Re: Morality

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:14 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:


I have a head full of cotton wool, and lovely luminous mucous. I love
colds, me.

Charlie



I recall one such bout of the flu where at the time I was enjoying 
similar systems I also had occasion to do a fairly large paste-up job 
using rubber cement.  When the rubber cement jar had been open for a 
few minutes and it had lost a little of the solvent and so gotten a 
little opaque and colored there was a startling resemblance in both 
visual appearance and consistency between the rubber cement and what 
I had to stop every few minutes and go out into the hall (away from 
the other people I was working with) and blow large quantities of out 
of my nose . . .



-- Ronn!  :)



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

Re: Morality

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, jdiebremse wrote:



I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.


I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a "you're  
wrong... no, you are" type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.


As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other  
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point  
and laugh" or whatever. Well, some do, but some of us are genuinely  
interested in having a discussion, and that means trying to cast both  
the best and the worst lights on the positions of others at various  
times in order to understand them.


Charlie


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

RE: Morality

[Ritu]

Charlie Bell wrote:

> I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a 
> "you're  
> wrong... no, you are" type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
> 
> As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other  
> than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point  
> and laugh" or whatever. 

That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of
'One and Only True Way', doesn't it?

Sniff.

I thought as much...

Ritu
GCU Talking of sniffs, how is your cold?

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

Re: Morality

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 2:51 PM, Ritu wrote:



As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point
and laugh" or whatever.


That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of
'One and Only True Way', doesn't it?


Not necessarily. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. By  
saying "I'm an atheist", it's already said there that I think that  
those who still believe in a god or gods are wrong. So what's the  
point of repeating that, or saying it other ways? "I'm right, you're  
wrong" isn't helpful. But there are plenty of other things to say.





Sniff.

I thought as much...

Ritu
GCU Talking of sniffs, how is your cold?


I have a head full of cotton wool, and lovely luminous mucous. I love  
colds, me.


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

RE: Morality

[Ritu]

Charlie wrote:

> >> As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all 
> religion other 
> >> than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point 
> >> and laugh" or whatever.
> >
> > That means that it would be rude to say anything about the 
> notion of 
> > 'One and Only True Way', doesn't it?
> 
> Not necessarily. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:

I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of personal
wishes and comfort as anything else. Moving on to religion in
particular, I think that the notion of 'One and Only True Way' is as
much of a dangerous fallacy when applied to theological matters as it is
when applied to inter-cultural matters. We humans are too different in
too many ways too ever subscribe to a uniformity of ideas in any field.
If God exists, I expect Her to realise that.

Of course, none of the above is surprising given my society and
upbringing. :)

> I have a head full of cotton wool, and lovely luminous 
> mucous. I love  
> colds, me.

Aww, poor you! Well, you'll feel better tonight...

Ritu
GCU Have Fun

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

Re: Morality

[Richard Baker]

JDG said:

> I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
> true and another might actually be wrong.

I'm clearly not neglecting that possibility and in fact in this thread
have been fairly open to it. However, nobody has yet presented me with a
criterion for deciding which one is true if one in fact is. Why, for
example, Christianity rather than, say, Atenism?

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

Re: Morality

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:



Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:

I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this  
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of  
personal

wishes and comfort as anything else.


I disagree - atheism is a perfectly rational position. There are many  
forms of god espoused, many religions, and none seem to have any more  
authority than any others. It just seems to depend where you're born  
on which you get told is true. So it's not such a leap to think that  
they're *all* stories. Plenty of good life lessons and moral issues  
taught through those stories, but just stories nevertheless.


Of course, none of the above is surprising given my society and
upbringing. :)


Indeed not.




I have a head full of cotton wool, and lovely luminous
mucous. I love
colds, me.


Aww, poor you! Well, you'll feel better tonight...

Ritu
GCU Have Fun


Ta!

Charlie
Wrong List Postscripts Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 8 Sep 2006, at 4:27PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:



Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:

I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this  
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of  
personal

wishes and comfort as anything else.


