Can't help but feel Dawkins is wrong on morality

[Undesired Walrus]

This is my third thread on morality in as many weeks, so if that annoys you then please ignore it.

Dawkins has said that the evolutionary misfiring to be good to complete strangers is a 'happy, joyful mistake'. I can't help but feel this is a poor piece of logic, as it implies there could have been such a thing as a terrible, catastrophic mistake in our evolutionary past. Of course, if this terrible, catastrophic mistake actually did occur, we would not have been the kind of creatures who would evolve to say that. We would instead have evolved to deem it a happy, joyful mistake too. I can't help but feel -in my opinion- that Dawkins's statement is indicative of a great body of Atheists who appear to regard there to be objective moral statements, and ignore the troubling reality that a godless universe in which we do not delude ourselves that there is a objective moral framework is a horrific universe to dwell in.

If you find there is no reason to believe in a God, like myself, I feel that you are deluding yourself if wish to believe that being good is anything more than a process which serves to boost your own self-interest. If that is the case, who are we to claim that Fritzl was wrong, when avoiding people stumbling upon his cellar secret was in his own self-interests?

Our belief in God is possibly evolved. We deem this as irrational, and I would agree. Yet when we wish to make a moral statement, when we summon something within us that tells us something is wrong, we are allowing ourselves to be utterly controlled by our evolved feelings. We are allowing something potentially irrational make a statement for us.

I wish to be proved wrong, as this evening I am alone with these rather painful thoughts.

[doronshadmi]

This is my third thread on morality in as many weeks, so if that annoys you then please ignore it.

Dawkins has said that the evolutionary misfiring to be good to complete strangers is a 'happy, joyful mistake'. I can't help but feel this is a poor piece of logic, as it implies there could have been such a thing as a terrible, catastrophic mistake in our evolutionary past. Of course, if this terrible, catastrophic mistake actually did occur, we would not have been the kind of creatures who would evolve to say that. We would instead have evolved to deem it a happy, joyful mistake too. I can't help but feel -in my opinion- that Dawkins's statement is indicative of a great body of Atheists who appear to regard there to be objective moral statements, and ignore the troubling reality that a godless universe in which we do not delude ourselves that there is a objective moral framework is a horrific universe to dwell in.

If you find there is no reason to believe in a God, like myself, I feel that you are deluding yourself if wish to believe that being good is anything more than a process which serves to boost your own self-interest. If that is the case, who are we to claim that Fritzl was wrong, when avoiding people stumbling upon his cellar secret was in his own self-interests?

I wish to be proved wrong, as this evening I am alone with these rather painful thoughts.
Without diversity there is no evolution. If self-interests eliminate diversity they cannot be considered as self-interests from a strategic point of view.

In other words self-interests is some dynamic balance between the tactic and the strategic that at least does not eliminate diversity.

If diversity is achieved by using less energy it is recognized as an evolutionary improvement.

And I am not limiting myself to physical biological systems but expanding it also to evolution of ideas.

[Undesired Walrus]

What do you mean by diversity?

[Safe-Keeper]

Goodness is evolved, but saying that it's "just one of many ways evolution could turn out" is irrational equivocation. Being good does lead to a better society, with more happiness, wealth and so on than being bad. This isn't "being controlled by our evolved feelings", it's empirical. If the goal is overall human happiness, goodness is the way to go.

ETA: Or to put it another way: yes, our current moral code is just one of many. But think about it - so is Christianity. There is no one moral code handed down to us from Yahweh and followed by all Jews and Christians - it's evolved, like just about everything else. The current interpretations (note the plural form) of moral codes from God is one of very many, too, so anyone who believes in divine and unchanging moral absolutes is fooling himself.

[doronshadmi]

What do you mean by diversity?
Different things (abstract or not) that share the same environment.

[Undesired Walrus]

Being good does lead to a better society, with more happiness, wealth and so on than being bad.

Why is this something to be cherished?

[Safe-Keeper]

Why is this something to be cherished?I'm assuming you're one of those people who'd rather live in a good country (like Norway, England, Japan, the USA, etc. )than in a failed state (like North Korea or Congo). In which case I don't really understand why you're asking.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm assuming you're one of those people who'd rather live in a good country

Yes. But surely this is only because of my own self-interest?

Isn't it inconcievable that a different evolutionary pathway would have us reflect very differently on the definition of what a good society is?

[Safe-Keeper]

Yes. But surely this is only because of my own self-interest?Yes, the interest of you and the people around you.

If God really did give us laws, wouldn't that be solely out of His self-interest?

Isn't it inconcievable that a different evolutionary pathway would have us reflect very differently on the definition of what a good society is?Yup, just like it's conceivable that an imagined civilization never got past the WWI stage when it came to aircraft and still flew propeller triplanes around. Doesn't change the fact that our time's jets are better than WWI planes, does it?

[cj.23]

This is my third thread on morality in as many weeks, so if that annoys you then please ignore it.

Not at all - I wrote quite a bit on it too. :)


Dawkins has said that the evolutionary misfiring to be good to complete strangers is a 'happy, joyful mistake'. I can't help but feel this is a poor piece of logic, as it implies there could have been such a thing as a terrible, catastrophic mistake in our evolutionary past. Of course, if this terrible, catastrophic mistake actually did occur, we would not have been the kind of creatures who would evolve to say that. We would instead have evolved to deem it a happy, joyful mistake too. I can't help but feel -in my opinion- that Dawkins's statement is indicative of a great body of Atheists who appear to regard there to be objective moral statements, and ignore the troubling reality that a godless universe in which we do not delude ourselves that there is a objective moral framework is a horrific universe to dwell in.

Ah, here we differ. I'm a Christian, but I'm not a fan of the notion of an objective morality.In fact like many Christian I have no morals whatsoever...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114739
I agree with you about Dawkins "happy mistake" however. I suspect, as Kropotkin did that adaptive advantage can be gained as much by mutual aid and altruism as in "nature red in tooth and claw". If I am right, human morality is an ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy.)


If you find there is no reason to believe in a God, like myself, I feel that you are deluding yourself if wish to believe that being good is anything more than a process which serves to boost your own self-interest. If that is the case, who are we to claim that Fritzl was wrong, when avoiding people stumbling upon his cellar secret was in his own self-interests?

Why do we need a god to have a morality that goes beyond self interest? Sure I'm not convinced by evolutionary psych theories of kin and say Hamilton's Law, but in humans which have the capacity of empathy and imagination I am not sure that altruism is really that mysterious, or requires a divine mandate. Mind you I am on record as saying that as theism faces the Problem of Evil, Atheism faces the problem of Good. I just don;t think its as serious an issue as Dawkins appear to imply.



Our belief in God is possibly evolved. We deem this as irrational, and I would agree.

I would disagree, but my reasoning is rather lengthy. It was the subject of my first formal debate on RD's place, where I was considered to acquit myself well I think. I can link if interested?


Yet when we wish to make a moral statement, when we summon something within us that tells us something is wrong, we are allowing ourselves to be utterly controlled by our evolved feelings. We are allowing something potentially irrational make a statement for us.

