Re: Morality
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
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
--- 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] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brin-l/post?postID=l5WbcO1Gzikf9s1T1HoD3s\ bIYQ5c3oefOYVxPpvvrRD_nKQcuR2xuzIISUq9Jm9wVxoSqfZNgUvjxLkEOPE , 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Redux (was: Br!n something-Neocon-or-other)
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! grin). 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...wryness) 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
Re: Morality is just self interest?
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 is just self interest?
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?
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?
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 rich infinity of variations** of you and me (as well as
Re: Morality is just self interest?
[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