I disagree - atheism is a perfectly rational position. There are  
many forms of god espoused, many religions, and none seem to have  
any more authority than any others. It just seems to depend where  
you're born on which you get told is true. So it's not such a leap  
to think that they're *all* stories. Plenty of good life lessons  
and moral issues taught through those stories, but just stories  
nevertheless.



Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true

Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.

True/False/Haggis Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian  
Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows  
development team.



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

RE: Morality

[Horn, John]

> On Behalf Of William T Goodall

> Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism : 
> Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
> 
> Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.

Am I the only one who read this and thought, "huh?"  Can you parse
that out for me...?

 - jmh


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 
the original message.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 8 Sep 2006, at 5:23PM, Horn, John wrote:


On Behalf Of William T Goodall



Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true

Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.


Am I the only one who read this and thought, "huh?"  Can you parse
that out for me...?




Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.

In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true  
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).



--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy  
to kiss. - David Brin


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

Re: Morality

[Alberto Monteiro]

William T Goodall wrote:
> 
> Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
> Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
> 
Hmmm... No. I think:

Agnosticism: ~Believe (God(s) exist) is true &&
  ~Believe (God(s) exist) is ~true.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Morality

[David Hobby]

William T Goodall wrote:
...

Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.

In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true 
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).


William--

But "normal" binary logic is not used much in the real
world, where there tend to be many other possible truth
values.  The difference between agnosticism and atheism
is a good example of why binary logic is not universally
applicable.

---David

Intuitionist Logic,  Maru


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

RE: Morality

[Horn, John]

> On Behalf Of David Hobby
> 
> William T Goodall wrote:
> ...
> > Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
> > Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
> > 
> > In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent 
> since ~true 
> > (NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).

> But "normal" binary logic is not used much in the real world, 
> where there tend to be many other possible truth values.  The 
> difference between agnosticism and atheism is a good example 
> of why binary logic is not universally applicable.

I'd more say that the first line is not correct, not that binary
logic is incorrect.  I think a better statement would be that
"Agnostics don't know if God(s) exist."  Or at least as best as you
can generalize into a single statement a whole range of beliefs.

 - jmh


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 
the original message.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Morality

[Richard Baker]

William said:


Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true


I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better  
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)  
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.


Erudite discussion of the relationship between the latter position  
and Godel's incompleteness theorems is left as an exercise to for the  
reader.


Rich

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

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:


William said:


Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true
Atheism : Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true


I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better  
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s)  
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.


They *could* mean that of course, and perhaps some do. That's rather  
a difficult position to hew to consistently though and most agnostics  
don't seem to.


Porridge Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/


"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."   --  
Ken Olson, President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment  
Corp., 1977



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

Re: Morality

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:



Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.


Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or  
disprove a deity...



Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.


...whereas atheists disbelieve in a deity.

Both of these may be held simultaneously without logical fallacy.

Some atheists go further and actively believe in a lack of deities.

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

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 9 Sep 2006, at 12:44AM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:



Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.


Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or  
disprove a deity...


Or unknowable which isn't the same thing.




Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.


...whereas atheists disbelieve in a deity.

Both of these may be held simultaneously without logical fallacy.

Some atheists go further and actively believe in a lack of deities.


Theists believe in a deity and some go further and assert they  
actually exist.


Words Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"if the bible proves the existence of god, then superman comics prove  
the existence of superman" - Usenet


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

Re: Morality

[David Hobby]

William T Goodall wrote:


On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:

...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better 
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God(s) 
exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.


They *could* mean that of course, and perhaps some do. That's rather a 
difficult position to hew to consistently though and most agnostics 
don't seem to.


Porridge Maru
--William T Goodall


William--

Difficult as it may be to think that whether or not god(s)
exist is unknown, I'd say that is what agnostics do.  If
you want to be picky, they say they do not know personally.