Well as I mentioned yesterday I am not sure that our brains are that trustworthy: they evolved for adaptive advantage, which may not be all that compatible with "objective truth".


I wish to be proved wrong, as this evening I am alone with these rather painful thoughts.

Don't be down Walrus! Have alook at my little sermon I linked - it might make you smile - and yes, if you are right (and I am) Human morality and altruism are no "happy accident", but part of what makes us the success we are as a species. I'm feverish so I may be talking rot, but heck man, I'm meant to be the one who agonises over "objective morality" not you. I hope your evenin grows better, and you ask some very interesting and thoughtful questions - i did my best to reply honestly...

cj x

[Ron_Tomkins]

The problem with the "Happy Accident" definition is in the word "Happy", which is relative.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes, the interest of you

I understand why you include this,

and the people around you.

But not this. Why should the lives of others serve in any way other than in a way that improves my own self-interest?

If God really did give us laws, wouldn't that be solely out of His self-interest?

Yes.

[MageLite]

But not this. Why should the lives of others serve in any way other than in a way that improves my own self-interest?

Do you like the people around you? Those you love and cherish and your children and descendants? Do you gain no happiness from friendship, relationships, or even friendly banter? Do you not want a world where they are safe and prosperous, as well as yourself?

[Undesired Walrus]

Why do we need a god to have a morality that goes beyond self interest?

It's not necessarily a God as such, perhaps simply a delusion of an objective moral framework.

I would disagree, but my reasoning is rather lengthy. It was the subject of my first formal debate on RD's place, where I was considered to acquit myself well I think. I can link if interested?


Sure. I am a bit shocked to hear you are a believer, but remember that my belief that your particular belief is irrational does denegrate my opinion of you, especially after your kind words in this thread.

Do you like the people around you? Those you love and cherish and your children and descendants? Do you gain no happiness from friendship, relationships, or even friendly banter? Do you not want a world where they are safe and prosperous, as well as yourself?

Yes, but presumably I do so for selfish reasons.

[geni]

Dawkins has said that the evolutionary misfiring to be good to complete strangers is a 'happy, joyful mistake'.

The centeral claim is flawed. Evolution has resulted in humans that are not good to complete strangers. Humans evolved to be rather hostile to strangers. What caused the shift was that someone worked out how to bring up humans so they hard a rather different defintion of strangers. The first shift is from everyone I don't know to everyone who doesn't know anyone I know. The second shift allowed things to go even furthur. Best we can tell looking at the early city states and the like the defintion was switched to anyone who doesn't workship the god/gods our priests worship.

[Wolfman]

Come on, people...look at the world around us. There are numerous different strategies that have evolved for various species, with great success. In fact, the vast majority of species have been on our planet far longer than humans have, and represent a far larger portion of the biosphere.

There are species that practice cannibalism, species that don't care for their children at all, species that care for their children...and even some species who give their children to others to take care of.

There are species that are asexual, species that are hermaphroditic, species that require two distinct genders...and even some species that require more than two genders.

Imagine, for example, if humans had evolved as hermaphrodites (being male until a certain age, and then switching to female), and having larger broods of children. What would be "good" for us then would be entirely different than what is "good" for us now. With greater competition for resources, and an increased rate of population growth, there would be strong pressures for a much more competitive or cutthroat system. If every person is going to bear 4-8 children during their lives (fathering 4-8 children during their male stage, then bearing 4-8 children during the female phase), keeping all your offspring alive is not going to be a terribly great priority...in fact, keeping all offspring alive would lead to very rapid overpopulation, and depletion of resources necessary to maintain the population. A society that did not 'love' its children as much, forced them to fend more for themselves, and just let the failures die, would arguably be better suited for their evolutionary survival.

And that's just one example.

We've got to get over the idea that because we're the dominant species, therefore our way is the 'best'. The emotions and instinctive drives that we've inherited are best for our specific situation; but had we evolved in a different way, those very same emotions and instictive drives could well have been detrimental rather than beneficial.

It is "good" because it meets the purpose of perpetuating our species, in the particular evolutionary direction that we have taken. It isn't "good" because it would be the best way for every species (even other intelligent species).

[Third Eye Open]

I'm not a philosopher, so I guess that's why I don't understand all this debate about morality.

Humans have empathy. The ability to 'put your self in the other guys shoes' so to speak. Other animals have been shown to have this ability also (mice I think, and I'm sure apes). If you have this ability, how can you help but have morality?

When I see someone suffering, I can't help but imagine myself in their place. That makes me uncomfortable, and I don't like being uncomfortable.

The closer I am to the persons suffering, the more uncomfortable I get. (closer in both senses of the word)

Is anything else needed to explain morality? I guess we could debate on how empathy evolved, but as far as I am concerned, morality is perfectly explained by empathy.

[cyborg]

Morals are social strategies.

If there is an "objective" morality then it is whatever strategy will best fulfill whatever goals it is the morals are supposed to be achieving. And the one thing everyone tends to assume whenever they start thinking about morals is that we're actually working towards the same social outcome when we're not.

This of course means that there's an objective morality for every social outcome you want. From an evolutionary perspective that's simply any social outcome that doesn't end up killing all its members off.

[articulett]

Or any outcome that successfully gets genes preferentially passed on--

If you have more empathy for or more concern for those who share more of your genes (and we all share some genes with every life form) then your genes have inserted a means of getting themselves passed on if they make you more likely to care for those who possess these genes as well--whether you are aware of it or not.

[my_wan]

I don't see it as a mistake of evolution at all myself. To me it appears to be evolutions attempt at improving the Nash equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) in light of Braess's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox).

Braess's paradox applies not only to network performance and automobile traffic but in any situation where optimum individual choice and optimum social choice diverges. In social choices it is survivability and wealth efficiency that can be maximized through socially optimized choices rather than individually optimized choices. In this view morality is evolutions mechanism for imparting social choices on the individual thereby maximizing the Nash equilibrium.

Religion in this view is a social mechanism for maximizing reverence for social choice over individual choice. Religious leaders often claim credit goes to religion for this morality. Yet it is the reverence for morality (socially optimized choice) that religion should give credit to for it's existence. Religion also has a darker side. By codifying (dogmatizing) religion it inputs a mechanism by which adherence to the choices of the very powerful can carry the same righteous imperative of choice as our reverence for morality.

In this view religion not only takes credit for that which created religion, it provides mechanisms to subvert that which created it to escape the socially optimized choice and often for the power of a few.

[articulett]

I'd say he describes it more as a byproduct--but I think everyone who studies the topic agrees that it follows basic game theory.. other social animals have their own seeming "morality".

If we have an algorithm to "take care of the vulnerable" for whatever reasons... and it sometimes ends up with helping strangers or a giant tortoise adopting a baby hippo-- then it's a "happy accident" of sorts because evolutionarily it was a strategy for ensuring the survival of more closely related gene carriers-- but proximity or saliency tends to be our "cue" to activate "empathy".

[rocketdodger]

If that is the case, who are we to claim that Fritzl was wrong, when avoiding people stumbling upon his cellar secret was in his own self-interests?

I can say he was wrong according to me.

