G. Marc Turner wrote:
> Or, it could be Mike was responding to the second line of the message,
> which seems to imply that it is okay to ignore the evidence
> and deciding what is right and wrong based solely on a personal belief.
If you're a non-consequentialist, the "ignore the evidence" part is exactly
what you believe. But that doesn't _necessarily_ imply that your decision
about what is right and wrong is based on some belief that arises from mere
ignorant prejudice (or whatever you want to call the cause of the kinds of
beliefs held by the people in your examples below).
> For the sake of an example, let's look at the original message, but using
a
> different topic:
>
> I believe to not spank your child is immoral.
> If all the research in the known universe failed to demonstrate any
> long-term positive effects, I would still feel the same way.
>
> Or, I believe that (insert minority group here) are inferior.
> If all the research in the known universe failed to demonstrate
> otherwise, I would still feel the same way.
The non-consequentialist would reply that just because you're not basing
your ethics on consequences doesn't mean that all ethical claims are equal.
There can be other ethical systems. I don't think it's unreasonable to
believe that the question of the morality of spanking a child could be (a)
based on something other than effects, and at the same time (b) not based on
some ignorant assumptions.
Furthermore, strictly interpreted, your second "example" is not at all an
example of what we're talking about here. It reads as though it's about an
empirical claim (assuming some operational definition(s) of some variable(s)
on which that minority group is said to be "inferior"). I'm not talking
about ignoring evidence for empirical claims, but rather about the
non-consequentialist holding that value/ethical/moral judgements are not
empirically decideable. Your first example is similar to "I believe that
green is the best color", while your second example is like "I believe that
the sky is green". No-one with any sense argues against the importance of
empirical evidence for or against the latter.
> Although we might agree with the premise (hitting a child is immoral), it
does not
> mean that we should ignore the evidence. (After all, I'm sure many people
> would argue that belief in evolution is immoral and wrong, and no evidence
to the
> contrary will make any difference to them.)
But there's that third option - that in ignoring the evidence (the negative
consequences of the lying to children done by the creationists), they are on
the right track, but they fall into the "immoral" category when they fail to
follow the _correct_ non-consequentialist ethical principles. I'm very
serious about this. I used to believe that there couldn't possibly be
absolute morals, because the vast majority of the absolute morals I've ever
heard discussed were those proposed by the religious right, and seem to be
exactly the _wrong_ principles. I still believe (very strongly) that the
religious right is pushing for exactly the wrong principles, but I now
believe that there are correct absolute morals nonetheless. Just don't ask
me what any of them are. I have no idea, but I do think we'd better start
looking (witness the stem cell research bans...).
I think that the religious right has co-opted the argument very effectively
as they push the assumption that any ethical system is either (a)
relativist, or (b) absolutist with _their_ set of absolute ethics. The
failure to question that assumption has completely stumped effective public
debate over morality. Sometimes I think that the religious right chooses its
repugnant moral principles on the basis of their ability to drive the more
mature people away into the relativist camp. Those people then don't give
sufficient thought to the implications of relativist ethics or to the
reasons for believing that ethics must be relativist - leaving them unable
to make effective arguments against the religious right. It sounds a bit
"conspiracy theory" ish, but the Falwell "Tinky Winky" incidents made me
realize that the religious right's forte is creating their own enemies.
> Of course, I could be putting a lot of words in Mike's mouth
> right now, but this was the take I had when I read his message.
I'm sure we both are. Poor Mike... :)
-------------
By the way, I wonder if anyone else saw the Time Magazine report that the
story about the girl at Columbine being shot for standing up for her faith
may well not have been true. The story was that the two boys who killed all
of those students asked Cassie Bernall if she believed in god, and shot her
when she answered "yes". Time reports that
"the mother of another victim advised [Bernall's mother and the publisher of
the book the mother wrote] that Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris may not have
asked Cassie if she believed in God just before she was fatally shot last
April 20. The question may have been put instead to Valeen Schnurr, 18, who
lay wounded under another table. She replied yes, she says. As the gunman
reloaded, he asked, 'Why?'. 'Because I do believe, and my mom and dad taught
me to'. The gunman then walked away. Witnesses may have confused Cassie's
and Valeen's voices" (Time, October 11, 1999, p. 26).
The mother of Valeen Schnurr asked the publisher to put a "hold" on the
book until the facts were in, but apparently the publisher thought it was
too good a story not to tell. The publisher and Bernall's mother knew back
in June about the dispute, but never said a word in public about the doubts
hanging over their story.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