---David

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

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 9 Sep 2006, at 1:55AM, David Hobby wrote:


William T Goodall wrote:

On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:51PM, Richard Baker wrote:

...
I think you're wrong on the former. In my opinion, a better  
characterisation is that agnostics think the truth value of {God 
(s) exist} is either unknown or possibly even unknowable.
They *could* mean that of course, and perhaps some do. That's  
rather a difficult position to hew to consistently though and most  
agnostics don't seem to.

Porridge Maru
--William T Goodall


William--

Difficult as it may be to think that whether or not god(s)
exist is unknown, I'd say that is what agnostics do.  If
you want to be picky, they say they do not know personally.


If they don't "know personally" that would be weak atheism. The terms  
have overlapping boundaries but in practise agnostics all seem to be  
weak atheists.


There are three words covering at least five stances on the issue.

Knowable/true
Knowable/false
Unknowable/true
Unknowable/false
Unknowable/meaningless


Then you get into epistemology :->

For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.

Terminological inexactitude Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door  
you're on.



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

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 9 Sep 2006, at 2:36AM, William T Goodall wrote:



For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.


That's a heuristic of course.

Assumptions Maru
--  
William T Goodall

Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely  
ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz  
Stern,  professor emeritus of history at Columbia



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

RE: Morality

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:23 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Horn, John wrote:

> On Behalf Of William T Goodall

> Agnosticism : ~Believe {God(s) exist} is true Atheism :
> Believe {God(s) exist} is ~true
>
> Which are equivalent in a two-valued logic system.

Am I the only one who read this and thought, "huh?"  Can you parse
that out for me...?



"~" is a logical NOT, if that helps.


-- Ronn!  :)



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

Re: Morality

[Andrew Crystall]

On 9 Sep 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:

> For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.

So you reject quantum theory entirely? Interesting.

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

Re: Morality

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/8/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).


And in normal SQL logic, there is NULL, TRUE and FALSE.  But if you
imagine we are just computers, no wonder you won't make room for
faith.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Morality

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:


And in normal SQL logic, there is NULL, TRUE and FALSE.  But if you
imagine we are just computers, no wonder you won't make room for
faith.


NULL values are the work of the Devil!

Rich
GCU One Line Reply

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

Re: Morality

[Dave Land]

On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/8/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In normal binary logic (true/false) these are equivalent since ~true
(NOT true) = false (and ~false = true).


And in normal SQL logic, there is NULL, TRUE and FALSE.  But if you
imagine we are just computers, no wonder you won't make room for
faith.


And you completely ignore "truthiness".

Dave


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

Re: Morality

[William T Goodall]

On 9 Sep 2006, at 12:51PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:


On 9 Sep 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:


For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false.


So you reject quantum theory entirely? Interesting.


I'm quite happy with the 'shut up and calculate' part. It's those  
wacky ontologies I don't have patience with.


Many Cats Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their  
zombie master.



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

Re: Morality

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> JDG said:
>
> > I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually
be
> > true and another might actually be wrong.
>
> I'm clearly not neglecting that possibility and in fact in this thread
> have been fairly open to it. However, nobody has yet presented me with
a
> criterion for deciding which one is true if one in fact is. Why, for
> example, Christianity rather than, say, Atenism?


Well, its probably necessary to go back to your original post here:

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ,
"Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of
the
> > transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are
believed
> > by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality
that
> > exists apart from our perception.
>
> But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're
discussing
> which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are
> transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have
> different positions on what those truths actually are. So far as I can
> tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that
> of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the
> "general sentiments of society") or an argument from what makes you
feel
> all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some
> of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy
> feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to
> opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of
> those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the
transcendental.


You argue that the existence of a "universal truth" is "an especially
useless position" - or at least, that is  how I read your post.   To
support your argument, you cite the fact that two different people can
claim the existence of universal truth, while holding mutually
contradictory positions.   Say, for example, Christianity and Atenism.

My point, however, is that:

Given the existence of universal truth, I don't see how the number "n"
of people who fail to recognize and accept that universal truth is at
all relevant.   After all, that universal truth is, by definition,
universally true.