And if one wants a definition of "wrong" I can simply say "I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't want any of my neighbors to do it." Simple as pie.

We are allowing something potentially irrational make a statement for us.

Not really. Just because many people attribute the wrong cause to their morals doesn't mean those morals are themselves irrational.

I wish to be proved wrong, as this evening I am alone with these rather painful thoughts.

Every decision you make is 100% selfish -- so what?

All you have to do, for instance, is declare "my wife's best interest is in my best interest" and automatically you are acting in the best interest of another.

Furthermore -- and this is important -- you need to ask yourself "what other way should I make decisions?" It turns out that, similar to the free-will delusion where people desire a libertarian free-will yet cannot explain how it would change their decisions, there is no need for decisions to be made in a non-selfish manner at all -- everything you consider "morally good" can be encompassed by purely selfish behavior.

[Roboramma]

Imagine, for example, if humans had evolved as hermaphrodites (being male until a certain age, and then switching to female), and having larger broods of children. What would be "good" for us then would be entirely different than what is "good" for us now.
That depends on how specific you're being. If by "good" you mean caring for children, then I agree with you. If by "good" you mean, for instance, the greater happiness (and perhaps justice) for those individuals that are living, then I would say it would be the same, though the things that lead to those outcomes would certainly be different.

With greater competition for resources, and an increased rate of population growth, there would be strong pressures for a much more competitive or cutthroat system. If every person is going to bear 4-8 children during their lives (fathering 4-8 children during their male stage, then bearing 4-8 children during the female phase), keeping all your offspring alive is not going to be a terribly great priority...in fact, keeping all offspring alive would lead to very rapid overpopulation, and depletion of resources necessary to maintain the population. A society that did not 'love' its children as much, forced them to fend more for themselves, and just let the failures die, would arguably be better suited for their evolutionary survival.

Well, you're equating "evolutionary survival" with good. I don't see why we should do that.
On the other hand, I can certainly agree that in this situation caring less for children could be for the good. That doesn't suggest that there aren't things which could evolve that would lead in the opposite direction. For instance, the human tendency to feel less empathy for members of outgroups, is, in my opinion, an evolved trait that we would be better off without.
Not because it leads to worse evolutionary survival, as you put it, but rather because it leads to the world being a worse place to live in for all the individual people who live in it.
Those traits, on the other hand, that tend to make the world a better place to be alive are, in my opinion, good, and I'm glad that they evolved.

That doesn't suggest that ours are the best possible traits, or that other species don't have better ones. Only that some of the traits that we evolved are good, perhaps that they could have been different, and thus that there is some merit in calling them a "happy, joyous, mistake".

We've got to get over the idea that because we're the dominant species, therefore our way is the 'best'. The emotions and instinctive drives that we've inherited are best for our specific situation; but had we evolved in a different way, those very same emotions and instictive drives could well have been detrimental rather than beneficial. I'd take this further and suggest that the emotions and instinctive drives we've evolved aren't even best for our specific situation, but simply good enough. There are possible ways in which they could be better, and some of them actually are detrimental now.

It is "good" because it meets the purpose of perpetuating our species, in the particular evolutionary direction that we have taken. It isn't "good" because it would be the best way for every species (even other intelligent species).

I disagree - what's good is good because it increases those things that we find valuable, whatever they may be, not because of "perpetuating our species" (which isn't even the level that evolution works on anyway).
But I do agree with your second sentence. What we value is different from what other species value, just like what I value might be different from what you value. But I can still say that it's good for me to, for instance, get to spend time with my friends, while for someone much more anti-social, spending time with friends may not be valuable - for him the opportunity to spend time reading books may be valuable. But since we both find value in those things, each of them is good.

It's not the specific thing itself, but the fact that it is valued.

[ImaginalDisc]

Goodness is evolved, but saying that it's "just one of many ways evolution could turn out" is irrational equivocation. Being good does lead to a better society, with more happiness, wealth and so on than being bad. This isn't "being controlled by our evolved feelings", it's empirical. If the goal is overall human happiness, goodness is the way to go.

ETA: Or to put it another way: yes, our current moral code is just one of many. But think about it - so is Christianity. There is no one moral code handed down to us from Yahweh and followed by all Jews and Christians - it's evolved, like just about everything else. The current interpretations (note the plural form) of moral codes from God is one of very many, too, so anyone who believes in divine and unchanging moral absolutes is fooling himself.


I think you might be confusing our evolved proclivities with our social development. We're quite hard wired to care about our family and friends, and regard those people as more important than other people. Xenophobia is as much an evolved trait as compassion, and still influences much of how our societies work. Christianity is not evolved in the biological sense, but it is the emergent property of some human societies, and societies are an outgrowth or our evolved moral concerns.

We might have evolved with more xenophobia, and still living in mutually mistrustful tribal groups. The degree to which our compassion can successfully be applied to people we are not related to is a misfiring of our biological imperatives, and turns out to be in our favor, just as colonies of bees that managed to all cooperate with each other and drive out all competing species of pollinators would become the supreme pollinators on the planet - something which is prevented by many evolved traits of bees reinforcing colony identity.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. But surely this is only because of my own self-interest?

Certainly not. Being a deceitful sociopath able to fool those around you into thinking you contribute to society would be in your self-interest. However, that requires not getting caught and competes against people with the proclivity to punish such action. Game theory suggest that cooperative groups are most successful when there is punishment for behavior which harms the group.

Being sociable is rewarded by altruism and punished by reciprocity.

Isn't it inconcievable that a different evolutionary pathway would have us reflect very differently on the definition of what a good society is?

That's very hard to reconcile with the fact that there are hundreds, or even thousands, of different ideas about what makes a good society, all propagated by different religions and cultures. There is more diversity in human societies than in human genetics. The rapid changes in just American social values and social structure have happened too fast for a purely biological explanation of social change.

[Dragoonster]

I'm not a philosopher, so I guess that's why I don't understand all this debate about morality.

Humans have empathy. The ability to 'put your self in the other guys shoes' so to speak. Other animals have been shown to have this ability also (mice I think, and I'm sure apes). If you have this ability, how can you help but have morality?

When I see someone suffering, I can't help but imagine myself in their place. That makes me uncomfortable, and I don't like being uncomfortable.

The closer I am to the persons suffering, the more uncomfortable I get. (closer in both senses of the word)

Is anything else needed to explain morality? I guess we could debate on how empathy evolved, but as far as I am concerned, morality is perfectly explained by empathy.

Not all humans have empathy, some even enjoy inflicting suffering on others that they wouldn't want inflicted on themselves. Some also enjoy suffering or being in pain.

A non-empathic sadist may as well say "humans don't have empathy and like to hurt people, morality is perfectly explained by this lack of empathy" while holding to a completely different moral set than an empathic person does.

Neither of these claims is more or less correct than the other. They both are equally correct, because each claim is correct for each person. We only call the sadist's incorrect because most of us disagree and have the power and desire to judge him (some subjectively, some objectively). If the sadists outnumbered the empaths the opposite would be occurring, and has occurred in some communities or nations.

I wish to be proved wrong, as this evening I am alone with these rather painful thoughts.

