrong with harming them.
Sorry, but I don't see how the limitations of your imagination 
constitute an argument.


So you might as well ditch the
'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be
treated in such and such ways' part.  God is a redundant assumption
that adds nothing to the line of argument.
No, not really.
Yes, really.

To me, the real question/the real dividing point is
whether one accepts the transcendental.  Once one does this, one is 
arguing
theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the 
foundation
of all existence or as non-self aware principals.  I certainly will not
claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing 
out
having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the
foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication.
So you don't have an argument then?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so 
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping 
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Religion based ethics

[Dan Minette]

I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been
comments on me ducking the issue.  I am more than happy to discuss it; its
just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it.
>Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says
>nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional
>assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must
>be treated in such and such ways'.

Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is
nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are simply
called valuable.  I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and
likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is
nothing at all wrong with harming them.

>So you might as well ditch the
>'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be
>treated in such and such ways' part.  God is a redundant assumption
>that adds nothing to the line of argument.

No, not really.  To me, the real question/the real dividing point is
whether one accepts the transcendental.  Once one does this, one is arguing
theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the foundation
of all existence or as non-self aware principals.  I certainly will not
claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing out
having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the
foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication.

> I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that
> argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must
> be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its
> usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened
>enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us.

Its amazing that such a large number of folks arguing with theists argue
against a 6th graders understanding of God.  Why, if you are so sure of
your position, don't you consider the understanding of God put forth by
serious adults?

For me, the question of God is not fear of punishment if I break the rules.
It's a more being out of sync with Truth and Good when I do wrong.  I
really worry little about heaven and hell, but worry a good deal about how
my actions jib with actually living out love.




>Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest
>argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open,
>rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing
>boogey-men?

What constitutes having their eyes open?  It certainly is not pretending
that morality comes from genetics, since we have inherent tendencies to do
both immoral and moral things.  Rather, it comes from accepting the
implications of one's position.  One of the reasons I enjoyed Weinberg's
arguments in a recent discussion in Houston on God and science is that he
readily acknowledged the difficult conclusions that could be derived from
his position.  He regretted, but accepted, the unpleasant consequences of
atheism, rather than waving his arms and pretending that could eliminate
them.

One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with
his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics.  It was one of his
greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for
ethics.  It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted
that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview.

Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets.  There's an
atheist with his eyes open.  I respectfully differ with his position, but
he certainly has strong integrity.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Medical Ethics (was: Re: Child abuse)

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2003 at 22:20, Steve Sloan II wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote [with some snippage]:
> > 
> > > Frex, would I advocate killing... a comatose
>victim who best medical judgement
> > > and experience calls "essentially terminal?" No.
> Would I advise withholding nutrition and drugs,
>except what seemed needful for comfort? Yes... 
> > 
> > Is starving that patient any more ethical than
> administering
> > a comparatively quick and painless lethal
> injection? ...but the idea of slowly starving that
> > patient -- even with drugs to prevent him from
> feeling the
> > pain of starvation -- makes me feel pretty
> squeamish.
> 
> I don't see how it can be called ethical, no.

Withholding interventions which are only prolonging
the process of dying (we are discussing a terminal
patient; one of the many duties of primary clinicians
is to bring up the necessity of considering "living
will" status, particularly in a still-competent
person) is not unethical to most clinicians.  Those,
whose religious beliefs *do* make it unethical not to
fight to the very last breath, either turn their
living-will-holding patients over to others (since
refusing treatment is the prerogative of a competent
adult), or have patients with the same outlook/belief.
 
> Let's say that my differences with "conventional"
> medical "ethics" 
> are a LARGE part of the reason why I gave up being a
> genetics 
> student. (and yes, I *DO* feel I wasted over two
> years of my life studying it. There we go..)


There is certainly a lot of compromise involved in
medicine, much as we would it were otherwise.  My
current hiatus in clinical practice is also due to my
beliefs/ethics; I'm sorry that you feel your study was
a waste - but I can empathize.

Debbi
who nevertheless hopes to return to the fray, when recovered

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l