[luke warm]

mikeh, on Feb 8 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 7 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

then all you have to do is offer another explanation... sorry, i don't have time at the moment to get to the rest

[hrothgar]

Interesting article

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 9 2009, 06:28 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 8 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 7 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

then all you have to do is offer another explanation... sorry, i don't have time at the moment to get to the rest

1. I already did.. the fact that you don't like it is not in and of itself a reason to reject it.

2. It is in my view often appropriate to acknowledge that as a species we are still in our relative infancy in terms of understanding both the internal and the external universe. Religion was an early and ignorance-based effort to explain aspects of our experience, inaccessible to more cogent ideas because we lacked the physical and intellectual tools to investigate alternatives. We are in the process of acquiring them. So, let's grant the argument that the ideas I have referred to are incomplete, and that they need more research before they can be affirmed or modified or rejected... why is that any reason to hold onto ideas that are inherently less susceptible to verification/falsification? Why expect us to have a complete answer to complex issues at this time in our history... when many are still living convinced of supernatural fantasy, and those of us who are free of that intellectual hobble are still learning to explore the world? Religion gives 'complete' explanations only when one never tries to look behind the curtain. Science gives incomplete answers because we haven't finished asking questions yet.

[y66]

If someone acknowledges that something which is not morally justifiable in their belief system can be morally justifiable in a different belief system, then it seems like there is room for discussion and some potential for mutual respect and harmony.

But if they then assert a hierarchy of belief systems in which their system is more perfectly aligned with true moral north than other systems, then I think they are just being disingenuous and condescending.

Whatever happened to fear and trembling?

[Winstonm]

Quote

i said that *i* consider those to be objectively immoral but that *some* might attempt to morally justify them

What follows is IMO:

Yes, in your view morality is binary - the circuit is either off or on - black or white. A person's actions are either right or wrong. Rigidity of this nature forces a judgement of others, whether recognized or not.

Whereas you "know" killing to be immoral, others who kill can only "attempt to justify" their actions. You (must be) right. They (must be) wrong.

That is judging. It is unavoidable in a rigid binary worldview.

The only way to not judge is to say, well, they may be right or truly justified - but if that admission is made, it invalidates the concept of an objective morality worldview.

[jdonn]

matmat, on Feb 9 2009, 03:21 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

<something> is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

sorry. I don't understand this.

are you saying that something can be objectively immoral and subjectively moral at the same time?

Good observation!

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Feb 9 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

Interesting article

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

Good link.

It's always been a mystery to me how people I knew to be very competent in other areas found it possible to accept without evidence the mythologies of their various cultures. Hope to see more real investigation of this.

I wonder also if these findings extend to those who hold strong beliefs in ideologies like communism and capitalism.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on Feb 9 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

I wonder also if these findings extend to those who hold strong beliefs in ideologies like communism and capitalism.

As a child I was brainwashed with marxism and I do see some similarities to religious brainwashing. But with respect to the New Scientist article, I think the answer is no. Marxism did use some of the tricks employed by other religions, such as the idea that you have to suffer during the socialist phase in order to earn the right to enjoy the communist paradise, but the innate belief in teleology, as addressed in the article, does not have a parallel in marxism, as far as I can see. Maybe that was the reason why Marxism was not very successful as a religion.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Feb 9 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Maybe that was the reason why Marxism was not very successful as a religion.

I'm sure you are right. There must be some better common explanation for the intense true believer types, no matter what particular belief they hold.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Feb 9 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 9 2009, 06:28 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 8 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 7 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

then all you have to do is offer another explanation... sorry, i don't have time at the moment to get to the rest

1. I already did.. the fact that you don't like it is not in and of itself a reason to reject it.

2. It is in my view often appropriate to acknowledge that as a species we are still in our relative infancy in terms of understanding both the internal and the external universe. Religion was an early and ignorance-based effort to explain aspects of our experience, inaccessible to more cogent ideas because we lacked the physical and intellectual tools to investigate alternatives. We are in the process of acquiring them. So, let's grant the argument that the ideas I have referred to are incomplete, and that they need more research before they can be affirmed or modified or rejected... why is that any reason to hold onto ideas that are inherently less susceptible to verification/falsification? Why expect us to have a complete answer to complex issues at this time in our history... when many are still living convinced of supernatural fantasy, and those of us who are free of that intellectual hobble are still learning to explore the world? Religion gives 'complete' explanations only when one never tries to look behind the curtain. Science gives incomplete answers because we haven't finished asking questions yet.

mike, all i ever said is that i can account for certain abstract entities from within my worldview while maintaining internal consistency while i haven't yet seen an atheistic worldview able to do the same... that's all

y66, on Feb 9 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

If someone acknowledges that something which is not morally justifiable in their belief system can be morally justifiable in a different belief system, then it seems like there is room for discussion and some potential for mutual respect and harmony.

maybe, but i didn't say that

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

Quote

i said that *i* consider those to be objectively immoral but that *some* might attempt to morally justify them

What follows is IMO:

Yes, in your view morality is binary - the circuit is either off or on - black or white. A person's actions are either right or wrong. Rigidity of this nature forces a judgement of others, whether recognized or not.

