tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post114989777567127350..comments2024-02-28T23:35:13.583-08:00Comments on Kill The Afterlife: Doubting Morality?Aaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1153835798086911742006-07-25T06:56:00.000-07:002006-07-25T06:56:00.000-07:00Neither god belief nor lack of it, will guarentee ...Neither god belief nor lack of it, will guarentee moral or ethical behaviour.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150423262217565502006-06-15T19:01:00.000-07:002006-06-15T19:01:00.000-07:00Vic said'God dictates morals to people'Which god V...Vic said<BR/>'God dictates morals to people'<BR/><BR/>Which god Vic? Vishnu? Zeus? Allah? There are so many to choose from!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150301854063152152006-06-14T09:17:00.000-07:002006-06-14T09:17:00.000-07:00UNIVERSALITY IN RELIGION: God is just another bein...UNIVERSALITY IN RELIGION: God is just another being. If God can define what morality is, then we should also be able to do the same, at least theoretically. But obviously no theologican can concede such a possibility. Therefore religion breaks universality.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150205534757522862006-06-13T06:32:00.000-07:002006-06-13T06:32:00.000-07:00Anonymous: 'like all laws of physics, all moral pr...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/><I> 'like all laws of physics, all moral principles are universal' - Aaron.<BR/>Isn't this exactly what the Christian Fundamentalists have been telling us all along? ALL 'moral principles'?</I><BR/><BR/>They think they have been saying this, but they're wrong. God dictates morals to people, but people can't dictate morals to god - ergo, it's asymmetrical.Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03891009653268025114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150203712999161752006-06-13T06:01:00.000-07:002006-06-13T06:01:00.000-07:00You don't need these widespread scenarios. Assymet...You don't need these widespread scenarios. Assymetry is present in any use of force. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150187893556706142006-06-13T01:38:00.000-07:002006-06-13T01:38:00.000-07:00Most of this discussion is irrelvant. No one has t...Most of this discussion is irrelvant. No one has tried to show that Stephan J. Gould is wrong. If Gould is right, there is not much use in discussing morals.<BR/><BR/>Stephen J. Gould, "First, nature (no matter how cruel in human terms) provides no basis for our moral values. (Evolution might, at most, help to explain why we have moral feelings, but nature can never decide for us whether any particular action is right or wrong.)"<BR/><BR/>"There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside, like the kingdom of God, within us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus."<BR/><BR/>We are products of evolution and nature and evolution have nothing to with morals. At best one can say is that morals are just an interpretation we make about people's behavior. In nature, there is no morality or immorality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150160506189550272006-06-12T18:01:00.000-07:002006-06-12T18:01:00.000-07:00Francois -But does a principle have to be consiste...Francois -<BR/><BR/>But does a principle have to be consistent in all theoretical worlds? For example, if I say we are morally required to refrain from using force against others except in response to the proverbial "intitiation" of force. Suppose, however, in some theoretical world people go into a craze if they do not use force against someone each week. During this craze, the crazy person uses force against every person he sees. Thus, if everyone attempted to obey this rule it would be impossible to obey.<BR/><BR/>I think you would agree that no, such a crazy world is not relevent to our situation. Considering this, why is any other theoretical world relevent to the actual world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150158165041170042006-06-12T17:22:00.000-07:002006-06-12T17:22:00.000-07:00'like all laws of physics, all moral principles ar...'like all laws of physics, all moral principles are universal' - Aaron.<BR/>Isn't this exactly what the Christian Fundamentalists have been telling us all along? ALL 'moral principles'?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150118569608884272006-06-12T06:22:00.000-07:002006-06-12T06:22:00.000-07:00"Francois - I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you..."Francois - I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but I'm a little confused. You say the argument is a "theoretical construct". If so, my question is simple: why is it relevent to the real world?"<BR/><BR/>Why is it relevant? Because of logic. If your principle is not consistent across the board, then it contradicts itself in some instances.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150039041889436482006-06-11T08:17:00.000-07:002006-06-11T08:17:00.000-07:00Francois - I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you ...Francois - I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but I'm a little confused. You say the argument is a "theoretical construct". If so, my question is simple: why is it relevent to the real world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150037416757810382006-06-11T07:50:00.000-07:002006-06-11T07:50:00.000-07:00"Now you admit, those statements are false if they..."Now you admit, those statements are false if they are meant to apply to the real world."<BR/><BR/>That's not what I said. Read my comment again.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1150032005236363652006-06-11T06:20:00.000-07:002006-06-11T06:20:00.000-07:00AK -Nice post. Been following this for a while now...AK -<BR/><BR/>Nice post. Been following this for a while now, and I get the feeling that if I actually sat down and quantified my own code of morals, I imagine it would turn out quite similar.<BR/><BR/>I really don't understand how some people have been getting confused on the what really is a very simple premise. You only own yourself and only have the right to control yourself.<BR/><BR/>But something that's been intriguing me as I think about it: at what point does a person own themselves? Person A owns Person A because they are Person A. But when does this ownership begin? At birth? At conception? At puberty? At 18?