551. Comment #240265 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 7:43 am

Fanusi - while I think of it - you're neglecting the fact that these very people you are railing against are the ones who hold absolutist beliefs in the extreme! They believe - absolutely - that women are mere chattels and have virtually no rights

Laurie, yes, but who opened the door to them? Who howled down every warning? Who bent over backwards to excuse them? The relativists. The same ones who have always been the first to scream when its safe, and to shut their yaps at the first real sign of danger. Here's an excerpt from what Hitchens wrote about the critics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"The enlightenment driven away … " This very strong and bitter line came back to me when I saw the hostile, sneaky reviews that have been dogging the success of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's best seller Infidel, which describes the escape of a young Somali woman from sexual chattelhood to a new life in Holland and then (after the slaying of her friend Theo van Gogh) to a fresh exile in the United States. Two of our leading intellectual commentators, Timothy Garton Ash (in the New York Review of Books) and Ian Buruma, described Hirsi Ali, or those who defend her, as "Enlightenment fundamentalist[s]." In Sunday's New York Times Book Review, Buruma made a further borrowing from the language of tyranny and intolerance and described her view as an "absolutist" one.


Now, I know both Garton Ash and Buruma, and I remember what fun they used to have, in the days of the Cold War, with people who proposed a spurious "moral equivalence" between the Soviet and American sides. Much of this critique involved attention to language. Buruma was very mordant about those German leftists who referred to the "consumer terrorism" of the federal republic. You can fill in your own preferred example here; the most egregious were (and, come to think of it, still are) those who would survey the U.S. prison system and compare it to the Gulag.

In her book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali says the following: "I left the world of faith, of genital cutting and forced marriage for the world of reason and sexual emancipation. After making this voyage I know that one of these two worlds is simply better than the other. Not for its gaudy gadgetry, but for its fundamental values." This is a fairly representative quotation. She has her criticisms of the West, but she prefers it to a society where women are subordinate, censorship is pervasive, and violence is officially preached against unbelievers. As an African victim of, and escapee from, this system, she feels she has acquired the right to say so. What is "fundamentalist" about that?

The Feb. 26 edition of Newsweek takes up where Garton Ash and Buruma leave off and says, in an article by Lorraine Ali, that, "It's ironic that this would-be 'infidel' often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose." I would challenge the author to give her definition of irony and also to produce a single statement from Hirsi Ali that would come close to materializing that claim. Accompanying the article is a typically superficial Newsweek Q&A sidebar, which is almost unbelievably headed: "A Bombthrower's Life." The subject of this absurd headline is a woman who has been threatened with horrific violence, by Muslims varying from moderate to extreme, ever since she was a little girl. She has more recently had to see a Dutch friend butchered in the street, been told that she is next, and now has to live with bodyguards in Washington, D.C. She has never used or advocated violence. Yet to whom does Newsweek refer as the "Bombthrower"? It's always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it's the victim of violence who is "really" inciting it.

You can see it with those cretinous comments from Norway and Australia that blame the raped women for not understanding the culture of their rapists. I'm not listening to a bar of that song.

And even on a practical note: do you seriously wonder why people of goodwill listen to this kind of mush and apologia for every horror and indecency, and decide to turn to religion as a way of finding moral absolutes?

The problem is that we have to destroy absolutism in order to get that message across. We can't do that while supporting absolute values

Sorry, Steve, your demand that all absolutes be abolished is an absolute demand in its own right. So abolish thyself first.

Here's another absolute, which even Steve admits: there are those systems that cause an unbelievable amount of suffering, misery and death. That's an absolute.

Smith,

To me, your insistance on convincing the "misguided" before you have anything substantial to offer for them to reconsider their biases seems self-defeating

But how is it possible for Steve to offer anything better? To say that a course would be better than another one - is in itself an absolute! And Steve doesn't believe in those.

Noone, but noone is a consistent relativist. You couldn't survive. You couldn't survive without being able to draw distinctions between the robber and the worker, between the rapist and the victim. What moral relativism is is an escape clause: a cheap way of getting out of moral responsibility when it seems a bit too pricy. As was amply demonstrated by the Dutch's cowardly treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The moral thing to do would be to have said "Freedom of expression is an absolute that will not be compromised, and we'll back her to the hilt". But that would have involved some integrity, some courage and some hard work. Much, much easier to retreat into a fog of relativist mush.

--------------------------

NMcC,

And Fanusi could have replied: 'Yes, but for all intents and purposes, our thoughts are all we have to go by and therefore might as well be considered as objective' and, then, both agreed to disagree.

But what conceivable standard of proof do we have if it isn't our own reason? What other tool of survival is open to us?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

552. Comment #240266 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 7:46 am

It is not that anyone here would seriously disagree with his definitions. They just want him to concede that those are definitions, nevertheless, rather than "theorems" that can be deduced from his moral system. They want him to concede that justifications of these definitions lie outside his system

Bonzai, what exactly have I been saying?