Whereas you "know" killing to be immoral, others who kill can only "attempt to justify" their actions. You (must be) right. They (must be) wrong.

That is judging. It is unavoidable in a rigid binary worldview.

The only way to not judge is to say, well, they may be right or truly justified - but if that admission is made, it invalidates the concept of an objective morality worldview.

winston, is there nothing that you can say is objectively immoral? i hate giving examples but i don't know any other way to do it... in your view, is the rape and torture of children, in and of itself, immoral? or is your answer that it's a gray area? and fwiw i didn't judge anyone... if i read that john doe had killed an intruder and said something like "well it's straight to hell for him," that would be judgmental

jdonn, on Feb 9 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

matmat, on Feb 9 2009, 03:21 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

<something> is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

sorry. I don't understand this.

are you saying that something can be objectively immoral and subjectively moral at the same time?

Good observation!

it might be if it hadn't already been answered, first by winston then by me

[Lobowolf]

What's with the politically correct aversion to "judging"? "Judgment" is one of our higher faculties.

[mikeh]

Lobowolf, on Feb 9 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

What's with the politically correct aversion to "judging"?  "Judgment" is one of our higher faculties.

Who expressed any aversion to 'judging'? All anyone did was to state that the standard by comparison to which we make our judgement is arguably NOT something that is inherently imposed by some mystical supreme being.. that we form the basis upon which we 'judge' in part based on a moral sense that has arisen through evolutionary selection and in part from cultural mores (to the extent that we can appropriately differentiate between physical evolution and cultural evolution... ).

The tendency to judge is indeed part of what makes us what we are. I didn't see anyone disagreeing.

As for Jimmy's obstinate refusal to see this.. he suggests that, for example, it is objectively immoral to rape and kill children.

I agree 100% that such conduct would, I sincerely hope, offend all but the tiny percentage of sick (or poorly wired) individuals capable of such acts.

But consider the insect world. Some creatures will lay their eggs within the body of another creature.. the larvae hatch and, through hard-wired mechanisms, selectively eat their host, avoiding vital areas until the end, so as to maximize their ability to eat as much healthy tissue as possible. Some creatures mate and then kill and eat their mates. The life-cycles of many parasites are almost uniformly viewed with disgust by many humans.. especially in the industrial world.

In the world of larger animals, when a male will take a mate (in animals were some degree of bonding occurs), the male may kill the female's progeny from an earlier male.. this used to be done in some human societies as well.

I presume that the built-in constraints against the rape and torture of children is an evolutionary adaptation... consider... if an ancestral animal was prone to that sort of behaviour, or prone to turn a blind eye to that sort of behaviour, the odds are that the group in which it lived would fare poorly in comparison to groups in which this behaviour was actively discouraged. So assuming that the tendency to behave in this way was genetically influenced, the combination of genes promoting or enabling this behaviour would, with all else being equal, tend to die out, while the group of genes that promoted a sense of moral revulsion against this type of behaviour would tend to spread. I am not arguing that there are genes underlying all aspects of behaviour... and in my (not-well-educated) opinion, these evolutionary arguments make some sense when applied to ideas or memes, including some aspects of morality.

So while I agree that there are some forms of behaviour that will seem 'absolutely' wrong... I do not think that this means that our views of this represent some externally imposed natural law. I find the need for that hypothesis to be absent. We 'see' this behaviour as 'absolutely' wrong because we have evolved to see it as wrong.. just as we would see it wrong to kidnap someone, hook them to an IV, keep them paralysed, and periodically carve off parts of their flesh to feed our children. But if we were certain types of insect, that type of behaviour would be morally 'right'... to the point that we would be astounded if anyone doubted it

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on Feb 9 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 9 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Maybe that was the reason why Marxism was not very successful as a religion.

I'm sure you are right. There must be some better common explanation for the intense true believer types, no matter what particular belief they hold.

