Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid....

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Stating that it is a non sequitur doesn't make it such.

No, it's a non sequitur because it does not follow -- are we really going to do this again now? Where you cry and whine and, in addition to "demonstrably" put out the one-word non-responses like "rhetoric"? Because I've done it all before.

Quote:

Can the vampires exist without eating human blood?

They can, but remember vampires are adapted to feed on humans and much prefer it.

Quote:

Look in the mirror my friend.

Do you have any other awesome comebacks from 40 year-old issues of Mad Magazine? That Bob Dylan line was hilarious. And what did you say about not believing in God.

Quote:

From what perspective are these things "awful"? You beg the question. You and I agree that they are immoral but we didn't evolve to perceive them as moral nor does our society deem them moral. Further our moral reasoning does not deem them moral. If we had evolved to see them as moral then we would. End of story. You answer your own question. Next time answer it yourself.

You don't even know what it means to beg the question, and this answer is, not surprisingly, evasive. If you want to avoid the naturalistic fallacy, then you have to maintain that behavior is moral or immoral regardless of adaptation. This goes back to a fundamental distinction between what we regard as moral or immoral. People may regard slavery as OK, but that doesn't make it OK. A society may think genocide is laudable, and so on.

RandFan writes:

Quote:

He knows there is no such thing and so he will just ignore answering.

This is a riot. The same comment Thaiboxerken took issue with you said:

"Duh! As I've said time and time again. Sheesh. Tell us something we don't know for once."

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

...put out the one-word non-responses like "rhetoric"?

It is just rhetoric.

Quote:

They can, but remember vampires are adapted to feed on humans and much prefer it.

Easy. If they are capable of empathy then I would try to reason with them and get them to stop eating human blood. Otherwise we are screwed.

Quote:

That Bob Dylan line was hilarious.

Thank you, I enjoyd it myself.

Quote:

You don't even know what it means to beg the question, and this answer is, not surprisingly, evasive. If you want to avoid the naturalistic fallacy, then you have to maintain that behavior is moral or immoral regardless of adaptation.

I don't hold that anything is a priori moral or immoral regardless of adaptive traits.

You: There are objective moral truths.
Me: There are no objective moral truths. Morality is not a priori.


Let's cut to the chase.

1. Moral sentiment is an adaptive behavior (see Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker, Wright, de Waal, etc.)
2. What we percieve as "moral" is formed by many things including evolved adaptive traits.
3. We can reason beyond our adaptive traits (we need not be slaves to our nature, and besides, our nature is contradictory as it is).
4. That something is natural doesn't make it right (we should not confuse "is" with "ought").

Now, identify which premise you deem wrong and we will address that.

Quote:

This goes back to a fundamental distinction between what we regard as moral or immoral. People may regard slavery as OK, but that doesn't make it OK. A society may think genocide is laudable, and so on.

No argument. *That is what I have said from day one.

*(of this thread) I'll concede that my views of morality have changed some since I first came to this forum but I hold the scientific perspective that beliefs should be provisional.

[RandFan]

Cain,

One more thing regarding your vampire hypo. Logic cannot resolve all moral dillemas. It's the nature of the beast so to speak.

Quote:

From: Atheism Logic & Fallacies.

... logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals. For example:

• John wishes to speak to whomever is in charge.
• The person in charge is Steve.
• Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.

Unfortunately, John may have a conflicting goal of avoiding Steve, meaning that the reasoned answer may be inapplicable to real life.

[Cain]

I feel like a Daily Show correspondent sent out to interview a nutter.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Easy. If they are capable of empathy then I would try to reason with them and get them to stop eating human blood. Otherwise we are screwed.

But they're all like "noooooo, it tastes too good; have a little empathy for us." More seriously, my question asked how you arbitrate right from wrong, and I didn't mean negotiating a deal. They have a set of adapted behaviors -- feeding on humans is good. I mean, that's just science.

Quote:

Thank you, I enjoyd it myself.

This is where I give a wide-eyed look to the camera.

Quote:

Let's cut to the chase.

1. Moral sentiment is an adaptive behavior (see Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker, Wright, de Waal, etc.)
2. What we percieve as "moral" is formed by many things including evolved adaptive traits.
3. We can reason beyond our adaptive traits (we need not be slaves to our nature, and besides, our nature is contradictory as it is).
4. That something is natural doesn't make it right (we should not confuse "is" with "ought").

Now, identify which premise you deem wrong and we will address that.

I do not disagree with any of them. The problem, as I said, is in the application.

Quote:

So there must be some means to reason the morality or immorality of rape. I would posit that the means includes an appeal to our innate feelings of not wanting to see distress in others (see mirror neurons) and to reason that the best way to ensure that I'm not harmed is to not harm others (I "naturally" do not like to be harmed).

Any sort of decent theory strives to be as spare as possible. So suppose we genetically engineer a human to enjoy rape. He appeals to his innate feelings, which tell him to do it... and he likes violently attacking women, enjoys the distress it causes. So for him it's moral, right? For you it's immoral. But there's no way for you to arbitrate these differences. He has his natural, biological feelings, and you have yours. Now, if you want to appeal higher still, then why not cut out all of this silly gobblygook about your feelings and mirror neurons? You're like a person trying to read into the Bible whatever moral belief system you already have but instead of the Bible it's the human genome.

As for resolving matters, one can think of morality as trumps. Of course it's difficult.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

That is a demonstrable lie. Kevin criticized me for suggesting that adaptive behavior or nature has anything to do with morality.

That is a fact.

You've now demonstrated that you agree with me and disagree with Kevin but you haven't the intellectual honesty to admit it.

This will be obvious to anyone who has actually been following the thread and understanding it, but on this point Cain is right and RandFan is wrong. Cain gets it, and RandFan doesn't.