I said:

that essential choice - whether or not to live- is extra-moral. It is one you have to take for yourself.

I also pointed out that the definition of good and evil was reached through induction, not deduction. Okay? What is so difficult about that? But once you have that defintion, you can deduce from there. Why do I have to repeat this so often? Look back over the thread: how often have I said this?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

553. Comment #240268 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 7:57 am

Fanusi-

Sorry, Steve, your demand that all absolutes be abolished is an absolute demand in its own right. So abolish thyself first.

Oh for goodness sake Fanusi.

This kind of silly word-play is even more tiresome than my habitual pedantry.

Either demonstrate absolute moral values in your next post, or concede that me and Bonzai might actually have a point.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

554. Comment #240270 by Bonzai on August 31, 2008 at 8:08 am

Fanusi

The trouble is, Bonzai that you see the Jihadis cropping up everywhere in the dar al-Islam - including such places as Indonesia which Fareed Zakaria held up as an example of Islamic tolerance. It also doesn't explain the way that Islam has always treated Infidels throughout its history.

The doctrine really doesn't change.

First of all, the doctrine does change. Otherwise there won't be the Sunni-Shia schism. And as you must know, Islam is not just based on the Quran,--save for the minority "Quran only" school,--it is built on layers and layers on scholarly edicts, cleric rulings and so on, in that sense it is somewhat like Catholicism.

But I take your point that the variations are relatively minor for the outsider. I have argued before that Islam has a lot less wiggle room than Christianity, for example.

So with that caveat I would agree with your assessment of Islam as an ideology.

However, that doesn't explain the rise and fall of the religiosity of Muslims. There are times when Muslims are more religious or less. If, as you say, "the doctrine doesn't change". How do you explain the shift of attitude regarding "the doctrine"?

Why is that jihadism "just crops up" in places like Malaysia recently but not before?

I think the explanations lie outside of Islam,-- as I explained earlier. I am afraid you have to do away with this simplistic notion that there is a direct line between what is written in the books and the behaviour of Muslims. The line becomes stronger as the intensity of religiosity increases, and in turn the books fuel the religious intensity. But in order for this process to work, religious intensity has to pass a certain threshold and the books has probably very little to do with the approach to that threshold.

I find this discussion in a certain way similar to the tangled debate on "absolute morality" that you have with others. Just as the moral axioms are not derivable from the system and have to be justified "from outside". The rise (and fall) of religious intensity cannot be explain from Islamic doctrines, you must find the enabling factors outside of Islam.

Other Comments by Bonzai

555. Comment #240273 by Bonzai on August 31, 2008 at 8:18 am

So Fanusi is saying that his moral system is not a deductive one, but it also includes what MPhil calls "meta-ethics"(?). Fanusi's "system" includes the process of justification of what we thought were his "axioms", but how can this process of justification be free of any assumption and therefore "absolute"?

Other Comments by Bonzai

556. Comment #240277 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on August 31, 2008 at 8:42 am

554. Comment #240268 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 7:57 am
Fanusi-

Sorry, Steve, your demand that all absolutes be abolished is an absolute demand in its own right. So abolish thyself first.

Oh for goodness sake Fanusi.

This kind of silly word-play is even more tiresome than my habitual pedantry.

Either demonstrate absolute moral values in your next post, or concede that me and Bonzai might actually have a point.

There are either no absolutes or some absolutes. It is not an absolute claim to say we must be skeptical. That is the scientific position, demonstrate absolutes or abandon them.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

557. Comment #240278 by kaiserkriss on August 31, 2008 at 8:48 am

Here is something I found in the local rag this morning that does give me hope.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=2f652363-3f85-4350-87e0-46d48f2e7bae



It seems to be a human quality to dwell on the negatives for whatever reason, and ignore the positives that make the news.

Fanusi, this was to counter your previous list of negative headlines.

As Laurie pointed out our two main protagonists here ARE a lot closer, at least in my opinion than they would ever admit to each other. (Are we dealing with a case of testosterone overload here?)

Both sides make excellent points that have got my old brain moving again. So a sincere thank you to both Fanusi and Steve for that.

As for MPhil, you contributions remind me of an English version of a reading of the Frankfuter Allgemeine. Excellent but difficult to read. I prefer the style of Focus on line or Spiegel on line. (yes, my comprehension level is probably only grade 6 level), however their styles reach a wider audience and probably has greater population penetration than a style only aimed academics.jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

558. Comment #240284 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 9:12 am

Decius,

I have to disagree with you about the findings of evolutionary psychology, and I'd appreciate if it you could provide a source for the claim that evolutionary psychology has been having success in describing a moral system we ought to subscribe to.

In addition to that the last couple pages have had is/ought fallacies plastered about without any notice. Yes our brains have evolved to consider certain things right or wrong, or good or evil. But that is no reason to willfully adopt and expand on those evolved preferences. Evolutionary psychology HAS certainly demonstrated a lot of the preferences and decision making strategies of the human mind that in fact lead us to a WRONG conclusion more often than not; if anyone doubts this I can cite a library of references on this. So even if our brains are "wired" to have certain morals that says nothing about the correctness or virtue of said morals.