It's an interesting article that you posted. As a long time non-believer (atheist if you wish, but it always sounds so confrontational) I was interested in the thought that non-believers do not totally banish their teleological explanations and related beliefs. I sort of agree, but the emphasis seems different. Surely I have unexamined beliefs. Socrates may well have said that the unexamined life is not worth living, but all that examining takes time, it can be boring, and anyway Socrates did not come to a good end. So I have my unexamined assumptions. But I am not so sure that I take them all that seriously, philosophically speaking. Sometime in the late fifties I saw The Seventh Seal, an overwhelming experience for someone raised on John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart. The knight delves deeply into the meaning of it all as he plays chess with death, the squire takes a more practical approach, but the guy that impressed me was, I think, a smithy who remarked to the squire something like "You're lucky, you believe your own twaddle". I''m a disbeliever in religion, but also pretty skeptical of most big ideas and blanket assertions. The other line from the Seventh Seal that I really liked concerned the Crusades: "It was so stupid only an idealist could have thought of it". A great movie to see if you haven't.

[Winstonm]

Quote

winston, is there nothing that you can say is objectively immoral? i hate giving examples but i don't know any other way to do it... in your view, is the rape and torture of children, in and of itself, immoral? or is your answer that it's a gray area?

I hate to be a fuddy dud, but my honest answer is I don't know. I used to think I knew. But not now. I believe there would be circumstances that would apply to the actions - but whether that makes the actions moral or immoral I cannot say, as those words have lost meaning for me. I can think of these acts as horrible, reprehensible. awful, inhuman, disgusting, etc. - but those are simply descriptions of the act. To say moral or immoral involves a judgement of the person that I cannot make because I don't know if there is such a thing as objective morality.
Actions or acts IMO are not moral or immoral - these are descriptions of the person making the choice of how to act.

Even law, Jimmy, takes into account the inability to know right from wrong. So how can we ever know what was in the heart and mind of someone at the time of a horrible action? I say there should be a severe consequence for the action - but I am not going to label that person immoral or moral.

Quote

and fwiw i didn't judge anyone... if i read that john doe had killed an intruder and said something like "well it's straight to hell for him," that would be judgmental

I didn't mean the statement to be a belittlement - just an observation that a right/wrong worldview is automatically judgemental. Every action is always subsconsciously judged against the black/white morality. It cannot be helped. I don't say it is bad or wrong, only that it is automatically included in a binary morality worldview.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Feb 9 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Interesting article

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

newscientist said:

Shown a box moving in a stop-start way, babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise. To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People, on the other hand, have their own intentions and goals, and move however they choose.

I wonder if this is related to what is described in The character of cats by Stephen Budiansky: Cats have a subtle ability distinguish biological motion from non-biological. Presumably evolved to notice enemies and prey without being confused by branches moving in the wind.

Not that cats are unique, the book just happened to be about cats. I suppose it could have used some other mammal as example. Maybe we have an innate belief in vitalism which is tens if not hundreds of millions years old?

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Feb 10 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

I presume that the built-in constraints against the rape and torture of children is an evolutionary adaptation...

I am not sure. First, group selection is problematic. Genes are generally selected for the good of themselves, not for a group of individuals. Although group selection is probably real, it should not be the first explanation you think of IMHO.

Second, what is wrong with raping children? Raping a fertile woman is condemned for obvious reasons, but what harm does child rape do to anyone's genes? Of course the child may get injured but the extent to which we condemn sex with children is partly an aspect of our over-all bigotry wrt sex IMHO.

Not that I am defending child rape in any way, just observing.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

I say there should be a severe consequence for the action - but I am not going to label that person immoral or moral.

i'm sorry winston, but i think you are confused... you don't seem able to distinguish between the one performing the act and the act itself... i never asked you to label anyone, i asked about the act itself

helene_t, on Feb 10 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

Second, what is wrong with raping children? ~
Not that I am defending child rape in any way, just observing.

and the torture part?

[kenberg]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2009, 03:44 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 9 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Interesting article

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

newscientist said:

Shown a box moving in a stop-start way, babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise. To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People, on the other hand, have their own intentions and goals, and move however they choose.

I wonder if this is related to what is described in The character of cats by Stephen Budiansky: Cats have a subtle ability distinguish biological motion from non-biological. Presumably evolved to notice enemies and prey without being confused by branches moving in the wind.

Not that cats are unique, the book just happened to be about cats. I suppose it could have used some other mammal as example. Maybe we have an innate belief in vitalism which is tens if not hundreds of millions years old?