To sum up RandFan's position, which inherently involves making a set of self-contradictory statements:

1. There is not eternal, a priori morality. (This is correct).

2. Therefore any objective moral statement that applies to all people in relevantly similar circumstances is empty. (This does not follow from point 1, but RandFan has repeatedly failed to grasp this despite many, many attempts to explain this).

3. We have some adaptive intuitions about how we should act. (This is correct).

4. Therefore we base all our moral claims on these adaptive intuitions. (This does not follow from point 3, but RandFan has repeatedly failed to grasp this despite many, many attempts to explain this).

5. Here comes the core contradiction: Although all our moral claims originate in adaptive intuitions about how we should act, we can use "reason" to beat these adaptive intuitions into different shapes that are better in some sense.

6. When someone says "Hang on there buddy, you just denied the existence of any moral values higher than adaptive intuitions, so how are you deciding what is better than just following our adaptive intuitions?" he responds with something vague about making society run better. Rape is not bad because we have an intuition that it's bad, it's bad because it gums up the works of society.

So to sum up the story so far, RandFan thinks we start by mindlessly following adaptive imperatives, and then we use "reason" to modify those imperatives to behave more efficiently as a society, and that's all morality is.

7. When someone says "So what about horrible things that don't gum up the works of society? Suppose it was efficient to slaughter our neighbours and rape their fertile women, or allow men to rape their wives, or allow prostitutes to be raped without legal consequences, or shoot street children, or gas the mentally disabled, or keep slaves, or burn shoplifters at the stake in public to deter others?" then RandFan runs the hell away and finds some distraction to hide behind until the scary question goes away, because he has absolutely no answer to it.

He's started with false assumptions and reasoned himself into a position where the only thing morally wrong with the great atrocities of history is that they were an inefficient use of social resources.

Interestingly, if he applied his position consistently he'd end up with something very much like an utterly brutal,objectivist consequentialism that didn't care about anything except the overall efficiency of a society.

I'm not calling him a fascist, by the way. I just think that he's incapable of critically reasoning his way through the things he types, hell-bent on showing his own cleverness by incorporating the pop literature about adaptive moral intuitions into his own half-baked moral philosophy, and incapable of hearing anything that casts doubt on the ill-made "moral" philosophy he's cobbled together. He's much more like a perpetual motion kook than a Nazi - a layperson convinced he's revolutionised a whole field of academic endeavour when in fact he's just stuck on some very basic errors.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

...my question asked how you arbitrate right from wrong...

(see post 563)

Not all moral conflicts can be arbitrated. I'm sorry Cain but there is not always a right or wrong answer.

Quote:

I do not disagree with any of them. The problem, as I said, is in the application.

Then, if you are honest, you don't have an argument with me as that is all my position consists of. End of story.

Quote:

So for him it's moral, right? For you it's immoral. But there's no way for you to arbitrate these differences.

Is there a society filled with these individuals? Has this behavior resulted in an ESS?

Quote:

He has his natural, biological feelings, and you have yours.

Here you err. You are making a hypo in a vacuum. There are a number of other variables important to the equation and your hypo is worthless as it is.

No one I know, least of all me, is arguing that an individuals feelings alone justify behavior. Yet you continue to make arguments as if someone were.

Quote:

...why not cut out all of this silly gobblygook about your feelings and mirror neurons?

You give me reason not to cut out feelings.

Quote:

From your post.

...the ask first principle ("Is it okay if I torture you?" as a thought experiment only, of course)...

I don't want to be tortured because it causes suffering. Suffering is a feeling. A bad feeling. To base my morality on this I must consider my feelings.

That's what I've been trying to get accross to Kevin. We can't really navigate morality without feelings. In the end we have to "care" about something even if it is our own desires not to suffer.

Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.

Quote:

You're like a person trying to read into the Bible whatever moral belief system you already have but instead of the Bible it's the human genome.

I'm not doing anything that Shermer, Dawkins, et al aren't doing.

[RandFan]

And Cain, your Sig is still dishonest as I've stated that I find rape repugnant. But you won't include that in your Sig because it doesn't serve your ego.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

my question asked how you arbitrate right from wrong, and I didn't mean negotiating a deal. They have a set of adapted behaviors -- feeding on humans is good. I mean, that's just science.

It just dawned on me just how much of the mark you missed the point.

I'm not trying to negotiate a deal. I'm trying to make a compelling argument that my morals are superior to theirs (assuming they are capable of empathy). Suffering is bad. Killing humans for their blood causes suffering. If the suffering of others is of concern to them then they should forgo killing humans.

One more time. Though I've no doubt you will ignore it.

I DON'T hold that personal feelings, adaptive or otherwise, are a sole basis for moral judgement. Nor do I believe that one can argue that simply because something is natural makes it right. Nor do I believe that what "is" should dictate what "ought" to be.

I don't argue that the Vampires are right simply because they evolved to eat human blood. I argue that because it is an evolved trait it is understandable why they might percieve it as right. I would also arge that if it were the only way for them to survive then to them it would be right.

Unless they evolved to percieve that their own survival was insignificant to suffering. But you and I both know that is not a an ESS.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It just dawned on me just how much of the mark you missed the point.

I'm not trying to negotiate a deal. I'm trying to make a compelling argument that my morals are superior to theirs (assuming they are capable of empathy). Suffering is bad. Killing humans for their blood causes suffering. If the suffering of others is of concern to them then they should forgo killing humans.

Hey presto, now RandFan's an objectivist, specifically a hedonistic utilitarian.

Don't worry, he'll be back to moral relativism or fascist consequentialism in a minute and he'll still be denying that he's ever moved an inch.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

(see post 563)

Not all moral conflicts can be arbitrated. I'm sorry Cain but there is not always a right or wrong answer.

Wow, that's a long way from your previous answer which began with the one-word sentence "Easy." I'm not talking about resolving the situation. Slavery in America was difficult enough to resolve, but somehow, given the kind distance of history, we recognize the institution of slavery as obviously wrong.