Secondly, even if I were to concede the ludicrous idea that our evolved moral standards were perfect that certainly does not lead to objective or absolute morals. Our intelligence is an evolved characteristic, but not everyones' intelligence is identical. We each have evolved moral preferences and many of them will be similar to other peoples, but not all of them. Additionally as I pointed out earlier evolution is not goal oriented process, it is absurd to claim that we are evolving to a state of absolute objective morals unless you also think there is some deity or outside force guiding evolution, which is nonsense and I wish that could go without saying.

Other Comments by J Mac

559. Comment #240288 by Corylus on August 31, 2008 at 9:28 am

Bonzai

So Fanusi is saying that his moral system is not a deductive one, but it also includes what MPhil calls "meta-ethics"(?).

Not quite. Meta-ethics are not things that can be added to a moral argument to add weight. Meta-ethics is a whole field of philosophical inquiry (about what we say when we make moral judgement/statements and what justifications we have for doing so). It is very technical and abstract. (This is another way of me saying that it is really hard and messes with my head :-)

Hehe. If you want to be driven mad by philosophical jargon flick through some of these buggers.

Fanusi, as I understand it, does not like relativism in that it seems to entail that it is possible for two people to have a disagreement about a given subject without at least one of them making a mistake. When we are talking about people's health and welfare then this is indeed a worrying concept.

However, and this is a big however. He also appears to feel that considering the possibility that both of them might be making a mistake will lead us into the abyss. It won't.

I understand his concerns, but I don't think that objective morality (aka moral realism) is tenable.

Even if there are objective moral values (can't prove that they ain't about, even if they do seem unlikely) then you still have a problem with working out how such things can be accessed and understood by us. See the argument from queerness.

(No this not a gay politics thing)

----

[Edit: Fanusi it is for you, or course, to clarify your position. Sorry for talking about you in the third person, but I thought I would post some links that Bonzai might find interesting.]

Other Comments by Corylus

560. Comment #240290 by Nairb on August 31, 2008 at 9:42 am

Saying there is a Moral Absolute is like saying there are No Unicorns.

You might be right, we could even agree, we could be 99% sure in some cases.

But we would never really know for 100% certain.

There can't be any Moral Absolutes no matter how much we agree about a given moral point of view.

Other Comments by Nairb

561. Comment #240292 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 9:45 am

Bonzai, your point about the various flavours of this insanity is well take. But the problem is that there's no major version that isn't a huge problem from the p.o.v. of Infidels.

Now, as to why it seems to have intensified recently; well, let's look at historically. The last major Jihad of the Caliphate was when the Ottomans joined with the Germans in WWII, and got themselves dismembered for it. And, yes, it was a Jihad - Kaiser Willie specifically used that language to get the Ottomans on his side. Then there was the collaboration between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolf Hitler in the Second World War; the Mufti was never brought to justice, but helped ignite the first Arab-Israel war. Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by other Nazi-admirers, was spreading throughout the world. So it's been pretty much ongoing. It has however intensified recently. There are three reasons for this:

1) The telecomunications revolution, which has allowed the fundies to call their fellow muslims back to the true path, be they ever so distantly scattered (Fareed Zakaria wrote something interesting on this). I think that this is the bit that's most relevant to your question about Malaysia.

2) The Oil that has powered the engines of Saudi and Iranian propaganda around the world.

3) The settlement of large numbers of Muslims behind enemy lines, in the dar al-Harb, a policy of suicidal stupidity in my view.

The doctrine can lie dormant, but it's always possible to revive it to its full horror.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

562. Comment #240296 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 9:53 am

Thanks, Corylus for that comment.

Take a look at those links, guys - well worth reading. Just for clarification, you might want to look at the wiki-entry for "meta-ethics" and the different positions and sub-categories thereof.

As I said, (and Corylus, Steve and others agree), moral realism is untenable.

Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

Okay, first I think I should clearly define the terms I've been using all along:

"Ethics" is concerned with questions like "What should we do?"

"Meta-Ethics" is concerned with questions like "What is the nature of ethical properties, attitudes, judgements, statements" (Like - do they express objective, ie not subject-dependent truths)

A theory of ethics is also called a "first-order moral theory", a theory of meta-ethics is also called a "second-order moral theory".


"Objective" means completely independent of anything a subject personally judges, feels, wants, needs etc. Even independent of what multiple (or even all) subjects agree upon.

For example, the statement "In a bivalent logic, a proposition can take one of two truth-values, namely "true" or "false"" is objectively true. (Facts about a closed logical system are objectively true, by virtue of the system having a specific structure)

"Inter-subjective" means -of course- between subjects. Since we cannot exclude with 100% certainty that complete skepticism is true, since for no observation can we be 100% sure that our sensory organs are working properly and that those of others are working properly, or that we are encountering a perfect hoax - all statements about the empirical realm can maximally be known with absolute certainty to be inter-subjective among all questioned subjects.