JDG

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

Re: Morality

[Richard Baker]

JDG said:


Given the existence of universal truth, I don't see how the number "n"
of people who fail to recognize and accept that universal truth is at
all relevant.   After all, that universal truth is, by definition,
universally true.


Yes, indeed. But Dan was specifically talking about transcendental  
truths. If we have no way to determine those truths, and thus no way  
to act on them, then they're of no use to us whatsoever. So far,  
nobody has presented me with an acceptable criterion for a moral  
assertion to be true, let alone for something like "God exists" to be  
true.


Rich

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

Re: Morality is just self interest?

[ValdivielsoB]

Interesting...

I want the world to be a better place because I want it to be around by the 
time my nephews are old enough to take over.  Haha.

I must say, that before my brother and sister-in-law started to produce kids, 
I was worried about the future of the world, but not as much as now.  I worry 
about the future of the nation's parks, nuclear power, the seas and what 
books should I save, that might be out of print by the time they start reading at 
such levels.
I worry about the school system, the food they will have available and what 
is the best way for them to take over: mind control , death ray or some kind of 
weather control?

Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved.  I, myself, don't plan 
to have kids so maybe I am nothing more then a beta male helping the rest of 
the family to protect the young and help pass on our genes?  Or is it a higher 
sense of purpose that only mankind holds within?

Do I worry about my fellow man because I want there to be a fair and clean 
world for my nephews?

Mike V.

"You can't get us all, Hercules," someone called from his left.
"Some of us, though," another answered nervously.
"But not all," the first one insisted.
-By the Sword- by Timothy Boggs.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Morality is just self interest?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:49:49PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:

> This was clearly in the best interest of the Iroquois, but not the
> slaughtered tribes, nor humanity in general.  Yet, it was a perfectly
> rational act, if you assume the Iroquois acted in the self interest of
> their own tribe.

Until they got slaughtered in turn by a stronger "tribe". Not so
rational, after all. Perhaps if they had cooperated with the other
tribes, they (collectively) would have been much stronger when the
Europeans arrived, and could have negotiated a peace from a position of
strength.

> Fine, but again, that misses the question at hand.  The question is it
> better for person X if X behaves in a given manner.  Self interest,
> pretty well by definition, looks myopically at what benefits one
> person: oneself.

Then we are arguing semantics. What I mean by self-interest is what
is best for oneself in the long-term. If you want, I will call that
long-term-self-interest since I don't want to argue semantics.

> To use your language, the question at hand is "if one considers their
> own self interest only in a myopic fashion, why worry about others?"

Frequently not much reason to. Why only consider
short-term-self-interest?

> So, are you agreeing that the progress is inconsistent with people acting
> only in their own self interest?

Yes, short-term-self-interest.

>  This seems to refute the contention that cooperation is reducible to
> enlightened self interest.

No, long-term-self-interest.

> That's an interesting question, and one that would take an L5
> post...but I'm not sure how it relates to the question of whether
> morality can be shown to be derived from self interest.

I explain a huge chunk of it by "free" markets, capitalism and rule of
law (including property laws). Once you set up such a system, individual
greed and long-term-self-interest of groups are forced to overlap quite
a bit. You have both competition and cooperation at the same time. This
is the most efficient system in history for progress in our mastery of
the world.

> But, no reasonable person would think that.  Even if they are willing,
> what are the odds of them being in a position to do that?  Even if
> you assume that the risks of death assumed by someone going door
> to door in a smoke filled building (to the point where they had
> to be hospitalized) is only 1%, one can clearly see by looking at
> the frequency of life threatening fires, the mobility of people,
> the number of people that he saved, etc, that it was not a cost
> effective strategy.  If, for example, you were to have a game theory
> with multiple scenarios during which people would either act in
> their immediate self interest, or act in a manner that helped others
> immediately and stored good will for the future, it would be a no
> brainer to run as fast as possible in this scenario.  One would just
> do the numbers, and program accordingly.