Are you really going to seek refuge in your excerpted quote from some webpage? Put trumps aside, have you never heard the expression "competing values"?

-Greg wants to do well on his ethics test.
-Greg does NOT want to cheat.

Quote:

Then, if you are honest, you don't have an argument with me as that is all my position consists of. End of story.

Noooooo. See Kevin's last post, points 5-7 in particular. (Oh wait, you put him on ignore).

Kevin wrote:

Quote:

So to sum up the story so far, RandFan thinks we start by mindlessly following adaptive imperatives, and then we use "reason" to modify those imperatives to behave more efficiently as a society, and that's all morality is.... When someone says "So what about horrible things that don't gum up the works of society... then RandFan runs the hell away and finds some distraction to hide behind until the scary question goes away, because he has absolutely no answer to it.

Quote:

Is there a society filled with these individuals? Has this behavior resulted in an ESS?

What difference does it make? You're avoiding the question with a vague appeal to society. Are you looking for an efficient ratio of rapists to non-rapists?

Quote:

Here you err. You are making a hypo in a vacuum. There are a number of other variables important to the equation and your hypo is worthless as it is.

And those variables would be what, exactly? Whether or not society is filled with these individuals? Whether or not it has "stabilized?" You're just trying to avoid answering the question, and your concerns are those of a crackpot. A... crackpot!

Quote:

No one I know, least of all me, is arguing that an individuals feelings alone justify behavior. Yet you continue to make arguments as if someone were.

You give me reason not to cut out feelings.

You mix and match, reminding me of the proverbial advice from an old lawyer to a young grad: "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither the law, nor the facts are on your side, pound the table."

Quote:

I'm not doing anything that Shermer, Dawkins, et al aren't doing.

This is not a good argument. You consistently surrender whatever thinking is your own to those authorities. I remember in the other thread somebody posted a video of Dawkins coming out in favor of rights for gorillas, and then, lo and behold, you were in favor of rights for gorillas. Not that it matters but Dawkins has also compared eating animals to slavery, and claimed he lacks the "social courage" (maybe he said "moral courage" -- something courage). Who cares? Those guys are scientists, not moral philosophers.

Quote:

I'm not trying to negotiate a deal. I'm trying to make a compelling argument that my morals are superior to theirs (assuming they are capable of empathy). Suffering is bad. Killing humans for their blood causes suffering. If the suffering of others is of concern to them then they should forgo killing humans.

OK, assuming they are not capable of empathizing with humans then how are your morals superior to theirs? How can you even say yours are superior to theirs? To use the term "superior" means you have reached a value judgment. How?

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Hey presto, now RandFan's an objectivist, specifically a hedonistic utilitarian.

Don't worry, he'll be back to moral relativism or fascist consequentialism in a minute and he'll still be denying that he's ever moved an inch.

This isn't college debate class, so it's not like one has to stick dogmatically to one school of thought. Welcome to the world of greys.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Are you really going to seek refuge in your excerpted quote from some webpage? Put trumps aside, have you never heard the expression "competing values"?

?

You are a bit late. I allready covered that (see post 563).

Quote:

Kevin wrote: So to sum up the story so far, RandFan thinks we start by mindlessly following adaptive imperatives, and then we use "reason" to modify those imperatives to behave more efficiently as a society, and that's all morality is.... When someone says "So what about horrible things that don't gum up the works of society... then RandFan runs the hell away and finds some distraction to hide behind until the scary question goes away, because he has absolutely no answer to it.

To sum up. Kevin is engaging in a strawman.

Quote:

You're just trying to avoid answering the question, and your concerns are those of a crackpot. A... crackpot!

No. I answered the question so accusing me of avoiding it is a lie.

Quote:

This is not a good argument. You consistently surrender whatever thinking is your own to those authorities. I remember in the other thread somebody posted a video of Dawkins coming out in favor of rights for gorillas, and then, lo and behold, you were in favor of rights for gorillas.

Actually, Kevin introduced me to Singer's expanding circle long before that.

Quote:

OK, assuming they are not capable of empathizing with humans then how are your morals superior to theirs? How can you even say yours are superior to theirs? To use the term "superior" means you have reached a value judgment. How?

That's right. I did reach a value judgement based on reason and considering feelings. My morals produce greater well being for a greater number of people for a small sacrifice of giving up the Vampires desire to consume human blood. And my morals can resolve the first person question posed in your Shermer post.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Hey presto, now RandFan's an objectivist, specifically a hedonistic utilitarian.

Don't worry, he'll be back to moral relativism or fascist consequentialism in a minute and he'll still be denying that he's ever moved an inch.

I've never been an objectivist. I'm not now nor have I ever advocated strict relativism. My morals are, as Shermer says, provisional.

I'm not the one trying to defend moral absolutism all the while denying it.

Kevin, you are just projecting.

Originally Posted by GreNME

This isn't college debate class, so it's not like one has to stick dogmatically to one school of thought. Welcome to the world of greys.

And this is the problem of Kevin and Cain. They've painted themselves into a corner and no logic or reason can sway them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by GreNME

This isn't college debate class, so it's not like one has to stick dogmatically to one school of thought. Welcome to the world of greys.

If you want to start a meta-ethical debate, then you open yourself up to being called on meta-ethical inconsistencies and/or contradictions.

What RandFan's doing now is endorsing something which is indistinguishable, when the rubber meets the road, from an objectivist, hedonistic utilitarian position.

You don't get to do that without being called on it if you're been claiming for ten pages that you're a moral relativist.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

1. Moral sentiment is an adaptive behavior (see Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker, Wright, de Waal, etc.)
2. What we percieve as "moral" is formed by many things including evolved adaptive traits.
3. We can reason beyond our adaptive traits (we need not be slaves to our nature, and besides, our nature is contradictory as it is).
4. That something is natural doesn't make it right (we should not confuse "is" with "ought").