"subjective", of course means dependent on what a subject thinks, feels, experiences etc.

"Absolute" means -in this context- without exceptions. A moral absolute like "all killing is wrong" would thus mean that cutting plants, killing bacteria, abortion, or killing someone who was about to kill you and your family is wrong.

"Universal" means applying to every entity (of a specified domain)

This discussion is all about meta-ethics. Are there objective values or aren't there.

Fanusi is arguing for some version of Utilitarianism - it's okay, but has some very nasty implications.

It is a fact that certain actions etc lead to suffering. And except for some special cases, in most ethical systems this gets declared as "bad".

Fanusi has said admitted that there is a choice of axiom here, namely that "what causes suffering is bad" - but this is no induction, because there is no data that is prescriptive (is-ought problem) - it's a choice. It might be an obvious choice because we all want to live - but its an assertion. He (and others) declare this to be a criterion for ethical judgements. That's fine by me. But there is nothing objective about it. See the above definition.

Whether we chose to accept this axiom is dependent on what we think, feel, experience etc.

Even if it were universally hard-wired - so that everyone always chose it, it would still be dependent on subjectivity, on feelings, experiences, wants, needs, subjective judgements.

Thus, it is still "just" inter-subjective. The values are still not "discovered", there are no objective moral facts. There are objective facts about why we chose certain moral values, or why we are compelled to do so. But there are no prescriptive moral truths at all. They are dependent on choice, on feelings, wants, needs - though they may be hard-wired, that does nothing to make their prescriptive nature in any way objective. Merely inter-subjective.

Moral values are always prescriptive (that's also why science can never help us in devising a first-order moral theory, decius, science can only describe why we behave as we behave - it cannot say anything about "should" or "shouldn't"

To talk of moral values as objective IS to talk of them as built into the fabric of the universe - because if they are dependent on what subjects want, feel and need - they're subjective/inter-subjective. If they are to be objective, they must be independent of that. Built into the fabric of the universe - exactly like the platonic "form of the good".

Now, as for utilitarianism - while it looks very appealing at first, it leads to some nasty consequences and is very impractical:

In Utilitarianism the one and only standard is "the greatest good for the greatest number".

First, no definition of "good" is ever non-controversial. Take for example "suffering and pleasure" - suffering is bad, pleasure is good. Sounds okay, doesn't it?

So then, if we take these hedonistic definitions of "good" and "bad", it certainly IS good if we strap everyone to an Orgasmatron 24 hours a day... maximum pleasure, minimum suffering.

Oh - you don't think that's what we should strive for? Then these hedonistic criteria won't do. We need qualitative criteria for pleasure and displeasure - good luck with finding universally acceptable ones!

With a thought-experiment we can demonstrate some consequences of utilitarianism:

First, imagine a hypothetical measure of pleasure and suffering - where 100 would be maximal pleasure, and -100 would be maximal suffering.

Imagine a hypothetical world where there is an immensely art-loving civilization - they get immense pleasure from enjoying art. Yet, this civilization cannot produce art itself. There is, however, a group of artists who can produce wonderful art, but they demand the sacrifice of 10 infants for every work of art they produce.

A work of art they produce will give one million people 20 pleasure for decades, but will cost the lives of 10 infants. The infants are killed without much suffering. A small pin-prick and that's it.

Utilitarianism would judge it as perfectly acceptable to sacrifice the infants.

I think no one here can endorse this. Yet this is a valid thought-experiment about the consequences of utilitarianism.


Utilitarianism also cannot account for certain other things we really do think as moral. For example, think of a society where the lives of 90% of the population are greatly enhanced by the government exploiting and thus causing suffering to the other 10%. Is this morally acceptable? Utilitarianism would have to say "yes".

Of course you can modify utilitarianism. But it always comes down to "the greatest good for the greatest number".

The main pragmatic problems are: to decide which action is conductive to the "greatest good for the greatest number", we would have to have
a) a quantitative measure of the quality of pleasure and suffering
b) perfect knowledge of all consequences of all actions
c) a mathematical model to calculate the effect on total pleasure/suffering of any action.

Given a) and b), c) is no problem - but utilitarianism then would require us to calculate the effect of any action before performing it.

Utilitarianism is thus absolutely impractical, aside from having some nasty consequences.

Anyway - my main point was that Fanusi's use of "objective" is totally factually wrong. And when he is criticized for it, he digs in and refuses to accept the criticism.

Together with the use of terms like "pure evil" instead of "morally unjustified" or "bad", this makes me think that this is all because he is so fanatically certain that his ethics is correct and ultimate good (so that he can justify the actions he fanatically wants to see performed) that anything that might detract from its status as absolute, objectively correct in his view is evil and bad, and - basically, will lead to the end of the world.

Sad or funny? - You decide.