<BR/><BR/>It is an interesting and important distinction, because a person who owns themselves is responsible for their own moral decisions, and can give their consent. From the example of the two people stranded on the island, person A can eat person B only if person B gives his consent for person A to do so. But what if person B is a 12 year-old? Can they give their consent then?<BR/><BR/>How about instead the case of statutory rape. The law declares that a person under the age of 16 (in Australia, where I am) is incapable of giving consent for sex because they are not responsible enough. Even if both parties are consenting, it is still against the law. If a person was unable to give their consent for something, that person would not be considered to own themselves, would they?<BR/><BR/>If, under your moral code, the line was also drawn at 16 (or 18, as in the US), does that mean that a person under that age does not in fact own themselves? And if not, who does, if anyone?<BR/><BR/>And what if there was no such distinction - all individual entities own themselves. Does that mean that under your code, a person under the age of consent (defined by law) should in fact be able to give their consent? So if a 16 year old does in fact own themselves, can they give consent for sex? What about a 12 year-old?<BR/>Someone even younger?<BR/><BR/>Clearly there must be a line somewhere. The obvious answer would be at whatever the stage a person is considered an adult. All well and good. So what about someone who is not yet an adult - who owns them? Nobody? Their parents? But if someone else owns them, doesn't that go against the basic tenet of 'you only own yourself'. And if nobody owns them, then can they ever act immorally?<BR/><BR/>Food for thought, at any rate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1149991461430451342006-06-10T19:04:00.000-07:002006-06-10T19:04:00.000-07:00Francois - I think I discussed this a little with ...Francois - I think I discussed this a little with you on Goosing the Antithesis, but I'm happy to take it up again. Lets look at the part of the essay I quoted again (written by Stefan Molyneux):<BR/><BR/>"No moral theory should, if it is universally applied, directly eliminate behaviour it defines as moral while simultaneously creating behaviour it defines as immoral. If everyone should steal, then no one will steal – which means that the moral theory can never be practiced."<BR/><BR/>Now you admit, those statements are false if they are meant to apply to the real world. They might be true in a theoretical world, however. My question is this: why they are relevent to the real world if they only apply to a theoretical world?<BR/><BR/>I also argued that it is incorrect to say that theft must be moral or immoral. You said that this is not an argument against the Razor, as a rule which says it is OK to steal sometimes is just another proposed moral rule. Does this mean that the Razor does not rule out moral rules which allow theft or coercion?<BR/><BR/>-catquasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1149967327912502572006-06-10T12:22:00.000-07:002006-06-10T12:22:00.000-07:00Hey Aaron, great post! Now that's what I'm talking...Hey Aaron, great post! Now that's what I'm talking about.<BR/><BR/>One small issue is that of your discussion of the desert island scenario, and the serial killer. The symmetrical argument assumes that it is never necessary to deviate from moral principles.<BR/><BR/>On the desert island, I would say that person A will most probably kill person B if there is no other food around. In fact this has happened in a famous scenario of a plane crash where some passengers survived for a month by eating the other passengers. If you valued your moral system more than your life, then you would choose to starve to death in such a scenario.<BR/><BR/>With the serial killer, they have no concept of universality or morality. Their empathy system is broken completely, they do not care at all about other people's self-ownership or pain--they must be caught and curtailed by force or they will continue to kill.<BR/><BR/>I would like to see you explore the fringes of your moral system to see what happens when person A's values clash with the life or prosperity of person B. This is where it all gets really interesting.<BR/><BR/>Cheers, dude!BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1149954165756633262006-06-10T08:42:00.000-07:002006-06-10T08:42:00.000-07:00"1. False alternatives - we don't have to say stea..."1. False alternatives - we don't have to say stealing is either always moral or always immoral. It might be the case that stealing is sometimes OK - for example if your child is starving."<BR/><BR/>That is not an argument against the Razor. You are merely proposing ANOTHER universal rule. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"2. Even if it is moral for everyone to steal at the same time, it doesn't mean everyone will do it - everyone is not always moral."<BR/><BR/>We never said that. The assymetry is a theoretical construct meant to evaluate the symmetry of your principle.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"3. If it is moral to steal, and everyone does what is moral, they will all continue stealing even after they realize what they steal is being taken from them."<BR/><BR/>Same problem. You are going into psychology here. The moral razor does not assume that asymmetry is eternally viable - just that it exists.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1149930321925492692006-06-10T02:05:00.000-07:002006-06-10T02:05:00.000-07:00Stephen Jay Gould said, " If we wish “meekness and...Stephen Jay Gould said, " If we wish “meekness and love” to triumph over “pride and violence” (as Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi), then we must repudiate Darwin’s vision of nature’s way – as Tolstoy stated in a final plea to his errant children.<BR/><BR/>This charge against Darwin is unfair for two reasons. First, nature (no matter how cruel in human terms) provides no basis for our moral values. (Evolution might, at most, help to explain why we have moral feelings, but nature can never decide for us whether any particular action is right or wrong.) Second, Darwin’s “struggle for existence” is an abstract metaphor, not an explicit statement about bloody battle. Reproductive success, the criterion of natural selection, works in many modes: Victory in battle may be one pathway, but cooperation, symbiosis, and mutual aid may also secure success in other times and contexts."