Why do you find the thoughts painful? If it's because morality is based on irrationality or self-interest, do you also find love or the basis of love painful? Or reacting to a piece of art or music, whether the reaction brings sadness or joy? Irrational things or thoughts shouldn't bring pain just because they're not objective or logical. Nor should only rational thoughts rule the world. It would be a very boring and stoic place if they did (assuming everyone agreed on what was rational, which isn't likely to happen either).

[Undesired Walrus]

Why do you find the thoughts painful? If it's because morality is based on irrationality or self-interest, do you also find love or the basis of love painful? Or reacting to a piece of art or music, whether the reaction brings sadness or joy? Irrational things or thoughts shouldn't bring pain just because they're not objective or logical. Nor should only rational thoughts rule the world. It would be a very boring and stoic place if they did (assuming everyone agreed on what was rational, which isn't likely to happen either).

I just can't see how a world without objective morals can say that something like slavery is absolutely, entirely wrong. I feel it is, but that is just how my emotions swim within. It's abritrary. Doesn't that devalue everything for you, and the claim that 'slavery is the great evil'?

[quixotecoyote]

I just can't see how a world without objective morals can say that something like slavery is absolutely, entirely wrong. I feel it is, but that is just how my emotions swim within. Doesn't that devalue everything for you, and the claim that 'slavery is the great evil'?

We can say slavery is absolutely, entirely wrong BECAUSE we say slavery is absolutely entirely wrong. We've built our culture to that point.

Now you might say to that, "But that would mean that the slaveholders of the 17th-18th century America weren't morally wrong because their society said so."

I would reply, "What did the slaves think?"

[Undesired Walrus]

How does that conversation continue?

[rocketdodger]

I just can't see how a world without objective morals can say that something like slavery is absolutely, entirely wrong.

We can say that it is absolutely, entirely wrong given a set of agreed upon values.

Just like you can say the set {3} is absolutely, entirely disjoint with the set of even integers.

It's abritrary.

No. It is simply non-absolute. Can you provide an argument as to why something that is non-absolute is necessarily arbitrary?

Given a choice between a bottle of water and a million dollars, a person might choose the million if they just had a drink and the water if they were trecking through the desert. So that choice is non-absolute, since different circumstances change the result. Would you then claim it is arbitrary?

Doesn't that devalue everything for you, and the claim that 'slavery is the great evil'?

I subjectively love tacos. The fact that other people don't hold them in such high regard does not devalue my love of tacos. Neither does the fact that there is no universal law stating tacos are the best food choice at all times.

So why should my subjective hatred of slavery be any different?

What you have to realize is that it is impossible to completely separate the list of all ethical decisions from the list of all normal decisions -- even for a single person -- because there are always edge cases that blur the line. You can say "to own or not own a human" is an ethical decision but what about "to employ or not employ a human?" Sure employees are supposed to work of their own accord, but everyone needs to work, so one could argue that all employees are basically very well taken care of slaves that can simply change owners at will. Or what about parents owning their children? Many people think it is within parents' rights to force children to do things assuming the parents think it is in the childrens' best interest. But how can a parent be sure they aren't subconsciously injecting some of their self interest into any decision regarding their child? Because a slave owner could make a very similar argument as to why it is ethical for them to own slaves.

That is why people who buy into a universal morality are forced to make utterly stupid claims when they take their belief to its logical conclusion -- such as plumjam's assertion that the universal morality includes aesthetics, it dictates that the beatles are superior to japanese kubuki, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not 'attuned' properly to this morality, and by implication is less moral than a beatles fan (it should come as little surprise that plumjam is, in fact, a beatles fan and vocal detractor of japanese kubuki).

This lack of way to fully partition ethical decisions from normal decisions implies that if there is a difference between ethical and normal decisions, it is only in quantity, not quality. And that implies that ethical decisions are fundamentally no different than any other decision, including whether you feel like a taco for dinner. There is more at stake, for sure, but a decision is still just a decision.

[rocketdodger]

How does that conversation continue?

Does it matter whether the slaves think their slavery is morally wrong?

If "yes" then we agree that the ethicality of a decision depends on the opinions of all affected parties.

And then you are right back where you started -- a society's moral framework is subjective and is merely an agreed upon set of values.

[quixotecoyote]

Does it matter whether the slaves think their slavery is morally wrong?

If "yes" then we agree that the ethicality of a decision depends on the opinions of all affected parties.

And then you are right back where you started -- a society's moral framework is subjective and is merely an agreed upon set of values.

Exactly. Society only judged slavery to be moral if you discount the portion of society that was enslaved.

The obvious counter to this is to ask "What about societies that decide it's moral to destroy another society." But that needs more details to flesh it out than I feel like providing before it turns into a workable hypothetical.

[cyborg]

The obvious counter to this is to ask "What about societies that decide it's moral to destroy another society."

Most societies will come to that conclusion since most will understand that by not having the same morals the other society is immoral and hence should be expunged just as immorality should be expunged in ones own society.

[Dragoonster]

I just can't see how a world without objective morals can say that something like slavery is absolutely, entirely wrong. I feel it is, but that is just how my emotions swim within. It's abritrary. Doesn't that devalue everything for you, and the claim that 'slavery is the great evil'?

It doesn't devalue it, as long as I continue to ponder my own moral beliefs I'm content with morality being subjective, and I don't need absolute justification to place value on my beliefs or actions.

I see moral debates as being held in several different contexts: Personal, social, biosociological/evolutionary, philosophical, theological/humanocentric (humanism). Just because I hold that morality is ultimately subjective and not absolute, it is a social issue, and it does have great impact legally and by other policy. The toolset in each type of argument is slightly different, but my goals remain the same--if possible within that context, try to put forth a credible argument for why my personal morality should be respected or legalized; or in some cases allow a counterargument to change my view.

It's difficult to combine all of the arguments into a single debate, because "objective" and "subjective" and types of proof differ in each--scientific, metaphysical, logical, emotional, utilitarian, free will issues, etc. And because bias leads to selectivity in justifications and example cases, hypocrisy, disingenuity, etc. So, I guess I compartmentalize each type of justification, with my personal morality and personal views being of primary import. And try my best to see how they affect the other contexts, or when/if other contexts affect them.

This may not be attractive and may be seen as relativism, but we have to (or should) make do with what we've got, and not ignore limitations for the sake of surety or false confidence/contentedness. Any slave-holder who did think morality was absolute, and that slavery was justified, would've been more likely to continue the practice than those who believed it wasn't and that morality, both social and personal, could change. We are almost certainly doing things now with almost universal approval that future societies will consider immoral. If we all belived in absolute morality, we may never realize it and the practices would never be recognized as immoral. Both as a society and to a person.

[Roboramma]

Exactly. Society only judged slavery to be moral if you discount the portion of society that was enslaved. Or society only judges murder to be immoral if you discount the murderers.

Except that we do. Given that society is made up of individuals, how do you determine what society is judging to be moral or immoral? There will always be some people who disagree with the majority viewpoint (just as slaves might disagree).

[arthwollipot]

I'm hardly a philosopher, but...

I am of the opinion that morality is derived from self-interest. In other words, being good to others is the best way to get them to be good to me. Altruism is a strategy that serves my own best interests.