Other Comments by MPhil

563. Comment #240297 by Nairb on August 31, 2008 at 9:53 am

As some scientist once said.

"as we do further scientific study we can be sure of one thing. We will not find along with the Proton, Neutron, electron some new moral particle - the Moron"

"we will not be able to evaluate morality by counting the moral particles in different hypotheses to choose the best"

Seems to me morality is not real. Its just some rules of thumb hard coded into us.
We then try to extrapolate those rules on to a whole new set of analogous situations ( for which the hard coding was not created) with varying degrees of success.

Assuming "Evil" exists as an absolute in such a context doesnt make much sense.

Other Comments by Nairb

564. Comment #240303 by Hellene on August 31, 2008 at 10:03 am

I'd like to point out that all of us "atheists" are immoral.

President Bush said so on TV.

Is that absolute?

Other Comments by Hellene

565. Comment #240304 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 10:05 am

Nairb,


Your're right - moral values are not something to be discovered - they are something to be made. Science cannot help us, for it is only ever descriptive - that's where philosophical ethics comes in - J.S. Mill's "Utilitarianism", Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" for example are brilliant and timeless. Philosophical ethics seeks to find an applicable and justified theory of ethics... and it's a fascinating subject.

Of those people who think about ethics at all - who has not pondered utilitarianism? Who has not thought about the categorical imperative?

But there's far more than just these - although these should be required reading.

I would recommend

in the field of meta-ethics:
John Leslie Mackie - "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong"

and concerning (first-order) ethics (in addition to Mill and Kant):
T.M. Scanlon - "What we owe to each other".

Other Comments by MPhil

566. Comment #240306 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 10:11 am

"Science cannot help us, for it is only ever descriptive..."

Science cannot give us the "answers" or a moral code. But I'd say it can certainly help though I don't imagine you meant to imply that science couldn't help at all.

Understanding physiology and embryonic development has contributed to the discussion on the morality of abortion. Such studies to not give any answers, but they serve to inform the decision and often eliminate the black-and-white status of life versus non-life.

Other Comments by J Mac

567. Comment #240307 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 10:15 am

Still not keeping up with all this. The best that comes to mind as moral absolutes are Asimov's 3 laws of robotics. And they were the hard-coded moral laws put into "Robots" for our own selfish needs.

Anyone for the Ten Commandments?

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

568. Comment #240311 by Hellene on August 31, 2008 at 10:29 am

565. Comment #240304 by MPhil


And don't forget Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd.

Other Comments by Hellene

569. Comment #240314 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 10:33 am

J Mac,

Yes, of course an applicable ethical theory will have to be constructed with knowledge of the relevant facts - and that's where science is all important. I just meant that science can not help with the "prescriptive"-part. Should have made that more clear.

Understanding the physiology of embryonic development has influenced the debate - but cannot not help decide one way or another.
Some argue, and although I am absolutely for the right to have an abortion (up to a certain developmental stage) I can see that the argument has some value that this thing in a women's womb - once nidated will, if everything takes the course it is naturally "supposed to" (just talking about biological function here, guys), become a person, and that this potential is ethically relevant.

The following is an analogy used: Imagine you were some supreme space-faring super-being... you encounter a planet with no sentient life so far. But you know with 90% certainty that some specific event is about to occur that will lead to the development of a sentient species. You can stop this event from happening.
Is stopping this event from happening completely morally neutral?

As I said - I am all for women having the right to abort up to a certain developmental stage, but I can see where the other side is coming from.

You are, of course, correct that gaining descriptive knowledge of the embryonic development can eliminate black-and-white thinking. But that's (sadly) not necessarily so, since "beginning of life" is a matter of definition.

So, yes - I did not mean that science is completely of no value for ethics. In order to construct an applicable ethics - you have to be as informed as possible.

ColdFusionLazarus,

I recently thought about the three-laws and ethics myself. The problem here is of course - as Asimov himself made clear in his story, the interpretation. Even in the movie's climax, this was made exceptionally clear. If it is tantamount not to let anyone come to harm - the upshot is that we have to take away all freedoms.

The other problem is - whose "orders" are humans required to obey unless they violate the first law?

Other Comments by MPhil

570. Comment #240315 by Bonzai on August 31, 2008 at 10:34 am

Coryus

Not quite. Meta-ethics are not things that can be added to a moral argument to add weight. Meta-ethics is a whole field of philosophical inquiry (about what we say when we make moral judgement/statements and what justifications we have for doing so). It is very technical and abstract. (This is another way of me saying that it is really hard and messes with my head :-

I didn't say they can, but I was thinking that might be what Fanusi was trying to do(?)

But as I said, I am not a philosophical pedant and I don't really think these concepts are so difficult to grasp without the jargon.There are games that philosophers play, I am somewhat aware of the rules and have some experience playing them,--albeit only as an "amateur". But if you can forgive me I don't really find them that challenging or interesting. I got better things to do. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

571. Comment #240317 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 10:42 am

Bonzai,

But if you can forgive me I don't really find them that challenging or interesting. I got better things to do. :)

Absolutely - each after his own, right?

