> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:59 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. > > Dan M wrote: > > > > > No, actually, I believe that there exists truth apart from us. > > > Which, with the absence of any evidence, is akin to magic, but you missed > my > point entirely.
Well, I guess it depends on what you base your understanding of evidence on, and to what degree you accept science when it counters common sense. I would hope that, if I give the results of extremely well verified theories of science (e.g. theories that give precise results over many orders of magnitude (IIRC the range is > 10^20) that you will accept such theories as valid, and common sense understandings that contradict them as limited. That, if there is a conflict between the two, you would side with science vs. common sense. An example of this is the fact that evolution shows that the order in nature does not prove the existence of a creator, > > That we have > There is no constant, absolute right or wrong. Its the one that works > best in the given situation with the caveat that in five years or five > months or even five minutes the circumstances that made it work well > might change. > How quickly and completely did American attitudes and indeed, their ethics > change on Dec. 7, 1941 or on 911? The question of whether a particular action is right or wrong is dependent on the circumstances involved. But, look at what you said "Its the one that works best in the given situation" This, as with Charlie, simply moves the question slightly. What I have stated repeatedly is the question of how one defines things like best, worst, good, bad, etc. Self referential statements don't address the question, they are mere tautologies. > > > If in one hand and... But if either of them had won, how long do you > think that they could have kept their conquests under their thumb? Do you > think that their social constructs would have been successful? Well, leaning on a former list member who is a PhD candidate in international relations, and who believes that a proper study of history is important to this, the answer is that the evidence is strong that totalitarian regimes are internally stable. The USSR failed after 60 years or so, but that was in a situation where it was competing with the US militarily and ended up spending 40%+ of its GDP in that competition. Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the Roman Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly 1500 years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire lasted about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas Kahn...who's rule ended up merging into that empire. There were two Republics that came from the Enlightenment and one failed and fell into a tyranny that had more absolute state power than the previous King, and the other clung to existence by the skin of its teeth. Historians have often remarked how fortunate the US was to have such remarkable people found it; and to have Lincoln when it needed him. You could talk about the liberalization in England, but you have to remember, after the experience of France, democracy and republics were associated by the ruling elite in England with "mob rule." Goldstone specifically stated that the success of Lincoln in maintaining the Union was influential in his reforms. And, it is clear that England could not have stood against the Soviet Union. > Would they have stood the test of time? I have serious doubts that > they would have, Well, then you stand against most students of the field. In a long term competition, countries with representative governments have advantages over totalitarian governments. But, the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrated that freer societies have long term advantages in productivity, but it took a long time for those advantages to take hold. And, in times of war, the US required a president who went outside the law to defend the country and then stepped back inside it. Some of what FDR did was unneeded: e.g. the internment of the Japanese. But, the pushing of the boundaries of lend-lease, the use of US destroyers against Germany before war was declared, etc. was necessary. In the case of the Civil war, the illegal arrest of the Maryland legislators on their way to a vote on secession from the Union was absolutely essential to maintaining the Union. The fact that Lincoln could violate the constitution to save it is amazing. But, it also shows the weakness republics have; if it were someone like Nixon instead of Lincoln doing that, would he then release the power? > but if they did, if their constructs _worked_ you'd > have to say that their ethics were superior. OK, so a totalitarian state would be right, and individual freedoms would be wrong, all on a chance. Evolution is not goal oriented. There are reasonable arguments that, 30k years ago or so, humans barely survived extinction. There is a lot of chance in evolution. There is no better or worse, there is just what happened. So, while your view on ethics has self-consistency, it also has ramifications. The first is that what is good and what is bad is the product of pure chance. Just as in evolution, the survival of some species and the demise of the other can often be dependent on the precise sequence of environments they face, the dominance of one system over another is a matter of chance. > > Less than a hundred years ago women couldn't vote in this country, and we > elected a couple of presidents that were demonstrably racist; at least one > was a member of the KKK. In November the ticket of one party will include > a woman and the other an African American. As we change, so do our > ethics. All, true, but the foundation of the ethical system of Judeo-Christianity has been very close to constant for about 2100 years. And, even before that, from the time of the Jewish kings on, the prophets proclaimed that God judged Israel/Judah on how they treated "the widows, the orphans, and the strangers among you." Now, folks often/usually failed those standards. They acted in a manner inconsistent with what they proclaim. Indeed, I know that I fail to live up to my own standards. I'd argue that hypocrisy does exist; people fail their own standards. Jefferson was well aware of this when he admitted that owning slaves was inconsistent with his ideals. He said (paraphrasing) "Gentlemen, we are riding a tiger, justice demands that we get off, but prudence requires that we stay on." The ethical standards of the two laws of God proclaimed by Jesus have stood as goals to be reached for 2000 years. It is true that many folks have been hypocrites, many folks denied that they went against Biblical principals when they did. They even quoted parts of the bible to attack it's root. But, the heart was always there, and resurfaced repeatedly. As Peter Gomes says: it's the principals, not the practices seen in the Bible that Christians need to pay attention to. So, although we all fail it, there is one standard for Christians that has stood for 2000 years. Ronn has aptly summed the root of human ethics for Christians several times. So, I'd argue ethics haven't changed over the years, simply practices have changed. We now are hypocritical about different things than folks were 100 years ago. Finally, our understanding of the facts has changed, changing our application of the ethics. It was far more moral to embrace Marxism in 1880 than 1980, for example, given what happened in between. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