Now, identify which premise you deem wrong and we will address that.

Note that this is and has been my position and no one, not Kevin or Cain has invalidated a single premise.

So, they invent arguments for me AKA strawmen.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If you want to start a meta-ethical debate, then you open yourself up to being called on meta-ethical inconsistencies and/or contradictions.

What RandFan's doing now is endorsing something which is indistinguishable, when the rubber meets the road, from an objectivist, hedonistic utilitarian position.

You don't get to do that without being called on it if you're been claiming for ten pages that you're a moral relativist.

Now I see why RandFan has you on ignore. You're persistence with the circular argument is melodramatic enough to qualify for reality TV.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I've never been an objectivist. I'm not now nor have I ever advocated strict relativism. My morals are, as Shermer says, provisional.

Here's quite a good response to Shermer's attempts at discussing morality.

I offer this link to people capable of rigorous, joined-up thought. RandFan, based on his previous behaviour in this thread, will read it without understanding it, then cut and paste some snippets he thinks look like something he's said in the past, and present them as if it proves that his position is coherent.

Calling your morality "provisional" is simply a cop-out. Human beings, at least the smarter ones on their good days, are capable of rationality and consistency. You don't get to excuse yourself from judgement on those grounds by saying "Oh, my position is provisional, it doesn't answer to criticisms of irrationality and inconsistency". In fact if you were being intellectually honest, the fact that your provisional position has been shown to have such problems should be the trigger for you to change it.

Quote:

I'm not the one trying to defend moral absolutism all the while denying it.

GreNME has already run the "claim that Cain and Kevin are moral absolutists, when they have been completely consistent from the very beginning that they are objectivists if they are anything" gambit into the ground.

It does you no credit to sink to GreNME's level.

The fact that you can't grasp this after being told so very many times is somewhat worrying. Do you really not grasp the distinction?

Quote:

And this is the problem of Kevin and Cain. They've painted themselves into a corner and no logic or reason can sway them.

I submit that you would have to have tried it in order to know.

[RandFan]

I keep referring to you Kevin and that seems dishonest to have you on ignore all the while taking pot shots at you.

So I'll take you off ignore until I tire of this affair.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Calling your morality "provisional" is simply a cop-out.

Saying so doesn't make it true.

Quote:

Human beings, at least the smarter ones on their good days, are capable of rationality and consistency. You don't get to excuse yourself from judgment on those grounds by saying "Oh, my position is provisional, it doesn't answer to criticisms of irrationality and inconsistency".

I've never done this. I've never tried to excuse myself from any judgment. You know that and I know that. And I can prove it. Well, I can't prove it but I can demonstrate that you won't disprove it.

That should be sufficient.

Quote:

In fact if you were being intellectually honest, the fact that your provisional position has been shown to have such problems should be the trigger for you to change it.

You've shown no problems. You've invented a strawman for you to tear down. I've given you my position and you've not rebutted a single premise.

1. Moral sentiment is an adaptive behavior (see Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker, Wright, de Waal, etc.)
2. What we perceive as "moral" is formed by many things including evolved adaptive traits.
3. We can reason beyond our adaptive traits (we need not be slaves to our nature, and besides, our nature is contradictory as it is).
4. That something is natural doesn't make it right (we should not confuse "is" with "ought").

Now, identify which premise you deem wrong and we will address that. Anything else is an invention in your head.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I offer this link to people capable of rigorous, joined-up thought.

IOW, those who don't agree with you are dishonest. Ad hominem poisoning the well.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Here's quite a good response to Shermer's attempts at discussing morality.

From the link.

Quote:

In the end, the golden rule is invoked as a test for morality. We all know the problems with this: It is moral to cheat on my wife provided that I don't mind her cheating on me?

Is based on a profoundly over-literal misreading of the Golden Rule and Shermer's as well as most intelligent people's reading of it. Let's see, I like ham so does the golden rule mean I should give people ham? That's the level he's interpreting it at.

Quote:

There are some moral principles that we are quite certain of. For example: 'Improved self-esteem leads to a better life'.

That's not a moral principle, it's a claim (unsubstantiated) about a causal relationship with vague criteria

I could go on, but that would involve picking apart the whole article, as there's no reasonable points made in the whole thing.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You don't get to do that without being called on it if you're been claiming for ten pages that you're a moral relativist.

I've never claimed to being a strict moral relatavist.

Quote:

...we can construct an ethical system that generates a morality that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative — a provisional morality for an age of science that provides empirical evidence and a rational basis for belief.

...a new theory of provisional ethics that challenges the reader to confront these timeless issues from a new perspective — one that suggests that both morality and immorality evolved in human biological and cultural evolution, that we can make free moral choices in a determined universe, that moral principles can have a sound rational basis supported by empirical evidence (without being dogmatically absolutist or dependent on an external source of validation), and that we can be good without God.

That's it Kevin. I don't give a damn if you don't like it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Note that this is and has been my position and no one, not Kevin or Cain has invalidated a single premise.

So, they invent arguments for me AKA strawmen.

...I'm getting very sick of this.

Quote:

1. Moral sentiment is an adaptive behavior (see Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker, Wright, de Waal, etc.)

Not quite right. Some moral sentiments are the result of evolutionary pressure towards behaviour that was adaptive in the past. Close though. Depending on what you include in the set of moral sentiments, some moral sentiments might be the result of reason too.

Quote:

What we percieve as "moral" is formed by many things including evolved adaptive traits.

True.

Quote:

We can reason beyond our adaptive traits (we need not be slaves to our nature, and besides, our nature is contradictory as it is).

This is the claim that has been responded to specifically, repeatedly and very recently, so claiming it has never been addressed is indicative of dishonesty or stupidity.