Other Comments by MPhil

572. Comment #240325 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 11:00 am

I'm tired of this. So I will just ask one question:

Alot of those who are now insisting that there are no moral absolutes were just recenlty condemning me in absolutist terms. So, I can expect an apology yes? Wouldn't want any nasty old absolutism, now would we?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

573. Comment #240328 by Nairb on August 31, 2008 at 11:01 am

J.S. Mill's "Utilitarianism", Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" for example are brilliant and timeless.

Mphil

Thanks. I will look them up.

I didnt know there was much theory on this.

Did they build anything surprising? Did they really figure out some independant way of building a moral framework.

Other Comments by Nairb

574. Comment #240329 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 11:05 am

Nairb, on the subject of that population data, could you explain a bit more about the whole 'five generations business'? Because I'm afraid I don't get it.

I'm an only child. My parents aren't about to have any more children, so with my generation, the number in my direct family has halved. All of my grandparents have passed on. Assuming I have kids, my parents will probably be around to see them, but not for my grandkids. So could you expand on that point a bit further?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

575. Comment #240332 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 11:09 am

Nairb,

Indeed, there are many independent ways to construct an ethical theory, utilitarianism and Kant's theory are just two of many. Scanlon is another - and one of my favourite. Also, of course, Scanlon is late 20th century, Kant and Mill are a few hundred years older.

Other Comments by MPhil

576. Comment #240335 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:12 am

MPhil

whose "orders" are humans required to obey unless they violate the first law?

The first law, in essence, is "don't harm humans". If someone (anyone) stated that as the basis of absolute morals then by accepting such absolute morals they would not be violating the first law.

But the answer to "whose orders?" ... why god's orders, surely. I believe that C.S. Lewis says that humanity's search for this absolute morality is evidence of god's existence.

I don't buy it myself, but perhaps some here are willing to go there.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

577. Comment #240338 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 11:19 am

Comment #240284 by J Mac

Actually, I never said that or implied that much. I apologise for the lack of clarity.

What I meant is that there were lacunae in this discussion, and science (including E P that has had some success) should be taken into account also when discussing abstract concept such as morality and ethics.
In fact, my main point is that philosophy uninformed by science fails to answer any question satisfactorily, and when it does, this can only be established beyond doubt with the aid of science. BTW, this is the main reason why Dennett is such a worthy philosopher, compared to most other.

You are right about our brain often leading us to wrong conclusions, but I was making only very general points for the purpose of expanding the narrowness of the conversation.

If you want a practical example where EP shows a moral universal -which happens to be also a biological imperative - to be hard-wired within our kin-recognition system take this study concerning the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest.

MPhil wrote:

science can only describe why we behave as we behave - it cannot say anything about "should" or "shouldn't"

I disagree both with your refutation of utilitarianism (I will gladly go through it point by point, just not now, sorry), and with this statement.
Again, let's take incest. Science incontrovertibly shows that you shouldn't have sex with your relatives, and I am sure I need not to explain why.

My friends, I'll reply and expand on this tomorrow, many apologies.

Other Comments by decius

578. Comment #240339 by Corylus on August 31, 2008 at 11:21 am

Bonzai

But if you can forgive me I don't really find them that challenging or interesting...

No problem :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

579. Comment #240340 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:21 am

"that humanity's search for this absolute morality is evidence of god's existence."

There's a complete non-sequitur if I ever heard one. But of course thats what Lewis was best at.

It is not unreasonable to propose that humanity's search for absolute morality is evidence of the desire for the existence of a god. But that's quite different. However, I personally do not search for absolute morality, nor do I desire a god.

Other Comments by J Mac

580. Comment #240344 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:27 am

JMac

Good man. You're now on my list of "purely good" people. Only kidding. We are in agreement though.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

581. Comment #240345 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 11:28 am

Fanusi Khiyal-

Alot of those who are now insisting that there are no moral absolutes were just recenlty condemning me in absolutist terms. So, I can expect an apology yes? Wouldn't want any nasty old absolutism, now would we?

Don't hold your breath, crotch cricket.

My point was essentially the same as Steve's.

If you're going to pull the "disagree with me = relativist = racist/rapist/baby-eater", BS, then you fucking well better justify it with something better than circular reasoning.

You never did, and you never will.

So, go fuck yourself.

Other Comments by Diacanu

582. Comment #240346 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:29 am

"Science incontrovertibly shows that you shouldn't have sex with your relatives, and I am sure that I need not to explain why."

Yes, you need explain; science does not say anything so simple.

One can describe what incest causes, but there is a hidden or assumed premise:

1) Continued sibling incest can lead to various medical problems. This idea is supported by science, though not not all incest is bad, but only continued sibling incest.
2) We ought not intentionally cause such medical problems in offspring. Science cannot tell us that those medical conditions are bad. We may all agree that they are, but this is an assumption.
3) Therefore one ought not engage in continued sibling incest.