The book has a great opening quoted on Amazon:
"There are no search-and-rescue cats, guard cats, Seeing Eye cats, bomb-detecting cats, drug-sniffing cats, escaped-convict-tracking cats, sheep cats, sled cats, gun cats, obedience-trained cats, Frisbee-catching..."

It also reflects my views on issues of morality, views that I think are fairly widespread. I have some idea of what it means to be human. If a man rapes a child I would say, and many would agree, "There is something wrong with his head". There are things that normal humans would not do and would not just disapprove of but find incomprehensible. Stealing is not just less reprehensible than child rape, it is qualitatively different. One is bad, the other is, in some way, not human.

Torture falls in-between, I think. I cannot imagine myself torturing anyone. But the practice of torture in defense of the state was definitely not invented by Dick Cheney, including practices that do much more than simulate drowning. The French, the British, many others have used such practices and I don't mean back in the fourteenth century.

Moral issues are tough, or at least I find them so. Christians have always had an elastic interpretation of the prohibition aganst killing, and the same holds for most other religions. But those of us who reject religious guidance are not off the hook either. We have no Bible to tell us we shall not kill, but we also don't have any directive encouraging killing and so we must think this through as best we can.

I see our choices not so much as based on moral clarity but as looking at the history of the world, and the present state of the world in many places, and saying "We hope to do better".

[hrothgar]

Few comments:

For what its worth, I fall pretty firmly into the moral relativism camp.

I don't think that there is any such thing as an objective set of morals.

I don't think that the lack of anobjective set of morals presents all that many problems.

Jimmy raised the issue of torturing / raping / murdering children. I'd argue that there are a wide number of examples of societies in which this type of behaviour was not only commonly practiced, but even considered virtuous...

On the murder front: It's easy to find examples of infantacide in many societies. The specific reason for murdering babies/children varies across societies

* I don't want to raise a girl
* There's not enough food
* Raising a child is inconvenient

However, the behaviour is quite common...

On the rape front: The whole concept of age of consent and the appropriate age for marriage has changed dramatically as societies and cultures have evolved. Incest taboos have seen an equally dramatic change.

I can't point to many cases were societies torture children for the sake of torturing children. However, I'd be more than happy to point out what life used to be like before child labor laws were enacted.

From my perspective, the most interesting case might very well be that of the city state of Sparta...

Here we have a society that regularly practiced infantacide and raised their children under conditions that would be consider torturous by modern "enlighted" viewers. Pederasty was the norm of the day. And all this describes how the CITIZENS treated each other. Lord help you if you were born a helot...

Moreover, the desperately supressed homoerotic fascination that people feel for the discipline and valor of the Spartan citizen lives on to this day...

[mikeh]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 10 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

I presume that the built-in constraints against the rape and torture of children is an evolutionary adaptation...

I am not sure. First, group selection is problematic. Genes are generally selected for the good of themselves, not for a group of individuals. Although group selection is probably real, it should not be the first explanation you think of IMHO.

Second, what is wrong with raping children? Raping a fertile woman is condemned for obvious reasons, but what harm does child rape do to anyone's genes? Of course the child may get injured but the extent to which we condemn sex with children is partly an aspect of our over-all bigotry wrt sex IMHO.

Not that I am defending child rape in any way, just observing.

I would suspect that the practice of raping and torturing a child would tend to reduce the likelihood of that child becoming a successful member of the tribe.. altho that depends, I suspect, on the definitions of rape and torture. I suspect that a lot of behaviour that we now include under these vague descriptors would have been well within cultural norms in earlier days. I think that Jimmy was trying to describe horrific behaviour, and it was to that sense that I was responding.

Torture that inflicted permanent harm would tend to impair the child's ability to function long term. That would tend to engender resentment amongst the parents and close kin of the child, who would otherwise expect to benefit, in the long term, from the assistance and support of the child. Furthermore, in small groups of ancestral humans, it seems likely that they were closely linked, genetically. Thus any behaviour that reduced the chances that the children, already prone to huge mortality rates, would not survive into adulthood (however defined) would seem to reduce the chances of the shared genes surviving compared to a neighbouring group, which differed only in the manner in which they treated children.

I agree that this may be weak... and, anyway, I think the more problematic question is that what we mean by rape and torture, indeed.. what we mean by child... will be different now than it was for our ancestors. Jimmy seems to think that humans always thought and believed, or should have always thought and believed, as we do. History quickly reveals the foolishness of assuming that our moral code is or ever has been universal.