HOW do you think we can we "reason beyond" these adaptive, instinctive feelings, and where are we reasoning to? On what basis are we adopting some instinctive feelings as moral, and others as immoral?

The only offerings you've given us are social convenience or utility, which would make you a fascist objectivist consequentialist, or pain and suffering which would make you an objectivist hedonistic utilitarian.

In other words you've built a castle in the clouds of moral relativism, appeals to the naturalistic fallacy and pure denial. But when your castle encounters the real world, you have to immediately abandon it and become an objectivist or you end up with conclusions you can't stomach.

Yet you can't admit this after spending pages denying that objectivist moral philosophies make any sense, and more recently getting absolutism muddled with objectivism.

Quote:

That something is natural doesn't make it right (we should not confuse "is" with "ought").

Yet throughout this thread you have constantly tried to introduce adaptive behaviours or sentiments as relevant to "ought" claims, and then constantly denied that you were doing this.

If there is a disconnect between "is" and "ought", you need to bridge that gap between the existence of instincts and the moral imperative to obey those instincts in some cases.

All you have to offer to bridge that gap, when we press you on it, are varying flavours of objectivist utilitarianism.

Quote:

Now, identify which premise you deem wrong and we will address that.

Based on your previous behaviour I doubt it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

...I'm getting very sick of this.

I can assure you that you are not as sick of me as I am sick of you which is why I put you on ignore in the first place. I've been on this forum for a long time and it is rare that I run into anyone as incapable of understanding such a simple point and who has gone to such lengths to protect his precious ego.

Quote:

Depending on what you include in the set of moral sentiments, some moral sentiments might be the result of reason too.

Pedantic but fine, I agree, not the point. My point was that our capacity for moral sentiment is an adaptive trait.

Quote:

True.

Hallelujah! Better late than never.

Quote:

... is indicative of dishonesty or stupidity.

Yeah, personal abuse is always a good way to avoid being put on ignore.

Quote:

HOW do you think we can we "reason beyond" these adaptive, instinctive feelings, and where are we reasoning to?

Are you saying that you lack the means to reason morality? Really?

Here's the thing Kevin, you can choose whatever moral reasoning you want and you can either take into account sociobiology or not.

That's it. All of the hand waving and brow beating is ENTIRELY beside the point. You may insert any moral philosophy you want into the blank line. RandFan is a __________. I don't care. I have a moral philosophy but I don't need to justify that philosophy to you.

I DON'T argue that adaptive behaviors must be taken into account to reason morality. I think it wise that we do so. So, I don't give a **** what you use to reason your morality. I'm with Pinker, Dawkins et al.

• I think that the negative aspects of torture outweigh any benifits of torture.
• I wouldn't want to be tortured.
• Formulating a morality where I'm not tortured increases the likelyhood that I won't be tortured.
• It distrubs me when I find out that others have been tortured.

Quote:

If there is a disconnect between "is" and "ought", you need to bridge that gap between the existence of instincts and the moral imperative to obey those instincts in some cases.

No. I only need recognize moral instincts and how they inform our morality.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

?

You are a bit late. I allready covered that (see post 563).

Um... that's the post I was referencing.

Quote:

To sum up. Kevin is engaging in a strawman.

**** you, no. You always pull this ****. You reference these one word fallacies (even though "straw man" is two words) without any explanation whatsoever. But then I complained about this over five years ago. Anyway, it has a lot to do with you not knowing what you're talking about.

Quote:

No. I answered the question so accusing me of avoiding it is a lie.

Where did you answer it? Quote your answer. Instead you asked ESS questions.

Quote:

Actually, Kevin introduced me to Singer's expanding circle long before that.

Here's a gold star.

Quote:

That's right. I did reach a value judgement based on reason and considering feelings. My morals produce greater well being for a greater number of people for a small sacrifice of giving up the Vampires desire to consume human blood. And my morals can resolve the first person question posed in your Shermer post.

Then this certainly does smack of a utilitarianism. You cannot parachute in self-contradictory beliefs when it is convenient to do so. It's like saying you're vegan between meals.

Oh, and the signature thing. Earlier I clicked on this thread, saw that post, and wondered if I had the right page (page 15). I'm not sure why you would again demand I change it if you're having so much fun reveling in a delicious irony, or whatever nonsense you wrote. Well, you can keep that up. Hell, if you post the hyperlink code, I'll put it into my sig. That argument is not anything you should be proud of. Anyone can reasonably dismiss a typo -- "what make rape wrong?" but that mess?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Um... that's the post I was referencing.

Then you understand why it's settled.

Quote:

**** you

There's morality for you.

Quote:

Where did you answer it? Quote your answer. Instead you asked ESS questions.

Give me a minute.

Quote:

Then this certainly does smack of a utilitarianism.

? And?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Quote:

Is there a society filled with these individuals? Has this behavior resulted in an ESS?

What difference does it make? You're avoiding the question with a vague appeal to society. Are you looking for an efficient ratio of rapists to non-rapists?

I'm pointing out to you that a society filled with such people would likely be selected against (it's not likely to result in an ESS). There's a reason I point that out. You see, there's a reason evolution works. It's not perfect but for social animals it is not likely to produce animals who are largely anti-social.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Well, you can keep that up. Hell, if you post the hyperlink code, I'll put it into my sig.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...85#post4831285

Quote:

That argument is not anything you should be proud of. Anyone can reasonably dismiss a typo -- "what make rape wrong?" but that mess?

Yeah I know, we are not all you.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I can assure you that you are not as sick of me as I am sick of you which is why I put you on ignore in the first place. I've been on this forum for a long time and it is rare that I run into anyone as incapable of understanding such a simple point and who has gone to such lengths to protect his precious ego.

You're so far off base it's not funny. The problem is not failure to "understand a simple point", it's that I understand the point very well and no matter how many times you restate it it is still a load of bollocks.