Mak Twain's essay What Is Man (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-whatisman.htm) is very informative on this subject. Well worth a read.

[articulett]

I think religious morality is just as arbitrary or subjective as any other kind... it's all based on people interpreting their books or gurus or whatever to come to some conclusion about what god wants-- certainly they don't all agree... it seems to me that people do whatever they do for all sorts of reasons-- and then they claim their morality came from god--

I think most morality is built in empathy... and there seems to be a strong, strong evolutionary component to that. I think laws, rules, and social acceptance or shunning does the job when that fails--

I think religion just steals credit for the successes, but religious people and religious societies show no measurable increases in morality by any measurement... in fact, secular societies are repeatedly shown to be healthier.

I think morality is the byproduct and codification of "best social living practices". Slavery is wrong, because no one (including us) wants to be a slave. This notion certainly didn't come from any objective source or religious teaching. I think it's a natural byproduct or "evolution" of the reciprocity algorithm that many social animals seem to have evolved.

Basic game theory... coded for in the genes and codified in memes.

[Undesired Walrus]

Right.

So, I don't want to look outside my door and see a line of slaves led in chains because of the way I wish to see society is utterly different to the what I see walk past me? I sense that if they are free, or I free them, this benefits me?

If you dig deep down, why do you think any of you want to see a rational world in which intelligence and reason operate widely? Why does that fill you with warmth when you imagine it? Why do I get a kick out of teaching someone chess only for them to enjoy it?

[arthwollipot]

Right.

So, I don't want to look outside my door and see a line of slaves led in chains because of the way I wish to see society is utterly different to the what I see walk past me? I sense that if they are free, or I free them, this benefits me?It makes you feel good about yourself. Would you feel better if you had not freed them? No, you would have felt miserable! You free them because improving someone else's life makes you feel better.

If you dig deep down, why do you think any of you want to see a rational world in which intelligence and reason operate widely? Why does that fill you with warmth when you imagine it? Why do I get a kick out of teaching someone chess only for them to enjoy it?Because it makes you feel good that you have brought betterment to the lives of others. You were under no obligation to do so, yet you chose to improve someone else's life. Does that make you feel good? What if you had chosen not to improve someone's life? How would that have made you feel, knowing that you could have made a difference and you didn't?

Okay, I'll stop channeling Twain now.

[Alex Libman]

Dawkins is immoral because he's a socialist and wants to violate Parents' Rights on issues like religious education. No matter how screwed up some parents can be, trusting the government with education is far worse. In some ways he reminds me of a kinder gentler version of the Soviet religion debunkers that the Communist Party used to sell its ideology.

Aside from his politics Dawkins is a great scientist and a hero of rational thought. But I find politics far scarier than religion in its modern declawed form. Far, far, far scarier.

[arthwollipot]

So do parents have the right to bring up their children to hate Jews?

[Mashuna]

So do parents have the right to bring up their children to hate Jews?

Apparently so, if you're libertarian enough.

[arthwollipot]

Apparently so, if you're libertarian enough.Apparently, I'm not.

[Mashuna]

Apparently, I'm not.

No, nor am I.

[Lonewulf]

So, wait... how would you stop a parent from raising a child to hate Jews?

Serious question.

[arthwollipot]

Educate them.

[Alex Libman]

Yes, not hating that particular minority group is what government-controlled education has always been about. You go to a North Korean class room, the teacher be like: "Dzews neva boicott Dzerman product. Dzews neva do any Fivth Column activity. All Dzews infarrible! Unlike zem Jabaneze in Carifolnia! Zey bad!" :rolleyes:

[Bikewer]

If God were going to be responsible for conferring "morality" upon humans, wouldn't you think he'd have had everyone on the same page?
Any anthropologist will point out the diversity of human ethical systems throughout history.

We descend from species which had, as a survival strategy, a lifestyle which placed emphasis on cooperation, altruism, conflict resolution, and all those other "good" things. As well, however, we tend to be territorial, acquisitive, suspicious of strangers, and prone to violent outbursts and following leaders blindly....

Successful societies have sought to minimize or maximize these traits according to the conditions they found themselves in.
Warfare-prone New Zealand tribesmen, short of resources, took them from neighboring and weaker tribes. For them, this was ethical behavior; no doubt looked on fondly by their gods....

[westprog]

So do parents have the right to bring up their children to hate Jews?

In Jeddah, I promise that they do.

However, if you believe in some kind of objective moral standard, then they don't. But I don't see any substantive difference between a belief in an objective moral standard and a belief in God.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not a philosopher, so I guess that's why I don't understand all this debate about morality.

Humans have empathy. The ability to 'put your self in the other guys shoes' so to speak. Other animals have been shown to have this ability also (mice I think, and I'm sure apes). If you have this ability, how can you help but have morality?

When I see someone suffering, I can't help but imagine myself in their place. That makes me uncomfortable, and I don't like being uncomfortable.

The closer I am to the persons suffering, the more uncomfortable I get. (closer in both senses of the word)

Is anything else needed to explain morality? I guess we could debate on how empathy evolved, but as far as I am concerned, morality is perfectly explained by empathy.
Not everyone feels empathy.

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

Is it possible one of the reasons I loathe slavery because I would hate to be in favour of it, and be viewed in the same manner as we do the slaveholders now?

[rocketdodger]

Is it possible one of the reasons I loathe slavery because I would hate to be in favour of it, and be viewed in the same manner as we do the slaveholders now?

Yes, although I would consider that a pretty lame reason.

Because it implies that if you could have secret slaves you would do so.

I would rather think you loathe it because of what the slaves would think of you.

[Undesired Walrus]

Presumably that is pretty lame too though? You only loathe the principle of slavery because you worry about how your reputation would suffer in the slave community.

Is there any way to test these particular theories on the origins of morality, or is there any evidence collected already?

[qayak]

Not everyone feels empathy.

DR

I don't see how this negatively impacts what Third Eye said. In fact, it would tend to support their case for empathy explaining much of morality.

[qayak]

So, wait... how would you stop a parent from raising a child to hate Jews?

Serious question.

Point and mock their stupidity every chance you get.

[qayak]

Dawkins is immoral because he's a socialist and wants to violate Parents' Rights on issues like religious education. No matter how screwed up some parents can be, trusting the government with education is far worse.

Where does it say that a parent is allowed to force their religious point of view on a child? Dawlkins is protecting the right of the child to make their own, informed decision.

At this point in history, children are denied the right to religious freedom, Dawkins has started a process to change that.

[Alex Libman]

You socialists are the worst religious nuts I've ever encountered. You believe that gods created this perfect little world for you, where everyone's rights just magically fall from the sky because you want them to, and when they don't you get upset and use force.

In reality, children come from the decision of the parent to have that child. Or didn't your socialist school teach you that?

You are making the parents the slaves of the state, with an obligation to have children that are brainwashed by the state and raised according to its will, not theirs. Well, you can expect your birthrates to fall further and further, in spite of all the violent ways you'll try to get your plebs to breed, and in a few centuries your "golden age" of western socialism will be seen as the decline of a more enlightened civilization that came before it.