No one BUT reasonable people would think that. There are many other
scenarios than fires where this behavior will come up. The group
benefits by cooperation in a huge variety of situations.

> This certainly excludes the widows and orphan problem.  It also
> excludes slaughtering people and taking their land. Further, it
> excludes using military power to set up an unequal system; to maintain
> oneself in power.  In short, it excludes many/most situations where
> morality comes into play.

It is a simple model. More work is required, but the results are highly
suggestive.


> From my perspective, you are so sure that faith is bad, even when it
> proves beneficial, when the benefit is tangible and measurable, it is
> still bad because it is at odds with your metaphysics.

No, it is bad because it does not prove beneficial, overall. The bad
outweighs the good.

> You and I made very different types of statements.  When I say I
> believe in something; I acknowledge that there is no proof; no
> empirical basis.  You claim an empirical basis for morality: it is
> the behavior that occurs when someone pursues their enlightened self
> interest because harming others harms oneself. So, where we differ is
> that you believe a number of things that are not derivable from the
> empirical;

Wrong, they are verifiable. Just not easily. This is far better than
your baloney which is DESIGNED to be unverifiable. If someone comes
along with a system that is better than mine (one example, if it is more
easily verifiable), than I am certainly flexible.

> Indeed, what you posts indicate as your basic metaphysical position:
> strong realism, needs a lot of contortions to be at all consistent
> with experimental results of modern physics collected over the last
> century.

No contortions are required. You seem to be confusing the mental
gymanstics required for your position with that of others.

> Right now the best realistic interpretation of modern physics assumes
> that there is a rich infinity of inherently undetectable universes
> that contain a 

Re: Morality is just self interest?

[Julia Thompson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved.  I, myself, don't plan
> to have kids so maybe I am nothing more then a beta male helping the rest of
> the family to protect the young and help pass on our genes?  Or is it a higher
> sense of purpose that only mankind holds within?
> 
> Do I worry about my fellow man because I want there to be a fair and clean
> world for my nephews?

If you're not planning on reproducing, the members of the next
generation sharing the greatest percentage of your genes are those
nephews, so it's in the best interests of your genes to do what you can
for those boys.  If their arrival into the world triggered your interest
in what happens to the next generation, that seems logical from a
genocentric point of view.  Yes?

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

Re: Morality is just self interest?

[Robert J. Chassell]

> Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved.  ...  Do
> I worry about my fellow man because I want there to be a fair
> and clean world for my nephews?

Roy Rappaport pointed out, in `Ritual and Religion in the Making of
Humanity', which I am reading right now, 

... whatever may be the case among other species, group selection
(selection for the perpetuation of traits tending to contribute
positively to the survival of the groups in which they occur but
negatively to the survival of the particular individuals in
possession of them) is not only possible among humans but of great
importantance in humanity's evolution.  All that is needed to make
group selection possible is a device that leads individuals to
separate their conceptions of well-being or advantage from
bilogical survival.  Notions such as God, Heaven, Hell, heroism,
honor, shame, fatherland and democracy encoded in procedures of
enculturation that represent them as factual, natural, public, or
sacred (and, therefore, compelling) have dominated every culture
for which we possess ethnographic or historical knowledge.

page 10

So perhaps it is not your pre-humanity that is affecting you, but your
humanity.

-- 
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: Morality is just self interest?

[Dan Minette]

I'm going to focus on one answer that relates to a post of Doug for now.


- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Morality is just self interest?


> On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:49:49PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:



> > This was clearly in the best interest of the Iroquois, but not the
> > slaughtered tribes, nor humanity in general.  Yet, it was a perfectly
> > rational act, if you assume the Iroquois acted in the self interest of
> > their own tribe.

> Until they got slaughtered in turn by a stronger "tribe". Not so
> rational, after all. Perhaps if they had cooperated with the other
> tribes, they (collectively) would have been much stronger when the
> Europeans arrived, and could have negotiated a peace from a position of
> strength.