As far as my own ego goes, I've never put forward my own moral philosophy in detail in this thread. I've never even stated my own opinion or practises about the consumption of meat in this thread. This isn't about my ego, it's about your pet moral philosophy and it's glaring inconsistencies, which I'm not going to pretend do not exist no matter how much you shout.

Quote:

Hallelujah! Better late than never.

To quote Cain, *** you. No. You don't get to pull that one.

I've taken for granted from the start people's that people's moral beliefs (note that I'm just talking about what individual people walking around believe) are influenced by their inherited behavioural tendencies.

What I've been arguing, with complete consistency, also from the start, is that this tells us nothing about whether those beliefs they are walking around with are actually moral.

Quote:

Are you saying that you lack the means to reason morality? Really?

This has got to be up there with the stupidest straw men in this very stupid thread full of straw men.

Quote:

Here's the thing Kevin, you can choose whatever moral reasoning you want and you can either take into account sociobiology or not.

That's it. All of the hand waving and brow beating is ENTIRELY beside the point. You may insert any moral philosophy you want into the blank line. RandFan is a __________. I don't care. I have a moral philosophy but I don't need to justify that philosophy to you.

I DON'T argue that adaptive behaviors must be taken into account to reason morality. I think it wise that we do so. So, I don't give a **** what you use to reason your morality.

So it's not a problem for you if your precious philosophy is internally inconsistent? If your beliefs don't actually make any sense? If it's nothing more than an overcomplicated, pseudointellectual way of reverse engineering your existing moral beliefs with the aid of pop science?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The problem is not failure to "understand a simple point"...

It's exactly the point.

Quote:

As far as my own ego goes, I've never put forward my own moral philosophy in detail in this thread.

BFD. Your ego doesn't necassette you puting forward your philosophy. It's certainly with in the realm of possibility that your ego dictates your disagreement with what you think I've said.

Quote:

To quote Cain, *** you.

And YOU are lecturing me about morality. Nice.

Quote:

What I've been arguing, with complete consistency, also from the start, is that this tells us nothing about whether those beliefs they are walking around with are actually moral.

• BS (you've resisted from the start that adaptive traits have anything to do with morality and only relented after pages of my posting support from experts like de Waal, Dawkins and others.
• There's no such thing as "actual" morality.

I don't know how I can make that any more clear. Of everything we've discussed nothing could be more stark than that silly assertion that there is "actual" morality is pure nonsense. It doesn't exist and never has. Morality only became a concept (as far as we know) when humans evolved and reasoned moral sentiment (other animals do in fact have moral sentiment, see de Waal).

Quote:

So it's not a problem for you if your precious philosophy is internally inconsistent? If your beliefs don't actually make any sense? If it's nothing more than an overcomplicated, pseudointellectual way of reverse engineering your existing moral beliefs with the aid of pop science?

I'm not infaliable nor am I dogmatic. I'm not incapable of changing any belief. I've chaned many beliefs over the years.

I provisionally accept the arguments made by Shermer, Wright et al. I didn't invent anything nor did I consciously add anything. I'm happy to go back to the sources and correct any error.

But that's not the point.

What I stated about sociobiology and evolutionary psychology I stand by and no one has rebutted it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

BS (you've resisted from the start that adaptive traits have anything to do with morality and only relented after pages of my posting support from experts like de Waal, Dawkins and others.

Nope. Wrong. That is purely your straw man, and one I've pointed out many times before. It's never been anything other than your straw man.

Adaptive traits have nothing to do with morality, if we are speaking about morality as what is actually moral. They have something to do with what people walking around on the street believe to be moral, but then again so do religion and cultural values, and they aren't determinative of right and wrong either.

Quote:

There's no such thing as "actual" morality.

You keep saying that. Yet when the rubber meets the road you just can't get out of invoking objectivist utilitarianism to justify your specific moral beliefs.

That's the contradiction you can't get out of, constantly snip from my posts, and utterly refuse to address.

If there's no such thing as actual morality, then slavery, genocide, torture, public executions for petty crimes, shooting street children, gassing the disabled, cannibalism and so on aren't actually morally wrong. They're just arguably inefficient ways to do things, and the minute someone shows the maths to demonstrate that society would be better off gassing everyone in our mental asylums then you'd have to endorse it.

I know you don't actually believe that. You are just unwilling or unable to pursue your stated beliefs to their logically necessary conclusions.

Quote:

I don't know how I can make that any more clear. Of everything we've discussed nothing could be more stark than that silly assertion that there is "actual" morality. It doesn't exist and never has. Morality only became a concept (as far as we know) when humans evolved moral sentiment.

Yet you just can't get out of invoking objectivist utilitarianism to justify your specific moral beliefs.

Quote:

What I stated about sociobiology and bio-ethics I stand by and no one has rebutted it.

Oh please. What you've stated about the facts of sociobiology nobody even disagrees with, so of course nobody has rebutted it. It doesn't make your overall position consistent though, and the inconsistency in your stated position is the problem you keep running away from or denying even exists.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's never been anything other than your straw man.

It's demonstrably correct. I've quoted you criticizing me for thinking that morality had anything to do with adaptive traits (paraphrased).

Quote:

Adaptive traits have nothing to do with morality, if we are speaking about morality as what is actually moral.

There is no such thing.

Quote:

You keep saying that. Yet when the rubber meets the road you just can't get out of invoking objectivist utilitarianism to justify your specific moral beliefs.

You are conflating the ability to make objective statements about morality with objective morality. They aren't the same.

Quote:

If there's no such thing as actual morality, then slavery, genocide, torture, public executions for petty crimes, shooting street children, gassing the disabled, cannibalism and so on aren't actually morally wrong.

Thaaaaaats riiiiiight!!!!

Quote:

They're just arguably inefficient ways to do things, and the minute someone shows the maths to demonstrate that society would be better off gassing everyone in our mental asylums then you'd have to endorse it.