Muslims understand Darwin (and, BTW, compound interest also). You don't.

[arthwollipot]

Hang on, who's a socialist?

[qayak]

You socialists are the worst religious nuts I've ever encountered. You believe that gods created this perfect little world for you, where everyone's rights just magically fall from the sky because you want them to, and when they don't you get upset and use force.

No gods, no magic. Remember, this is a skeptic's forum.

In reality, children come from the decision of the parent to have that child. Or didn't your socialist school teach you that?

You are so naive! Like a child really. Sometimes people don't "decide" to have children, they just do. Sometimes they even decide not to but end up with children anyway. Didn't they teach you that in nutbar school?

You are making the parents the slaves of the state, with an obligation to have children that are brainwashed by the state and raised according to its will, not theirs.

Brainwashed is brainwashed regardless of whether it is the parent or state doing it. Based on testimony from adults who were indoctrinated by their parents as children and who now state that it had a vey negative impact on their life, Dawkins is saying that true religious freedom can only come through the ability to make a free and informed decision. Something that children are not able to do, especially children of religious zealots.

Well, you can expect your birthrates to fall further and further, in spite of all the violent ways you'll try to get your plebs to breed, and in a few centuries your "golden age" of western socialism will be seen as the decline of a more enlightened civilization that came before it.

Is this what they taught you at religious nutbar school?

Muslims understand Darwin (and, BTW, compound interest also). You don't.

Muslims, just like all other religious people, understand the importance of childhood indoctrination. A child is just as handicapped whether they are indoctrinated into islam or christianity.

[Alex Libman]

Hang on, who's a socialist?

Anyone who believes in "society" (a god that socialists have invented).



No gods, no magic. Remember, this is a skeptic's forum.

Except when it comes to the most important thing to be skeptical of - government. Everything else is child's play.



Sometimes people don't "decide" to have children, they just do.

Not getting a vasectomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy) / etc is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Not having an abortion is a choice. Not giving the baby up for adoption is a choice.


Brainwashed is brainwashed regardless of whether it is the parent or state doing it.

The term "brainwashing" implies force. The authority that parents have over their own children is legitimate, it is based on the fact that children are a creation of their parents, and that a child is not capable of having full rights to liberty and property right off the bat (until being emancipated by a jury or reaching the age of reason).

The force used by governments, on the other hand, is not legitimate. Any thug can call himself "government" and steal the fruits of your labor. Using the magic G-word (which carries so much weight in the socialist religion) doesn't make it right.


Based on testimony from adults who were indoctrinated by their parents as children and who now state that it had a vey negative impact on their life, [...]

And if you search hard enough, you will find plenty of people to testify that their cancer was cured by a shaman with a rubber chicken, but that doesn't give you the right to force everyone to get treated that way. The government has no vested interest in a child as an individual. His / her parents do.


Is this what they taught you at religious nutbar school?

I've already stated that I'm an atheist, and though I've suffered through many years of "public schooling" (in USSR, and then even worse in the USA), pretty much all my knowledge comes from self-education.

[my_wan]

Hang on, who's a socialist?

It's a catch all for Alex. It's a disguise of [rule 10] for the purpose of [rule 12].

[Lonewulf]

Hang on, who's a socialist?
Anyone who believes in "society" (a god that socialists have invented).

:jaw-dropp

[Third Eye Open]

Anyone who believes in "society" (a god that socialists have invented).





What is 'society' really? It seems to me that 'society' is 'everyone but me'.

[Alex Libman]

There is no society.

Just a certain number of individuals capable of having voluntary relationships and interactions.

No one may speak for society as a whole unless all of its members agree unanimously.

[arthwollipot]

Anyone who believes in "society" (a god that socialists have invented).Okay, well that's a definition that you've made up. You're free to have your own definitions for commonly-used words, but don't expect anyone else to understand what you're talking about.

There is no society.

Just a certain number of individuals capable of having voluntary relationships and interactions.

No one may speak for society as a whole unless all of its members agree unanimously.So clearly group dynamics means nothing to you. You see individuals and nothing else. That must make things mathematically complex...

[cj.23]

Hang on, who's a socialist?

I am! Is there a prize? :)

cj x

[Mashuna]

Alex, could you add a sig line? Something like 'Everything any government ever does is evil, libertarianism is the only way to freedom, you're all stupid socialists for believing otherwise.'

That way, we can take it as read, and you won't feel the need to parachute the same old arguments into every thread you participate in.

[quarky]

Baby cockroaches have to eat their mom's poop.

[my_wan]

Alex, could you add a sig line? Something like 'Everything any government ever does is evil, libertarianism is the only way to freedom, you're all stupid socialists for believing otherwise.'

That way, we can take it as read, and you won't feel the need to parachute the same old arguments into every thread you participate in.

Since Alex never realy bothers to explain himself but you can get a better idea from these sites.
http://www.youtube.com/RidleyReport
http://nhfree.com/

He's a pure anarchist of a certain flavor. Anybody not an anarchist is a socialist by his definition of the situation.

[Undesired Walrus]

Some more thoughts I have, and some more questions:

Why do the screams of a child, or the cries of a dying baby tug on our heart so strongly? Looking deep into my emotions, I can't say that I find the thoughts 'Because that could be my child'. I instead sense something else, that can only be described as 'It is just wrong!'. Why is the image of an incredibly thin child in Africa agonising?

Second of all, is it rational for us to respond only to how our primevil feelings -with respect to the dying baby- make us feel? Should a President attempt to prevent the deaths of children based solely on how his emotions swell when he is confronted with the screams of the babies in a terrorist attack?

Or must he divorce himself from these emotions -emotions which are the cousins of instinct that makes you wish to inflict harm on a rival- and instead think of practicle reasons why children should not be killed? Their young, fresh, curious potential for example.

I just don't see how you can justify -in a rational world- policy being enacted that is based on making the legislator have less uncomfortable emotions, as he does when he sees a dying child.

I appreciate all the help here, but I am a bit of an idiot, so can I ask for less complicated thoughts than are often written here?

[quarky]

Yes.

You are evolving the ever elusive "soul" that is often mentioned in non-scientific literature.

This might not be the best night club to flaunt it, but it shows commitment to the feeling.

Rejoice that you feel some things you can't explain.

(How's that?)

[Dragoonster]

Some more thoughts I have, and some more questions:

Why do the screams of a child, or the cries of a dying baby tug on our heart so strongly? Looking deep into my emotions, I can't say that I find the thoughts 'Because that could be my child'. I instead sense something else, that can only be described as 'It is just wrong!'. Why is the image of an incredibly thin child in Africa agonising?

It isn't, to me. I'm not completely stoic, but not as empathic as most people. I have to clinically decide that other human suffering is probably something I should object to. For this I can view other people's stances who I think are similar to me but more empathic. Or put myself in the situation and try to imagine how I'd feel. Or compare my feelings when non-human animals suffer to human suffering (I do care a little bit). But mostly I play-act at having a strong emotional content to my objections. I don't really care much about anyone else except possibly a few family members, but feel I should care more, so act and argue as if I do.