Well that's an interesting hypothesis.  I realize that history cannot be
tested experimentally, but I do not consider it meaningless. So, it is
important to me to realize that they  were strong when the Europeans
arrived.  Indeed,  amazingly they  were able to maintain their strength, as
the first nation of the six nations, for over 100 years (from before 1650
to the Revolutionary War).  This was in spite of the ravaging of their
nation by disease imported by the Europeans.

Part of this is attributed, to the "adoption" of some of their slaves, to
keep their numbers up in the face of disease.  Some slaves became junior
members of the tribe.  It was found that slaves with no home tribe were
especially ameanable to such identity changes...which reiforced the
massacre of tribes from which they had slaves.

They were well known and received a measure of respect from the Europeans.
Indeed, one of the documents studied before the writing of the US
constitution was the Iriquois constitution.

They were fairly unique in how they were treated as "players" by the
Europeans.  I can think of no other example of Native Americans in North
America retaining a reasonable amount of power with respect to the
Europeans for so long.  If you wish to remark that this is just a function
of my poor memory, then I'd invite you to show a counter example.

Dan M.




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

Re: Morality Redux (was: Br!n something-Neocon-or-other)

[Gary Denton]

All very good points as usual.

Gary D.

On 5/6/05, Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I'm short on time, in-between lessons, but want to tie
> up a few of the multiple loose ends from my last post
> - I'll get to actual replies if it rains (ooh, being
> egotistical in assuming that there _are_ responses
> required! ).
> 
> I was surprised to find that morality and ethics were
> nearly interchangable according to my Oxford's
> Unabridged (c. ~1996); 'ethics' was considered more
> applicable in the context of professions, but each
> word was used in defining the other. I kind of
> thought that ethics was 'more' defined. That said, I
> must agree with those who state that morality is
> culturally-based, rather than an Absolute. The idea
> that morality has evolved as larger and larger groups
> are acknowledged to be People (family -> village/tribe
> -> city-state/tribal confederation -> nation -> race
> -> gender --> non-humans?) seems particularly apt.
> 
> While I try to live my life as a 'moral and upright'
> person, I do think that being trained as a physician
> pushed me to look for more demonstrable reasons to do
> - or not do - certain things. Of course I realize
> that science itself is susceptible to trends, slanting
> and even fads, but it's a little less corruptible than
> "...because God told me this!" (Or maybe it just
> really hacks me off to be told that somebody else has
> The Whole Truth...)
> 
> Back to clarify my response to one of Gautam's points
> (IIRC): so morality can be _a_ reason to do/not do,
> but if it is _the_ reason, it needs to be "above
> reproach" (I think Nick said something along that
> line). Paying small attention to what motivates other
> governments WRT what the US should do/not do is
> presumptuously arrogant; OTOH, wanting the US to be
> morally superior in all its actions is also arrogant,
> maybe even more so? ...so I'm guilty of the latter.
> 
> WRT Sudan (I know that was another thread, but I can't
> find that post right now), allowing the killing to
> continue is wrong; so B pushing the UN/others to take
> action is good and necessary, because the US cannot do
> it alone, given military resources stretched so thin.
> 
> WRT Iraq, if Bush had stated that the US was morally
> obliged to do something because of past US government
> actions which helped Saddam stay in power/didn't get
> rid of him sooner, I might actually have to agree with
> that.
> 
> As Dan said, doing nothing is an option, but it
> requires you to acknowledge that you have at least a
> partial responsibility for whatever ill results. It's
> moot now, but before GWII began, I and others thought
> that enforced inspections were a decent compromise
> between 'sanctions as usual' and flat-out war; I said
> something about 'the hammer of US troops hovering just
> across the border' as proper incentive. At the time,
> some said that 'keeping troops standing around in the
> desert summer' was not viable; yet I note that US
> troops have actively patrolled/fought through two
> summers, with another fast approaching.
> 
> Debbi
> It's Not All-Or-Nothing Maru
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l