There's a few problems with that.

• My society evolved to see gassing mental patients as immoral and I, as a member of that society, have been indoctrinated with that morality (I, to a large extent share the moral zietgeist).
• I have empathy and it would cause me to suffer to simply gas people who are weak.
• I might someday become infirm and I don't want anyone to be easily able to exterminate me (supporting the prohibition increases the likelyhood that I won't be exterminated).
• I've not seen any argument that would compel me to call for their extermination in the face of the above facts. You've certainly not presented one so far.

You'll have to do better if you want me to agree to eugenics or anything approaching it. BTW: Killing the infirm in social societies doesn't appear to be selected for. But I'll grant that predation would likely make that a moot point.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm pointing out to you that a society filled with such people would likely be selected against (it's not likely to result in an ESS). There's a reason I point that out. You see, there's a reason evolution works. It's not perfect but for social animals it is not likely to produce animals who are largely anti-social.

Earlier you accused me of lying: "No. I answered the question so accusing me of avoiding it is a lie." When called upon this accusation to quote your answer you cite two questions you asked me and now you're saying those two questions made up a coherent answer? You also misunderstood the example, which involved genetic engineering, not natural selection. Oh, and you still failed to answer the question.

Everybody's sick of this thread, including myself, and I'm a raging moron for wasting so much of my Sunday talking to the Supreme Emperor of the Dunces, so I'll stop. I have work tomorrow, stuff I should have done today.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Earlier you accused me of lying: "No. I answered the question so accusing me of avoiding it is a lie." When called upon this accusation to quote your answer you cite two questions you asked me and now you're saying those two questions made up a coherent answer? You also misunderstood the example, which involved genetic engineering, not natural selection. Oh, and you still failed to answer the question.

I sincerely thought I had been clear. Your question is nonsensical. It's like asking "what if we engineered square circles?"

Anti-social people are by definition not good for society. Your hypo is fatally flawed. That's why I pointed out that no society existed with a large population of anti-social people as an ESS.

There's a point to decent with modification and natural selection. Anti-social people tend to be selected against so claiming that you could engineer a society populated with antisocial types that would also be good for society is rather silly.

That's part of the problem you and Kevin are having IMO. You don't get that social evolution results in certain traits by default (social behavior). It's not perfect. It's going to include a percentage of anti-social folks but that won't be the norm. Recpricol altruism (see game theory) will be the norm.

[RandFan]

{snipped, sorry}

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's demonstrably correct. I've quoted you criticizing me for thinking that morality had anything to do with adaptive traits (paraphrased).

Yes you did. I've explained to you repeatedly that in those instances I was using "morality" to mean objective morality, not sociological whatever-people-think-is-moral.

I tend to do that, because the alternatives (moral relativism and moral absolutism) are so inane that they are scarecely worth discussing.

You're about unique in clinging to moral relativism even after the problems with it have been explained.

Quote:

There is no such thing.

You are conflating the ability to make objective statements about morality with objective morality. They aren't the same.

You haven't got a clue what I'm saying, but we knew that.

Look, you either get to claim "there is no objective morality" or you get to appeal to objectivist utilitarianism. You don't get both.

Quote:

Thaaaaaats riiiiiight!!!! There's a few problems with that.

My society evolved to see gassing mental patients as immoral and I, as a member of that society, have been indoctrinated with that morality (I, to a large extent share the moral zietgeist).

This is moral relativism. Moral relativism is incoherent.

Quote:

I have empathy and it would cause me to suffer to simply gas people who are weak.

Not everyone throughout history has shared your views. Anyway, since people's empathetic responses differ this is moral relativism, and moral relativism is incoherent.

Quote:

I might someday become infirm and I don't want anyone to be easily able to exterminate me (supporting the prohibition increases the likelyhood that I won't be exterminated).

This is self-interest. A moral philosophy which is indistinguishable from self-interest is uninteresting to say the least.

Quote:

I've not seen any argument that would compel me to call for their extermination in the face of the above facts. You've certainly not presented one so far.

That's not the point, as I suspect you are well aware. I have always phrased these arguments in the form "if it turned out that atrocities X, Y and Z were efficient you would have to endorse them".

I'm not saying that you're the kind of immoral person who supports genocide. If what you've just stated is an accurate depiction of your moral thinking though you are the kind of person who would endorse genocide if their society told them to endorse it, and it turned out to be efficient, and it was in your interests.

Quote:

You'll have to do better if you want me to agree to eugenics or anything approaching it. BTW: Killing the infirm in social societies doesn't appear to be selected for. But I'll grant that predation would likely make that a moot point.

Not universally true.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You're about unique in clinging to moral relativism even after the problems with it have been explained.

Straw man.

Quote:

Look, you either get to claim "there is no objective morality" or you get to appeal to objectivity utilitarianism. You don't get both.

Nonsense. And for crying in the dark, if I make a point address the point and don't just gainsay. You are conflating objective morality with making objective statements about morality. Look, I can make objective statements about art. That doesn't mean that art is objective.

Now, if I'm wrong you are going to have to do better than simply contradicting me.

Quote:

...this is moral relativism, and moral relativism is incoherent.

This is self-interest. A moral philosophy which is indistinguishable from self-interest is uninteresting to say the least.

Blithely stating something doesn't make it so. Self interest alone might be uninteresting but it can very well be part of one's moral philosophy. IOW, there's nothing to preclude self interest as a consideration in formulating a moral theory. All else being equal a society with a lower likelyhood of harm to oneself is a better choice. Besides, wanting to live in a society for reciprocal altruistic purposes is not simply self-interest. And that you find such a theory uninteresting is hardly a persuasive argument.

Quote:

That's not the point, as I suspect you are well aware. I have always phrased these arguments in the form "if it turned out that atrocities X, Y and Z were efficient you would have to endorse them".