If I were a leader, I'd try to minimize human suffering, not because I care much but because others do and because others, and myself, expect me to care. When I see a starving child I think "that sucks", but usually lack any similar emotional "that sucks" feeling.

[qayak]

Except when it comes to the most important thing to be skeptical of - government. Everything else is child's play.

Really? I think you are preaching to the choir.

Not getting a vasectomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy) / etc is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Not having an abortion is a choice. Not giving the baby up for adoption is a choice.

I agree with the sex, vasectomy, etc. is a choice but it doesn't change anything. Somepeople who have vasectomies still father children. Not everyone gets a say in abortion and adoption does not erase the fact that you had a child.

The term "brainwashing" implies force.

Not necessarily. In fact, brainwashing is in many cases an alternative to force.

The authority that parents have over their own children is legitimate, it is based on the fact that children are a creation of their parents, and that a child is not capable of having full rights to liberty and property right off the bat (until being emancipated by a jury or reaching the age of reason).

So, what you are saying is that as long as they are brainwashed young enough it is okay from a moral standpoint? I think that is BS and comes from the mistaken belief held in the past, and still held by religious fundamentalists, that women and children are the property of men much the same as a house or a dog would be.

An enlightened view would be that women and children are individuals with rights equal to any man. In the case of the child, the rights are held in trust by their parents, not to be abused by them but to be protected. A child has fewer rights but also fewer responsibilities.

The force used by governments, on the other hand, is not legitimate. Any thug can call himself "government" and steal the fruits of your labor. Using the magic G-word (which carries so much weight in the socialist religion) doesn't make it right.

That is a very naive view and patently wrong on the first point. Governments do hold legitimate power.

And if you search hard enough, you will find plenty of people to testify that their cancer was cured by a shaman with a rubber chicken, but that doesn't give you the right to force everyone to get treated that way.

I think it is ironic that you bring this up as I am currently in the process of fighting for control of my father's medical care. He is 80 years old and suffering from vascular dementia,

As with a child, my father is not capable of making informed choices about his care and as his care is being neglected his seven children are stepping in to make sure he is taken care of properly.

The government has no vested interest in a child as an individual. His / her parents do.

The government's interest may not be vested as children are not property but it is legitimate. For obviopus reasons their interest is that the child becomes a productive member of society. Most parents do not have a vested interest either. Their interest lies in the fact that they love their offspring and want to see them succeed in their life within the society they live.

I've already stated that I'm an atheist, and though I've suffered through many years of "public schooling" (in USSR, and then even worse in the USA), pretty much all my knowledge comes from self-education.

I wonder why it is that so many people do so well on the schooling you loath so much? Look at the advancements made through this "public schooling." Compare that to the number of advancements made by people who were completely self taught or home schooled. I can understand the problem with the schooling received in the former USSR where curriculum had to follow the party line but not in the US. There is a reason the US was so far ahead of everyone else and it was because of the seperation of the party line from the school system. The US maybe losing ground on this front over the past few years but others are only catching up because they have adopted that seperation themselves.

I think your self education has been more of an exercise in "skim the facts to support your already held bias." You should have just put aside your attitude of superiority while you were in school, you would have gotten a lot further.

[Undesired Walrus]

I have to clinically decide that other human suffering is probably something I should object to.

Why do you come to that conclusion?

Can the debate with Alex be moved somewhere else?

[Dragoonster]

Why do you come to that conclusion?

Not completely sure. Maybe because it's expected of me, and of most people, and I'd like to be or at least appear normal, or I'd like to help people for some reason even if I don't have much emotional reaction. Also, while I don't truly feel anything about most people's suffering, I can still appreciate that they suffer, and by extrapolation from my own, that it would be better for them if they didn't. So, empathy derived from a logical comparison, but nothing all that emotional about it. More theoretical than personal.

[Alex Libman]

So clearly group dynamics means nothing to you. You see individuals and nothing else. That must make things mathematically complex...

You can have group dynamics without government force.


Alex, could you add a sig line? Something like 'Everything any government ever does is evil, libertarianism is the only way to freedom, you're all stupid socialists for believing otherwise.'

That would take all the fun out of it, but people who understand the symbolism of my new avatar would get a similar forewarning.


Since Alex never realy bothers to explain himself but you can get a better idea from these sites.
http://www.youtube.com/RidleyReport
http://nhfree.com/

He's a pure anarchist of a certain flavor. Anybody not an anarchist is a socialist by his definition of the situation.

I'm down on the Free State Project as of late. New light at the end of the tunnel: the Seasteading Institute (http://seasteading.org/).

But don't start with the "how", start with the "why". Good five minute intro here. (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf) Then a basic Wikipedia article on AnCap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). There you'll also find some good books and Web-sites referenced.

[Alex Libman]

I agree with the sex, vasectomy, etc. is a choice but it doesn't change anything. Somepeople who have vasectomies still father children. Not everyone gets a say in abortion and adoption does not erase the fact that you had a child.

We are talking about the origin of the relationship between a parent and a child - it's a legitimate one, based on the will of the parents to have the child and the implied desire of the child to live. There is no legitimate relationship between a child and a bunch of thugs calling themselves "government".


Not necessarily. In fact, brainwashing is in many cases an alternative to force.

No, it has a negative connotation to it. When someone tells you "I've been brainwashed at school all day", it implies that this person would rather be somewhere else.


So, what you are saying is that as long as they are brainwashed young enough it is okay from a moral standpoint? I think that is BS and comes from the mistaken belief held in the past, and still held by religious fundamentalists, that women and children are the property of men much the same as a house or a dog would be.

Close, but "property" isn't the best word for it, because children can still have the right to life, right to sue for emancipation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors) (or have someone else sue on their behalf), become automatically emancipated upon reaching the age of reason, sue the parents after the fact, etc. "Guardianship" is a better word, but even if we use the word "property" - children should be the "property" of the parents / guardians (when guardianship is transferred voluntarily), not the state.


An enlightened view would be that women and children are individuals with rights equal to any man. In the case of the child, the rights are held in trust by their parents, not to be abused by them but to be protected. A child has fewer rights but also fewer responsibilities.

I don't know why you inserted women when we're talking about the parents rights to their children here, we haven't touched upon gender differences yet. And using the word "enlightened" to justify your barbarism doesn't make it so. What you're justifying is strangers with guns kidnapping children from their parents.


That is a very naive view and patently wrong on the first point. Governments do hold legitimate power.

Oh, really? So then, according to your socialist religion, where does that power come from? Some ancient book which says "I am what I am, lord thy Go[vernment]"? :rolleyes:


The government's interest may not be vested as children are not property but it is legitimate. For obviopus reasons their interest is that the child becomes a productive member of society.

Productive slave, yes, but not productive enough to escape.


I wonder why it is that so many people do so well on the schooling you loath so much?

They do awful, they just don't know it because there is no competition. If all you ever ate in your life was rice, beans, and Brussels sprouts, you'd think they are the tastiest food in the universe.


Look at the advancements made through this "public schooling." Compare that to the number of advancements made by people who were completely self taught or home schooled.