Science informed the above argument, but science alone could not make it. Some criteria had to exist outside of science for premise two. The very concept of something being "bad" is a moral judgement. Premise two presupposes the existence of a moral code. Using this argument to show that a moral code can come from science is circular at best.

Other Comments by J Mac

583. Comment #240349 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 11:30 am

decius,

sorry, but I have to disagree on all counts.

In fact, my main point is that philosophy uninformed by science fails to answer any question satisfactorily,

Not true - some questions of philosophy are just not something to which empirical science can contribute anything, like "how to words refer to objects", or "what is existence" or questions of meta-ethics, or the existence or otherwise of universals or "are proper names short for definite descriptions or are they rigid designators" etc.

his is the main reason why Dennett is such a worthy philosopher, compared to most other.

Dennett's field is one where being scientifically informed is absolutely important. But not all fields are - as I explained just now. I agree that Dennett is wonderful, but I think you misunderstand philosophy.

I disagree both with your refutation of utilitarianism (I will gladly go through it point by point, just not now, sorry), and with this statement.
Again, let's take incest. Science incontrovertibly shows that you shouldn't have sex with your relatives, and I am sure that I need not to explain why.

You don't seem to be getting my point - science can explain to us which consequences incest has and why. But it is not science that tells us that these consequences are ethically bad or shouldn't be done.

We first need to morally value life and health in order for science to be able to tell us that we shouldn't commit incest, because all science can say is "incest is detrimental to life and health" - but it doesn't and can never tell us that life and health is morally good, that's prescriptive ethics.

If you really think science can be prescriptive - you seem to misunderstand it as well. Science is about facts, about what is, not about what ought or ought not to be.

All this is - sorry if you disagree - very uncontroversial.

Concerning my "refutation" of utilitarianism - I'm interest in reading your response, because I'm afraid its pretty conclusive unless you redefine utilitarianism.

Other Comments by MPhil

584. Comment #240350 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #240335 by ColdFusionLazarus:

I believe that C.S. Lewis says that humanity's search for this absolute morality is evidence of god's existence.

Because of an ongoing discussion (at some point it will go up on my blog) I am going to be taking apart the C. S. Lewis scaffolding that so many believers think is supporting their positions. I would appreciate any links others may have to refutations of Lewis.

Thanks.

Other Comments by Quine

585. Comment #240351 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:36 am

JMac

So it's not clear? Science just "suggests" incest is bad. Well I'm telling you, buddy, I know it's bad. Have you seen my sister? Yuk! For that matter, have you seen me (*Ugh, she gave me water*)

The good thing is that science says nothing to say about me buggering my brother.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

586. Comment #240352 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 11:37 am

Quine-

I would appreciate any links others may have to refutations of Lewis.

You need links?
I just scroll through a list of his quotations going "circular reasoning, circular reasoning, special pleading, not even logic, just gaping emotional need, need, need, need, need, FUCK were you a thumb sucking little baby!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

587. Comment #240354 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:38 am

Good luck Quine, while I haven't read everything by Lewis I have yet to read anything that warrants a refutation. I simply haven't seen any logic in his writing.

CS Lewis was an amazing author, I will not take that from him. If you're looking for wonderful fiction he is high on the list, but analyzing his logic... well there is just nothing to analyze.

Other Comments by J Mac

588. Comment #240355 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 31, 2008 at 11:39 am

Comment #240350 by Quine

You may already have read it, but "C.S. Lewis and the search for rational religion" by John Beversluis is a very good book-length refutation of Lewis.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

589. Comment #240356 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 11:39 am

What J Mac said.

It's all thumb sucking.

Other Comments by Diacanu

590. Comment #240359 by Paula Kirby on August 31, 2008 at 11:43 am

Decius: Again, let's take incest. Science incontrovertibly shows that you shouldn't have sex with your relatives, and I am sure that I need not to explain why.

Science shows that the offspring of an incestuous relationship are more likely to suffer from genetic defects. However, these days it is possible to prevent offspring occurring at all.

How does this affect the moral status of incest, if at all? (Genuine question - and I'm not even sure which side of the debate it inclines towards. Just thinking aloud...)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

591. Comment #240360 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 11:43 am

"So it's not clear? Science just "suggests" incest is bad."

No only the theists will give you crap about buggering your brother.

While the post was in jest, for clarity sake I do not claim that science can even "suggest" that incest is bad. Science can only predict likely outcomes of incest. Whether or not those outcomes are considered good bad or indifferent is a question of ethics that science cannot in any way inform.

Science can say: If you want healthy kids, incest is bad.
or: If you want theist kids, incest is good.

Science cannot say or even suggest which of those is "good."

Other Comments by J Mac

592. Comment #240362 by Nairb on August 31, 2008 at 11:43 am

Fanusi
OK lets take a simple model.