They would have to not only be efficient but they would have to meet the criteria of my conscience.

Quote:

I'm not saying that you're the kind of immoral person who supports genocide. If what you've just stated is an accurate depiction of your moral thinking though you are the kind of person who would endorse genocide if their society told them to endorse it, and it turned out to be efficient, and it was in your interests.

And IF my conscience and sense of empathy didn't dictate otherwise. I strongly suspect that my conscience would be pricked. The suffering of others bothers me significantly. I'd like to think that I would be one who would risk his life to hide Anne Frank. I don't know that for a fact.

Nothing about what I've said can predict how I would act had I been raised and indoctrinated in another society with different social mores.

Quote:

Not universally true.

Few things if any about social norms are universally true.

[RandFan]

I've got to go to bed and I don't know when I'll be able to log back on.

'night.

One more thing if I may.

And I don't blame you for critizing me on this as it is late in the game and I should have brought up earlier. Still it is a position that I hold.

I'm very skeptical of personal moral philosophy. I think it likely that individuals are more apt to rationalize their beliefs rather than adopt a coherent and logically valid philosophy on the grounds that it is reasonable and logical.

How does one control for confirmation bias? How do you know that you are not simply picking a theory that fits with your own moral sentiment or that your stated moral philosophy represents what you truly believe? How many Germans believed that they would have acted differently in the course of the Holocaust before it happened?

I honestly don't know. I do know that my philosophy has caused me to jettison a number of ideas that I think I'm better for including the acceptance of gay rights which even Obama and the a majority of the state of California is against. I did so largely because I reasoned that my personal opinions about gays and lesbians did not trump their rights as individuals. I put myself in their position and I thought I would not want to be treated the same. I also believe that if I live in a society that values the rights of individuals then my rights are more likely to be valued.

I honestly considered these things.

I don't know how many people do this and alter their decisions contrary to their personal feelings.

No, the conclusions I came to do not prove that my reasoning was sound but I think it was.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Cain

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=diarrhetic

Ah, touche.

Quote:

Well, that settles it. Never mind you're claiming I am excusing behavior that I am not.

Your response to PETAs call to violence was "You have to understand, animals are getting hurt!" when it should have been "I am disgusted by the call to violence and want only peaceful debate".

You were at the very least excusing it, if not outright endorsing it.

Quote:

Never mind you claim animal rights terrorists do not mind blowing up buildings full of people, even though they do.

No... no, they don't. That's a silly assumption to make given what they've actually said.

In fact, I think they prefer the buildings to be loaded with people. It isn't terrorism if it doesn't terrorize.

Consider again, PETAs position on the fruits of medical research: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."

Now Ingrid Newkirk is a bloodthirsty sociopath, but I don't believe she is an idiot. She knows what AIDS is, she knows what it does and she knows what will continue to happen without a cure or a reliable treatment.

But she doesn't care.

Compare PETA founder Newkirks comment with PETA spokesman Freidrichs quote: "I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow."

Note that his position is identical to Newkirks. Better that people should die than lab rats.

PETA has never said that it wants it's targets to be empty when they or their operatives carry out their attacks. And given their complete and utter disregard for sufferers of AIDS or other diseases, there is no reason to assume such.

The fact that Animus couldn't come up with anything other than a science fiction movie for his model of a bloodless terror campaign should tell you how realistic such an expectation is.

[Cain]

Let's wrap up this exchange as well.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Your response to PETAs call to violence was "You have to understand, animals are getting hurt!" when it should have been "I am disgusted by the call to violence and want only peaceful debate".

Which demonstrates you are ignoring the context of my remarks. We're talking about terrorist groups who blow up buildings and take care not to harm anyone, which runs contrary to Osama Bin Laden, who, as far as I know, wants to kill as many infidels as people. You see how those two philosophies are opposed? One which does not like the killing and the other that does?

Techno claimed eco-terrorists could still harm people because the flames might get out of control, or the bomb might not go off when it should. Indeed, and the terrorists would be responsible for those deaths. Now that we have incorporated this moral understanding into our outlook, and if we all accept it, then let's apply it to factory farms and slaughterhouses, where "unintended" abuses invariably take place.

And what sort of response do we see against a call for coherency? Nothing except faux outrage and mistaken allegations of a fallacy people do not understand, improperly capitalize, and, I'm guessing, probably cannot pronounce. In other words, angry cluelessness across the board.

Quote:

You were at the very least excusing it, if not outright endorsing it.

And here are my controversial remarks:

Quote:

These are important considerations. Now import the same type of reasoning to the slaughterhouse and the factory farm, where you have documented mistreatment (not at all surprising given the billions of animals processed each year). An unnecessary exercise but, if you want, compare this to the number of people eco-terrorists have actually hurt or killed.

The first sentence, as I clarified in numerous follow up posts in case the meaning somehow escaped anyone, agrees the considerations are valid. In other words, eco-terrorists would be responsible for the deaths of firefighters, people unaccounted for in the building, and so on even if far greater crimes are committed inside the building they're blowing up, or 10,000 miles away, or 20,000 years ago. I assume we all agree with that, yes? Cool. Now if you think this is an appropriate moral standard, then apply it consistently. Importantly, in the case of factory farms and slaughterhouses we do not use the words "if" and "could" because we're not speculating about some future death that may or may not happen; we'd instead be talking about deaths that have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen. But you people are incapable of confronting that argument, hence the tantrums, mistaken "fallacies," and misguided self-righteousness.

As for the rest of your post, you are talking out of your butthole. Perhaps RandFan can translate. I'm not fluent in butthole, but I've picked up a few things from this thread, and most of what you're saying is just irrelevant to the idea of foreseeable consequences and I'm not going to get baited into a discussion outside the purview of my original comments.

[thaiboxerken]

Are you going to produce your evidence of an objective morality, Cain?