Home-schooled kids do better (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/results-homeschooling-vs-public-schools.html), and that's in spite of their parents being robbed of tens of thousands of dollars for public education they are refusing. Given a free market in education, home-schoolers would have more money to spend and there would be more products offered to them, and the results would be even better.


I can understand the problem with the schooling received in the former USSR where curriculum had to follow the party line but not in the US.

I went to school in Moscow (grade 1-4) and in New Jersey, and the NJ one was far, far worse in terms of education quality (especially math and science), and also more authoritarian. (But that's because USSR was already falling apart in late 1980s - a corrupt dysfunctional government is less harmful.)


I think your self education has been more of an exercise in "skim the facts to support your already held bias." You should have just put aside your attitude of superiority while you were in school, you would have gotten a lot further.

I disagree.


Can the debate with Alex be moved somewhere else?

I agree that my iconoclastic views tend to take threads in different directions, and thread splitting might be a good idea (I wish there was a decentralized way of doing it w/o involving the vengeful mods), but all this comes back to the point about Richard Dawkins' immorality of imposing his views (which I agree with) on others through government. Us atheists need to win the battle of ideas and emotions fairly and respectfully, not at a barrel of a gun!

[westprog]

Some more thoughts I have, and some more questions:

Why do the screams of a child, or the cries of a dying baby tug on our heart so strongly? Looking deep into my emotions, I can't say that I find the thoughts 'Because that could be my child'. I instead sense something else, that can only be described as 'It is just wrong!'. Why is the image of an incredibly thin child in Africa agonising?

Second of all, is it rational for us to respond only to how our primevil feelings -with respect to the dying baby- make us feel? Should a President attempt to prevent the deaths of children based solely on how his emotions swell when he is confronted with the screams of the babies in a terrorist attack?

Or must he divorce himself from these emotions -emotions which are the cousins of instinct that makes you wish to inflict harm on a rival- and instead think of practicle reasons why children should not be killed? Their young, fresh, curious potential for example.

I just don't see how you can justify -in a rational world- policy being enacted that is based on making the legislator have less uncomfortable emotions, as he does when he sees a dying child.


There are two ways to justify policy - indeed, any action. One is to say "it is unequivocally wrong that this child should suffer in this way". The other is to say "If we wish to achieve this, then we should do this - but no desired outcome has any particular status over any other outcome except insofar as it leads to some arbitrary end."

If you think that a child's suffering has any meaning in and of itself, then that's a belief system which is effectively equivalent to a belief in God.


I appreciate all the help here, but I am a bit of an idiot, so can I ask for less complicated thoughts than are often written here?

I'm not clever enough to make it simple.

[westprog]

Not completely sure. Maybe because it's expected of me, and of most people, and I'd like to be or at least appear normal, or I'd like to help people for some reason even if I don't have much emotional reaction. Also, while I don't truly feel anything about most people's suffering, I can still appreciate that they suffer, and by extrapolation from my own, that it would be better for them if they didn't. So, empathy derived from a logical comparison, but nothing all that emotional about it. More theoretical than personal.

The emotional reaction tends to vary according to the inverse square law. Told that ten thousand children drowned in Bangla Desh yesterday and most of us will forget about it ten minutes later. See a child with a broken arm and we'll be shaken up for the rest of the day. Hence our capacity to endure dying children all over the world.

Where dying children are a common sight, people get used to it remarkably easily.

[rocketdodger]

Why do the screams of a child, or the cries of a dying baby tug on our heart so strongly? Looking deep into my emotions, I can't say that I find the thoughts 'Because that could be my child'. I instead sense something else, that can only be described as 'It is just wrong!'. Why is the image of an incredibly thin child in Africa agonising?

They don't. You seem to be a bit naive here -- have you been following world events for, say, the last 4000 years?

Humans are notorious for purposefully hurting each other, never mind letting each other suffer.

Second of all, is it rational for us to respond only to how our primevil feelings -with respect to the dying baby- make us feel? Should a President attempt to prevent the deaths of children based solely on how his emotions swell when he is confronted with the screams of the babies in a terrorist attack?

Or must he divorce himself from these emotions -emotions which are the cousins of instinct that makes you wish to inflict harm on a rival- and instead think of practicle reasons why children should not be killed? Their young, fresh, curious potential for example.

I just don't see how you can justify -in a rational world- policy being enacted that is based on making the legislator have less uncomfortable emotions, as he does when he sees a dying child.

Define rational and define less uncomfortable.

You can't hope to arrive at any sort of a genuine conclusion here if you don't understand exactly what the words you are using mean.

A proper leader *should* weigh the costs and benefits of any decision to their group as a whole and always make decisions which maximize benefits and minimize cost (this is one definition of "rational" ).

If so, then the leader needs to worry about everyone elses emotional response rather than their own.

A good example is the duality of torture. On the one hand, torture in general is ethically wrong according to most people. But on the other hand, there are many scenarios where torture is ethically acceptable according to most individuals. You can reconcile these opposing views by taking the stance that an individual may morally torture another if they feel it necessary but that the individual's society should still punish them because the society as a whole considers it wrong -- and both the individual AND the society are correct.

[quarky]

Wouldn't no torture be acceptable to everyone, with a bit of coaxing? We were almost there.

[rocketdodger]

Wouldn't no torture be acceptable to everyone, with a bit of coaxing? We were almost there.

No, because for any given individual, there are always scenarios where torture is ethically acceptable to them.

For many those scenarios are somewhat implausible and have a very small probabillity of being realized at all -- such as the "you saw a bad guy kidnap your family and his buddies will torture and rape your wife and children every day for 20 years if you don't find their location AND the torture of the kidnapper would be guaranteed to lead reliably to the desired information" scenario -- but this is irrelevant because we are talking about torture in principle.

So the best solution is to simply acknowledge that the individual and the society place a different worth on the individuals family, which leads to the following idea:

1) The cost to a society of all individuals (minus one) in that society knowing that their society condones torture is more than the benefit of all individuals (minus one) in that society knowing a single family was saved by an act of torture.

2) The cost to the individual in question of letting their family suffer was more than cost of being punished for torturing the kidnapper OR the benefit to all other individuals of knowing that their society does not condone torture.

Thus, the individual tortures the bad guy, his family is saved, his society punishes him, and in turn his society has a clean conscience.

I have always said that a just punishment for torture would be the same torture back (although not by the same person who was just tortured). Thus if a man's family is kidnapped, he will have to consider what he does to the kidnapper because it will be done to him in turn once his family is safe. I think that would prevent the kinds of stupidity we see the U.S. government engaging in right now while allowing for individuals to torture others if they are willing to pay the costs themselves. In such a context I certainly would not mess with prisoners of war -- what is the point? -- yet I certainly would inflict great pain upon a kidnapper to save my family -- anything I do to him and in turn to myself would be much more bearable than the thought of my family suffering.

[arthwollipot]

You can have group dynamics without government force.That's not what you said. You said:

There is no society.

Just a certain number of individuals capable of having voluntary relationships and interactions.

No one may speak for society as a whole unless all of its members agree unanimously.This implies that it is the individual who makes decisions - the individual who determines what happens, not the group. By your first statement, the group is meaningless and has no power. That's what you said.