<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"This apparent discordance between nature’s way and any hope for human social decency has defined the major subject for debate about ethics and evolution ever since Darwin. Huxley’s solution has won many supporters – nature is nasty and no guide to morality except, perhaps, as an indicator of what to avoid in human society. My own preference lies with a different solution based on taking Darwin’s metaphorical view of struggle seriously (admittedly in the face of Darwin’s own preference for gladiatorial examples) – nature is sometimes nasty, sometimes nice (really neither, since the human terms are so inappropriate). By presenting examples of all behaviors (under the metaphorical rubric of struggle), nature favors none and offers no guidelines. The facts of nature cannot provide moral guidance in any case.<BR/><BR/>But a third solution has been advocated by some thinkers who do wish to find a basis for morality in nature and evolution. Since few can detect much moral comfort in the gladiatorial interpretation, this third position must reformulate the way of nature. Darwin’s words about the metaphorical character of struggle offer a promising starting point. One might argue that the gladiatorial examples have been over-sold and misrepresented as predominant. Perhaps cooperation and mutual aid are the more common results of struggle for existence. Perhaps communion rather than combat leads to greater reproductive success in most circumstances."<BR/><BR/>Gould goes on to discuss Petr Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid.<BR/><BR/>http://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm<BR/><BR/>"Kropotkin begins by acknowledging that struggle plays a central role in the lives of organisms and also provides the chief impetus for their evolution. But Kropotkin holds that struggle must not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon. It must be divided into two fundamentally different forms with contrary evolutionary meanings. We must recognize, first of all, the struggle of organism against organism for limited resources – the theme that Malthus imparted to Darwin and that Huxley described as gladiatorial. This form of direct struggle does lead to competition for personal benefit.<BR/><BR/>But a second form of struggle – the style that Darwin called metaphorical – pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species. Organisms must struggle to keep warm, to survive the sudden and unpredictable dangers of fire and storm, to persevere through harsh periods of drought, snow, or pestilence. These forms of struggle between organism and environment are best waged by cooperation among members of the same species-by mutual aid. If the struggle for existence pits two lions against one zebra, then we shall witness a feline battle and an equine carnage. But if lions are struggling jointly against the harshness of an inanimate environment, then lighting will not remove the common enemy – while cooperation may overcome a peril beyond the power of any single individual to surmount.<BR/><BR/>Kropotkin therefore created a dichotomy within the general notion of struggle – two forms with opposite import: (1) organism against organism of the same species for limited resources, leading to competition; and (2) organism against environment, leading to cooperation."<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"I would fault Kropotkin only in two ways – one technical, the other general. He did commit a common conceptual error in failing to recognize that natural selection is an argument about advantages to individual organisms, however they may struggle. The result of struggle for existence may be cooperation rather than competition, but mutual aid must benefit individual organisms in Darwin’s world of explanation. Kropotkin sometimes speaks of mutual aid as selected for the benefit of entire populations or species – a concept foreign to classic Darwinian logic (where organisms work, albeit unconsciously, for their own benefit in terms of genes passed to future generations). But Kropotkin also (and often) recognized that selection for mutual aid directly benefits each individual in its own struggle for personal success. Thus, if Kropotkin did not grasp the full implication of Darwin’s basic argument, he did include the orthodox solution as his primary justification for mutual aid."<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>"There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside, like the kingdom of God, within us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus."<BR/><BR/>The problem with your explanations is that they rely on a certain idea of the individual and "individual ownership". Certainly individuals of a species act individually, but they are an integral part of a community structure. The individual acts, but always in that context and not based on any moral laws of nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1149906176067413962006-06-09T19:22:00.000-07:002006-06-09T19:22:00.000-07:00I came accross your article and I notice you cited...I came accross your article and I notice you cited the Moral Razor thing. I have three objections to the idea and I am interested to see if you have any answers.<BR/><BR/>To quote the original article: "A moral theory which approves of stealing, for instance, faces an insurmountable logical problem. No moral theory should, if it is universally applied, directly eliminate behaviour it defines as moral while simultaneously creating behaviour it defines as immoral. If everyone should steal, then no one will steal – which means that the moral theory can never be practiced. And why will no one steal? Well, because a man will only steal if he can keep the property he is stealing."<BR/><BR/>Problems:<BR/>1. False alternatives - we don't have to say stealing is either always moral or always immoral. It might be the case that stealing is sometimes OK - for example if your child is starving.<BR/>2. Even if it is moral for everyone to steal at the same time, it doesn't mean everyone will do it - everyone is not always moral.<BR/>3. If it is moral to steal, and everyone does what is moral, they will all continue stealing even after they realize what they steal is being taken from them. Their motivation to steal seems to be that it is moral to steal, not that they will benefit in some way. Thus they will not care when it is taken away, because they do not steal in order to use what they take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com