Greetings, Carl --
I don't believe I've had the pleasure of talking with you before. If you're
new to the forum, let me be the first to welcome you into the fray. As
you've probably noted, the MD has its ups and downs, so it's not always a
pleasant ride--especially when you're up against folks of a different
persuasion. I'm sort of a renegade here in that I have my own concept of
Value and am not a subscriber to the hierarchical levels as postulated by
Mr. Pirsig. I don't know your position on the MoQ fundamentals, but it
appears that I'll be learning them shortly.
On Mon, 8/29/11 at 4:10 PM, "Carl Thames" <[email protected]> quoted
Ham responding to Joe:
Hi again, Joe --
I will ask a couple of questions. Does the acceptance of a
principle of evolution create a free-will?
No. Evolution has nothing to do with free will, whether as an
intellectual "principle" or a process of nature. The only relevance
I can see is its association with "causality", which has wrongly been
used to support the idea that human preferences and decisions are
determined by previous causes, and that free will is therefore a myth.
Daniel Dennett and other philosophers have effectively argued that
intent is a voluntary expression of the individual self which is not
controlled by natural causes.
"On the contrary," says Dennett, " it's only when you understand life
from an evolutionary point of view that you understand what our
freedom really is. You realize that it's real. It's different and
better
than the freedom of other animals, but it's evolved. What you_want_
is freedom, and freedom and determinism are entirely compatible. In fact,
we have more freedom if determinism is true than if it isn't. Because if
determinism is true, then there's less randomness. There's
less unpredictability.
"To have freedom, you need the capacity to make reliable judgments
about what's going to happen next, so you can base your action on it. If
the effect of our genes on our likely history of disease were chaotic,
let alone random, that would mean that there'd be nothing we could do
about it. It would be like Russian roulette. You would just sit and
wait.
But if there are reliable patterns -- if there's a degree of
determinism -- then we can take steps to protect ourselves." [The
complete interview from which these statements are extracted is
accessible at
http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/pulling-our-own-strings.]
I agree with this, while simultaneously feeling that he's arguing for our
limitations. We can only do that which is _apparently_ available to us.
The fact remains that chaos exists, and those random bits have a
tremendous impact on our choices. He's speaking of a more linear
existence that most experience. An outragous example: You're walking
down the street when a man steps out from an alley and pulls a gun
on you. At that point, it would appear that your choices include a)
giving him your valuables, or b) resisting. Those choices don't take
into account the possiblity of the cop stepping out of the coffee shop
you just passed, seeing what's happening, and shooting the assailant.
(Chaos) The cop wasn't one of your choices, and is neither deterministic
nor "free" from your perspective, but had a huge impact on the outcome
of the situation.
Does the morality of good, bad, indifferent, adhering in the
manifestation of free will, highlight a reality of sentient behavior?
I'm not sure what you mean by "highlight a reality". Good, bad, or
indifferent are subjective judgments derived from Value which is a
uniquely human sensibility.
This I agree with completely.
They also identify gradations of Morality as it applies to specific
cultural or social mores. Apart from the fact that experience is
sequential in time, the process of evolution does not control or
influence our preferences.
This one, not so much. The argument against here is the individual who is
born with specific talents. Could Mozart have become a surgeon? His
innate talent had a huge impact on his choice of career. Granted, most
aren't born with that kind of natural talent, or at least most never
discover it,
but I think you get my point. Someone who is born with a high
intelligence
or a strong atheletic ability will have options in areas that aren't
available to those who weren't born with higher abilities.
It's not all genetics, Carl. Don't forget that Mozart's father was also a
composer who was determined that his son be trained at an early age to read
scores and play the piano. Yet, it is true that we must each deal with
whatever talents or skills we are handed or born with. If you consider
being born into a musical household an "evolutionary" event, then I suppose
the choice to become a musician is influenced by natural process..
It's my belief that Value is man's affinity (or "love") for the essence
or source of his reality. It is relative, rather than "universal", in
that it's proprietary to the individuated self. How we differentiate
Value experientially varies for each person, so it's unlikely that any
two individuals will have identical preferences or desires.
Which brings me to the purpose of the subject line change. The situation:
A man is walking down the street and happens to notice that the house he
is passing is on fire. From his vantage point on the sidewalk, he sees a
child trapped in the house. Now, from a moral perspective, he should
attempt to save the child. From a prudent perspective, he should keep
walking. If he rushes into the house, there's a good chance he could die,
which would be rather imprudent. If he does keep walking, he will carry
the burden of morality for not saving the child. We seem to have come
equipped with a species survival thing, similar to the analogy of the
penguins who will build a penguin ladder when trapped in a crevise. The
penguins will build the ladder so that some of the trapped birds can climb
the backs of the penguins who made the ladder and get out of the crevise,
knowing full well that the constituents of the ladder will not be able to
get out. The moral thing to do would be to save the child. The prudent
thing to do would be to keep walking. Either choice would have to be made
from his own perspective. Which choice would have a "higher" value?
Should the subject line be "Morality -vs.- Prudence?
I understand the reason for your title change, but do we really want to pit
Morality against Prudence? Morality is commonly understood to be based on
human values of an aesthetic or compassionate nature, while Prudence is
largely a matter of rational judgment applied to pragmatic solutions, such
as the situations you've presented above. This is not to say that a moral
decision always trumps a reasonable one, or that a favorable practical
outcome doesn't have some moral virtue.
I would probably attempt to rescue the trapped child, since adult reasoning
and greater mobility give me an advantage in averting the flames. However,
as you point out, reason fails us in the case of a self-sacrificing risk,
because we can't compare the value of our own life with another's, nor weigh
the possible loss of two lives against the loss of one. I'm not a great
believer in altruism as a moral principle. Indeed, insofar as conscious
decisions are concerned, the survival instinct is as "self-preserving" in
the human animal as it is in the penguin.
I enjoy reading your posts. I think before you said that you had written
a book. Where is it available?
Thanks for the flattering acknowledgment, Carl. I self-published a book
titled "Seizing the Essence" in 2008 through Xlibris. It's available as a
softback or e-book from this publisher, as well as fom Amazon, Borders,
Barnes & Noble, and other booksellers for under $20. I would advise a visit
to my website first, just to gain a broader perspective of what Essentialism
is about. The URL is www.essentialism.net.
Happy reading,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
