Ethics (was Re: Science and Ideals.)
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
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
Ethics L3
- 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 cynical) to take it as a literal fact. Or at least one that's applicable 100% of the time. My view is that Post Modernism as a philosophical system is very problematic, and significantly inferior to modernistic philosophies. But, as a cautionary caveat to modernism, it can be quite useful. It's true that right and wrong can be twisted to use as political toolsbut that doesn't mean that Gautam's actions were political
Re: Ethics L3
[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 find earned
Machiavellian Ethics: Fertility Slavery, Mortality, Morality and the State
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001620.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ethics
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: Ethics
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
Re: Ethics (and morals, and free will)
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=Retrievedb=pubmeddopt=Abstractlist_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 seems to me the rudiments of free will. *in that it builds partnership, rather than forcing the animal to do or not do something We know that mother-love has a neurochemical component, as does pack-bonding, i.e. has been selected for evolutionarily; it only seems logical to me that at least some of the basis for what we call 'morality
Re: Religion based ethics
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
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
--- 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
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 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
- 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
- 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
-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
-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 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 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 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
Religion based ethics
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
Re: Religion based ethics
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
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? 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