Assume 5 generations
Assume each is 20% of population. and each generation is 20 years.
Assume people who make children are in the 20-40 agegroup. Call this generation 2.
Existing childrean at this time in age 0-20 : call it Generation 1.

Now look at what happens in next 20 year period
So any new children born in next 20 years will be in a new generation : Generation 0.
They will progressively replace the Generation 5 ( those in 80 to 100) who are dying of old age.


So at a society level if this Generation2 has only 1 child - in other words the Fertility rate is 1 - then Generation 0 will add 10% to the population.
(each 2 person pair have 1 child)

In that time all of generation 5 will die. This will reduce the population 20%.
The net loss is 10% over the 20 year period.


Do you see it now?


Naturally when you change the age pyramid and vary death rates and Fertility rates you get some variability.
But never anything coming anywhere close to a 50% reduction in Population in a single generation.

Other Comments by Nairb

593. Comment #240363 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:45 am

Hold on. Paula is thinking along the same lines as me! She's twisted! Where's kkelly. He's bound to have something to say that will amuse and make me throw up at the same time.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

594. Comment #240364 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 11:52 am

Paula-

I almost jumped in with that one myself. :P

Other Comments by Diacanu

595. Comment #240369 by Paula Kirby on August 31, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Diacanu: Paula-
I almost jumped in with that one myself. :P

Well, I'm not advocating it, you understand :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

596. Comment #240373 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Paula-

I'm not either.

..because I'm an only child. *wistful sigh*

Kidding!! Kidding!! :P

Other Comments by Diacanu

597. Comment #240375 by markg on August 31, 2008 at 12:16 pm

So then, if we take these hedonistic definitions of "good" and "bad", it certainly IS good if we strap everyone to an Orgasmatron 24 hours a day... maximum pleasure, minimum suffering.

Oh - you don't think that's what we should strive for? Then these hedonistic criteria won't do. We need qualitative criteria for pleasure and displeasure - good luck with finding universally acceptable ones!

What if there was a dial on the Orgasmatron that went from 0 to 24 hours per day, would that be acceptable? And where can I find one - besides Woody Allen's movie, 'Sleeper'?

Other Comments by markg

598. Comment #240378 by Quine on August 31, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #240354 by J Mac:

Good luck Quine, while I haven't read everything by Lewis I have yet to read anything that warrants a refutation.

I agree that such refutation would be no great intellectual accomplishment, however, so many persons (usually Christians) think that there is some kind of intellectual 'there' there; the reference by Francis Collins comes to mind. It seems to me that ignoring him due to the lightweight nature of the actual content of his argument is not working because it assumes too much capability of critical thought in the public. Some will argue that paying Lewis any attention will give him too much credit, but that is why it is a good use of time for those of us who do not have an official academic reputation. I am simply tired of having him trotted out, as if a reference by the local minister or media commentator to Lewis wraps him or her in the august robes of the "smart people."

Other Comments by Quine

599. Comment #240384 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Paula-

Science shows that the offspring of an incestuous relationship are more likely to suffer from genetic defects. However, these days it is possible to prevent offspring occurring at all.

Have you read the excellent book "Evolving the Alien" by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen? I don't know how accurate the book is, but it talks quite frankly about sex and evolution. It suggests our understanding about sex and its advantages for diversity is far too simplistic. Incest in some species is quite common, and seems to cause little harm, and also there are many, many species in which sexual reproduction has been abandoned altogether, and yet the species thrives. There are some fish species that require the sexual act to reproduce, but are still parthenogenetic (Billy Sands has written about this: http://basketofpuppies-billy.blogspot.com/2008/08/sexually-deviant-monosexual-fish.html)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

600. Comment #240393 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Okay, Nairb,, I see the model, but I disagree with it.

First of all I disagree with the assumption that there are these five generations. Just from the basis of everyone I've met in the West, there's usually only three: grandparents, parents, children. I've known only one grandparent who's lived long enough to become a great-grandparent. Yet even granting your "twenty years is a genaration" assumption, that would still only give us with four generations.

So let's build the following 4 generation model. Say each generation has a thousand members (this is for simplification)

A:1000
B: 1000
C: 1000
D:1000

Say this replacement rate is what our fertility used to be. Now suppose that D is the current generation that has a 1.1 birth rate (Spain). You'll end up with the following structure:

B: 1000
C: 1000
D: 1000
E: 500

Now scroll forward another twenty years. Even if the birth rate recovers back to the replacement rate you'll have the following picture:

C:1000
D:1000
E:500
F:500

That's a thousand less than our original ABCD population - 25%. Not 50%, I'll give you that, but not a nice sign. Even if the fertility rate remains at replacement level, you loose another 17.5% and then another one. So it may take longer, but it would be a halving. You'd need fertility rates to be 4.2 - double - for a good recovery.

And all of this depends on a recovery in one generation. What if these low fertility rates persist for another one - or even don't recover entirely?

There's another problem: these societies will end up with a predominantly old population. That's not good if you're up against one that is predominantly young.

How's my math? ;-)

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal