Strong Atheism

[NorthenSun]

Chef,

 

I was going to reply to your post but I see that AUB has already responded. I would only add the following:

 

At times people will say or write something like: “Don’t impose your moral beliefs on me”. This must be interpreted as implying a rejection of a select set of morals, not all my morals, as if we had nothing in common. If this person was sitting in the park, eating a snack, and reading a book; and I approached that person with my moral beliefs which included “do not murder people”, the sitting person is very much likely to say: “By all means, do impose (follow) your moral belief and don’t kill me.” In a similar manner that person might say “Follow your morals and don’t steal my book” or “Allow me to enjoy my book in privacy, which you also value.”

 

I submit that humans across the globe are not so different that they cannot recognize a commonly held set of values which then allows for construction of a rational ethical system which everyone can live under, as long as it is not formulated using religious or mystical dogma. This results in a broad outline for a “one right way” system of morals governing human interaction, but it still retains plenty of latitude for individual and cultural distinction.

 

If past and current civilizations’ moral and governing systems have been built on religious doctrine which we are now declaring to be invalid, there has to be some replacement system. AUB is saying (I think) that the methods of Objectivist Ethics lead to this system, and I agree. My extension is that this will lead to democracies which use some form of free market economic system, but I repeat myself.

 

AUB,

 

Thank you for the humanism references. I was beginning to think you were only interested in tearing apart religion, without providing any replacement. I have not read all your previous posts either, so I may have missed this.

[chefranden]

Will the new objective morality be so self evidently correct that every last person will just give themselves a dope slap and say, “well of course”?

 

Yes, when free of irrational bias. They will at least be able to come to the same conclusion as everyone else. If there is a chance that all can acknowledge the same scientific facts, (with enough education and the removal of psudo science and religious misinformation) then if morality can be made a science, that chance exists for morality.

 

How will you free everyone of irrational bias? This is a serious question that I think is at the heart of our disagreement.

 

Let me know how this problem will be fixed (if it is a problem): Each human is a subject and understands the world and her relationships with it subjectively. Each subjective understanding of the world is at least slightly different then every other.

 

Each human has unique subjective filters constructed from his unique experience including but not restricted to:

 

Participents) You and other people who have "played a role" in your life.

Parts) Settings, significant facts, episodes, and significant states (including the present state and some original state)

Stages) Preconditions:Settings for the begining of life, culture, language, economics, parents, siblings, extended family, environment, gene expression, etc. Beginning: The original state followed by episodes in the same temporal setting. Middle:Various episodes and significant states, in succeeding temporal order.End: The present state.

Causation: Various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states.

Linear Sequence) The temporal position of the various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states. (example: learning a language as a child instead of as an adult)

Purpose) Goal: A desired state of self either constructed by the self, or by other actors, or by both. Plan:A sequence of episodes initiated by self and/or by other actors, which are percieved to be causally connected to the goal.*

 

(list taken with modifications from Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By pp172, 173)

 

How will all of that be set aside to enable the same objective view for all humans especially when most of the influence of individual experience must necessarily be subconscious? How do you judge that you yourself have set all irrational influence including that which may be subconscious, before you come to an objective conclusion such as, "Now you are just being paranoid..."? (I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am looking for a real answer.)

 

* For example: You passionately (and I think rightly) decry Christianity. Would that be true if you had been kidnaped and raised Hindu in a Hindu culture?

 

PS I hope this is not too long. I will probably reply to some of your other points as well. I understand your time constrants. Just poke your stick at that which you find relatively the most stupid.

[Cerise]

While I think AUB is correct in saying, more or less, that what is true is what works.

 

I regard Utopia as what may be reached if you combine all the successful and virtuous elements of all the civilisations that have ever existed, the trick is recognising those points that should be included. There is no right or wrong with a society, merely a moral standard all should obey.

 

However, what I think Chef is getting at, and what I myself wonder, is whether "what works" can be applied to everyone.

 

As a purely hypothetical example, say that somewhere in Africa it is discovered that a tribe (call it Tribe A) has eradicated all instances of depression, strife, poverty, ignorance (in this case, lack of neccessary education), etc. They have done this by making a rule that whenever a conflict arises they should get together in a group and bounce on one leg. The bouncing, in this case, puts them into a medatative state wherin they can emphathize with whoever it is involved in the conflict. The bouncing empathy then prompts them to find a quick, easy resolution to dissolve the conflict.

 

Should we determine that this method, which obviously works for Tribe A would then be a suitable method for Tribe B, the bounce method? Say Tribe B is significantly larger then Tribe A. They are more spread out, with many of their members gone on long periods of hunting trips. They find it difficult to gather together whenever there is a conflict, and their bouncing would disturb the prey which they eat. The method which works so well for Tribe A ultimately fails for Tribe B.

 

Does this make the Bounce method an "untrue" standard because it cannot also be applied to Tribe B? Does that make Tribe A's teachings false? Or is it simply a matter of Tribe B not being willing to give Tribe A's teachings an objective try? If Tribe B worked hard enough or became good enough or earnest enough or "saw the light" or read all the facts and viewed them without emotion, would it then allow them to use Tribe A's method and be successful?

[Guest Euthyphro]

Cerise wrote:

"However, what I think Chef is getting at, and what I myself wonder, is whether "what works" can be applied to everyone."

 

Merit in ritual being used for finding solutions to problems? It's not necassary. A trance does nothing for enhancing our ability to solve problems as far as science is concerned.

 

There will be an objective way for them if they should choose that route. Rituals are never necassary to begin with regardless. Niether is religion or tradition. Since when is ritual needed in prompting empathy? Putting oneself into a trance to feel empathy is not necassary to anyone who values occam's razor.

 

If you want your ideas to be used folks are gonna have to understand them and accept them. People are going to have to believe in these ideas if you want more people contributing new ideas in ethics using objective methods. So theres no need for paranoia from anyone. Force is not logical if we want folks to actualy use these ideas.

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about really. Doesn't everyone try to base thier ethical decisions on reality anyways? Even the religionists try to. It does not necessarily matter if one rule does not fit all. As long as folks are grounded in reality as much as is humanly possible there will be less bigotry and more freedom. Is this concept so hard to grasp? There will always be hard problems and defeatism is not an acceptable attitude if we truly wish to be fair in how we treat others or in how we make laws. We can be consistent and fair in our decision making so long as we are grounded in reality as is humanly possible and so long as we use the same methods. We should always try and be objective first. Use empiricle evidences first if possible. This does not mean every culture will always have the same rules as other cultures. This does not mean we will never have to compromise either in everyday living or when making laws. I strongly believe that objective morality is what is needed in reducing bigotry and promoting more freedoms because blind traditions hurt and hinder more often than not.

[NorthenSun]

Does this make the Bounce method an "untrue" standard because it cannot also be applied to Tribe B?  Does that make Tribe A's teachings false?  Or is it simply a matter of Tribe B not being willing to give Tribe A's teachings an objective try?  If Tribe B worked hard enough or became good enough or earnest enough or "saw the light" or read all the facts and viewed them without emotion, would it then allow them to use Tribe A's method and be successful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cerise,

 

In your example the only significant difference between Tribes A and B is the size and geographical location of the populations. There is no genetic difference in the members of Tribe B which prevents the bounce method from working for them, only the fact that they are geographically isolated at times. Tribe B recognizes that the benefits of the bounce method are very high. That is, they already recognize (have already "dope slapped themselves") the superior value of this method as compared to their conflict resolution method and would adopt it, except that they are having problems with implementation. Clearly Tribe B should subdivide itself into Tribes B1, B2, B3.... of the appropriate size such that the bounce method would work, because the benefits are so great. Some people in Tribe B might resist the break up of the tribe, and there might be some problems during the transistion phase, but the ultimate goal of acheiving the benefits of adopting the bounce method would outway these temporary obstacles. The "truth way" is the same for Tribe A & B.

 

In the real world, I am asseriting also that there is no genetic difference that prevents any individual (except the few who are severely mentally impared) from recognizing the values arising from Objectivist Ethics (democratic government and free market economics). Of course, this implies people must cast off the tyranny of religious dogma and other forms of superstition. For example, although the Middle Eastern countries have been ruled autocratically for centuries, nothing inherently prevents them from changing into the world's newest democracies, as long as they supress any aspects of Islamic teaching which profess otherwise.

 

People can still have different tastes and cultures, i.e. the people of an an island nation like Malta (fishing, tourism,..) will probably have different occupations from those of a land locked country like Bolivia (agriculture, mining,...). But they should both be able to live freely and choose any occupation in their country at which thay can make a living. If a person in either nation wants to write poetry and can make a living by selling it to others, they should be free to do so.

[chefranden]

Cerise wrote:

"However, what I think Chef is getting at, and what I myself wonder, is whether "what works" can be applied to everyone."

 

Merit in ritual being used for finding solutions to problems? It's not necassary. A trance does nothing for enhancing our ability to solve problems as far as science is concerned.

I don't think that Cerise was trying to say that science is better accomplished by bouncing on one leg. What was being taken care of was human relationships. If you want a scientific explanation "trance" changes brain chemistry. Science would give you a pill to do the same thing.

 

Science requires the ritual of the method. Leg bouncing isn't in the science ritual.

 

There will be an objective way for them if they should choose that route. Rituals are never necassary to begin with regardless. Niether is religion or tradition. Since when is ritual needed in prompting empathy? Putting oneself into a trance to feel empathy is not necassary to anyone who values Occam’s razor.

Perhaps they don't value Occam’s razor. When I quite smoking many years ago, I had to substitute the rituals of smoking with something else. My reason told me that I had to quite, but it didn't supply the means to do so. The means was different rituals. I'm quite sure that you have personal/social rituals that you don't recognize as such. You probably have a greeting ritual that makes you more comfortable in meeting strangers and even friends. See what it consists of and then change it or stop it altogether, and see how you feel.

 

I would go so far to say that searching for the objective way is a ritual that makes you feel more comfortable.

 

If you want your ideas to be used folks are gonna have to understand them and accept them. People are going to have to believe in these ideas if you want more people contributing new ideas in ethics using objective methods. So theres no need for paranoia from anyone. Force is not logical if we want folks to actualy use these ideas.

Absolutely.

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about really. Doesn't everyone try to base thier ethical decisions on reality anyways? Even the religionists try to. It does not necessarily matter if one rule does not fit all.

You bet they do. My point, and Cerise's I think, is that reality can only be understood through the filter of personal subjective experience. If leg bouncing is part of the experience of reconciliation, then it will be useful for understanding reconciliation. And leg bouncing will do nothing for you in that matter because it is not part of your experience of social reparations.

 

Supposing that the tribe should give up leg bouncing, because you see nothing in it, is an example of one-right-way syndrome.

 

As long as folks are grounded in reality as much as is humanly possible there will be less bigotry and more freedom. Is this concept so hard to grasp?

I think what you mean is, as long as folks are grounded in reality as you see it

. And you are correct, if everyone thought like you, the world would be instantly peaceful. However, since you have a unique understanding of reality that no one else can duplicate, it won't happen. That uniqueness is part of the reality of the human condition. As such it is illogical to ignore it.

 

... We can be consistent and fair in our decision making so long as we are grounded in reality as is humanly possible and so long as we use the same methods...

And there's the rub isn't it? My tribe is perfectly willing to comprimise with Y'all as long as you use our methods to arrive at the compromise.

[NorthenSun]

I think what you mean is, as long as folks are grounded in reality as you see it

.  And you are correct, if everyone thought like you, the world would be instantly peaceful.  However, since you have a unique understanding of reality that no one else can duplicate, it won't happen.  That uniqueness is part of the reality of the human condition.  As such it is illogical to ignore it.

And there's the rub isn't it?  My tribe is perfectly willing to comprimise with Y'all as long as you use our methods to arrive at the compromise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chef, I thought we were taking a stab at trying to determine what is reality, what is true, how we should live morally together. Now you are saying everyone is free to use whatever method they want to decide this? So scientists can use the scientific method and believe in evolution, and the people at the Discovery Institute can use their methods and believe in intelligent design. I guess we should teach both evolution and Bible creationism in schools side by side since the truth only depends on what every you "feel" like believing?

[Cerise]

Cerise,

 

In your example the only significant difference between Tribes A and B is the size and geographical location of the populations. There is no genetic difference in the members of Tribe B which prevents the bounce method from working for them, only the fact that they are geographically isolated at times. Tribe B recognizes that the benefits of the bounce method are very high. That is, they already recognize (have already "dope slapped themselves") the superior value of this method as compared to their conflict resolution method and would adopt it, except that they are having problems with implementation. Clearly Tribe B should subdivide itself into Tribes B1, B2, B3.... of the appropriate size such that the bounce method would work, because the benefits are so great.  Some people in Tribe B might resist the break up of the tribe, and there might be some problems during the transistion phase, but the ultimate goal of acheiving the benefits of adopting the bounce method would outway these temporary obstacles. The "truth way" is the same for Tribe A & B.

 

In the real world, I am asseriting also that there is no genetic difference that prevents any individual (except the few who are severely mentally impared) from recognizing the values arising from Objectivist Ethics (democratic government and free market economics). Of course, this implies people must cast off the tyranny of religious dogma and other forms of superstition. For example, although the Middle Eastern countries have been ruled autocratically for centuries, nothing inherently prevents them from changing into the world's newest democracies, as long as they supress any aspects of Islamic teaching which profess otherwise. 

 

People can still have different tastes and cultures, i.e. the people of an an island nation like Malta (fishing, tourism,..) will probably have different occupations from those of a land locked country like Bolivia (agriculture, mining,...).  But they should both be able to live freely and choose any occupation in their country at which thay can make a living.  If a person in either nation wants to write poetry and can make a living by selling it to others, they should be free to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How are you going to subdivide the tribes? Going to take them over? Is Tribe A going to make an invasion and say, "look bouncing is really the right way to go, so all of you guys split up now okay? Don't make us break out the pointy spears..."

 

What if Tribe B, once subdivided, finds itself facing a new conflict, one that results in no longer having the traditional advantage of being together in a large group? They haven't the defensive skills of such small groups as Tribe A, as their defense largely consisted of the "strength by numbers" method, and soon after subdividing, Tribe B begins to die out. Was the bounce method then proven to be the "one right way" for Tribe B?

 

Your assertion that the "ends justify the means" is not what I would subscribe to. Especially since, in my experience, that is something Christians have always assured me of. Convert everyone to your path, some will commit suicide because of conflicts with homosexuality and the bible, some witches will have to burn, some gender roles will have to change, and we'll all have to learn to stop masturbating but in the end, all the joy of being Christian will outway the suffering it took to get to the point where everyone follows the ONE TRUE PATH.

 

Northern Sun:

 

Remember, what's true depends on what works. If your tribe wants to believe the moon is made of cheese and this tradition works towards the survival and general hapiness of their culture, is there truly a conflict there?

 

There are certain things that work for all tribes in the human experience. Not dying out, for one thing, works very well. Rules are made to reflect this, i.e. the rule of reciprocity (Golden rule). But how we should live morally together depends just as much on preserving diversity as it does in finding the parts in which we are the same.

 

In Papau New Guinea, a tribe exists that uses a very particular way to solve conflicts between members. They have an extremely public verbal battle during which the person who feels wronged gets to air their grievance backed by the assertions of additional tribe members who act as a kind of Greek chorus, echoing the list of infractions. Certain openings are given for a tribe member to explain themselves, however, if a good verbal counter cannot be given, then they must submit to the public judgement of the tribe, usually in the form of many insults. This way, not only do those wishing to air a grievance get support from the tribe, problems are brought directly into the open where they can be quickly dealt with upon encountering them.

 

This method, however, does not work for additional tribes where "losing face" by being publically humiliate would result in tribal exclusion, as members are no longer able to trust those they feel have acted in an inferior manner. For conflict solving in this tribe, grievances are expressed very subtly and generally, often blaming the issue on "bad spirits" or some other culprit that would not be a tribal member. For example, if a neighbor steals some seed from his neighbor's garden, the tribal member who has been stolen from might make an announcement that night about monkeys being sent by an animal spirit to punish them for boasting about their garden. The person who stole, being absolved from actual guilt, will then make a donation in sympathy to the tribe member, to show that they understand the problem. Then others in the tribe will also donate small amounts of their own seed to account for the missing seed. Group participation means that stealing is discouraged because it effects the entire tribe instead of just the two people involved.

 

Who has the right method for conflict resolution?

[chefranden]

Sun,

 

Thank you for your reply. I hope I'm not pissing you off to much to continue.

 

Chef, I thought we were taking a stab at trying to determine what is reality, what is true, how we should live morally together.

Not exactly.

 

The stab is at objectivism’s ability or inability to arrive at absolute truth that everyone will follow. It is agreed by me that religion has been unable to produce such a thing. I used to think that objective reason could arrive at such a destination. Now I'm thinking that there is no such destination. While there may be a theory of everything in physics, there won't be a theory of everything in human morality. And that is the reality that needs to be dealt with.

 

Religionists have a doctrine of sin to explain their frustration that folks perversely won't go along with the plan. Objective moralists have a similar frustration and deal with it by thinking that people, such as myself perhaps and Christians, are perversely stupid.

 

Because humans understand moral situations in terms of individually derived conceptual systems, moral truth will always be relative to the individual's concept. We assume that people doing things we find morally repugnant are comic book villains, that is they know they are evil and delight in it. We think so because we think they must see the world as we see it. It is very seldom if ever the case that the other is an actual villain. Hitler was a righteous man, at least in his own eyes.

 

Now you are saying everyone is free to use whatever method they want to decide this?

Well now we wouldn't want anyone who disagreed with our method to be free would we? Better that they be restrained, restricted, bound, jailed, oppressed, bombed, blown up, blown away, or hell even tortured at Guantanamo Bay.

 

So scientists can use the scientific method and believe in evolution,

Sure and I agree it is the best way to find out about physical facts and processes.

 

and the people at the Discovery Institute can use their methods and believe in intelligent design.

What would be the alternative? Fines? Jail? Re-education camps? The Stake?

 

I guess we should teach both evolution and Bible creationism in schools side by side

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

since the truth only depends on what every you "feel" like believing? 

 

You are about to find out how truly perverse I am. I think that we should abolish schools all together and let children find out for themselves what is true alongside their parents, extended families, and real communities. Link

 

I used to preach sermons base on this "feeling" of disgust concerning trusting one's feelings. I can feel your little shudder, as I felt it once myself. Does this feeling have anything bearing on your choice of method or desire to adhere to it? I ask because it certainly helped inform my choice of Christianity

[NorthenSun]

What if Tribe B, once subdivided, finds itself facing a new conflict, one that results in no longer having the traditional advantage of being together in a large group?  They haven't the defensive skills of such small groups as Tribe A, as their defense largely consisted of the "strength by numbers" method, and soon after subdividing, Tribe B begins to die out.  Was the bounce method then proven to be the "one right way" for Tribe B?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nothing prevents the B tribes from forming a cooperative defense agreement. I don't want to get too hung up in this example because it is very hypothetical, but you did stay tribe A has discovered a way to eliminate depression, end strife (war, hate, violence), ignorance, and poverty. These are very positive elements that most Tribes would want to emulate. Who would want to remain in a state of perpetual ignorance, poverty, war. etc.. ? (Actually if they were no longer ignorant they could figure out how to do anything, like defend themselves and grow food.) In this case I believe Tribe B would use a lot of means to achieve this end. If you insist that there in no way to accomplish this without dying off, then of course they should not adopt bouncing, but then this example really would have little in common with the real world.

 

Your assertion that the "ends justify the means" is not what I would subscribe to. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I assert no such thing either, as a generality. It is a case by case basis.

 

Northern Sun:

 

Remember, what's true depends on what works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know you don't mean this. Burning witches worked pretty well at spreading fear and suppressing dissent, does that make it ture (moral)?

 

If your tribe wants to believe the moon is made of cheese and this tradition works towards the survival and general hapiness of their culture, is there truly a conflict there? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I agree there are cultural values and beliefs which can hold a society together and let it flourish. But if they are ultimately not based in fact, the society risks damage when it comes in contact with a society that sees the correct reality. Suppose believing the moon is made of cheese results in your believing a meteor made of rock will never collide with the earth, and then you do nothing to prevent one (assuming you could). Ok, a little far out, but suppose you ignore potential global warming because burning fossil fuels has worked out well in the past, or suppose you refuse to believe that AIDS is caused by a virus, as one African leader did.

 

There are certain things that work for all tribes in the human experience.  Not dying out, for one thing, works very well.  Rules are made to reflect this, i.e. the rule of reciprocity (Golden rule).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I am saying. I am looking to develop a set of common moral principles that apply to all people. Some form of the Golden Rule would probably emerge as one of the principles. If you can provide a better method than Objective Reasoning for developing this set of moral principles, lets hear it.

 

In Papau New Guinea, a tribe exists that ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Both of these tribes recognize the common morality of not stealing. Both recognize the need for some form of punishment and atonement. Both limit the extent of punishment (i.e, neither system is excessively cruel). The differences are only a matter the form and degree of punishment.

 

But how we should live morally together depends just as much on preserving diversity as it does in finding the parts in which we are the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Too little time to completely discuss this now, but in summary I am not arguing against esthetical diversity. I am saying that using Objective methods will inevitably result in a common set of moral principles.

 

And to some extent it has to. The world is getting flatter - (see Thomas Friedman's new book: "The World is Flat) and more crowded. Globalization is inevitable, and we have to learn to get along.

[Guest Euthyphro]

Chef wrote:

"I don't think that Cerise was trying to say that science is better accomplished by bouncing on one leg. What was being taken care of was human relationships. If you want a scientific explanation "trance" changes brain chemistry. Science would give you a pill to do the same thing."

 

Life and death situations should not be based on such ridiculous methods. Individuals deserve better than that.

Now empathy can serve prosecuting attourneys and detectives in knowing the right questions to ask. Skill in this area can seem uncanny when someone gets a hunch, but there's no magic behind it, and thats why I made the crack about occom's razor.

The tribesmen in the story are primitives and I doubt anyone could persuade all of them to change thier way of perciving or thinking. Leave them be. Nothing can piss off your parents, uncles and aunties more than pissing all over thier traditions. Encouraging some of the tribesmen to do that could result in violence. Look at xian missionaries when they butt in. People get killed sometimes. I would trust the wisdom of anthropologists when it comes to interfereing in cultures that are so primitive.

 

Chef wrote:

"Science requires the ritual of the method. Leg bouncing isn't in the science ritual."

 

If we count the misses and not just the bulls eyes we will see that the scientific method is better and more consistent in getting results than mere rituals. Leg bouncing is nonsense but so long as the methods used in determing guilt and punnishment aside from the leg bouncing is objective then who cares if they do the hokey pokey first?. I certainly don't. I enjoy cultural differnces more often than not. But thats just me. I can't speak for others. As a matter of fact I realize I should not even be discussing this because of my small knowlege base, but hey, theres no better way to learn than by sticking ones foot in ones mouth. I like to learn that way. And I appreciate your taking time to explain your position Chef.

 

In the case of the tribesmen we should let the anthropologists do thier thing. More advanced cultures might be open minded to objective ethics. They all ready have some appreciation for the Scientific Method. Primitives can't be expected to because thier parents might kill them. Literaly. Heh. Grown ups are a pain.

 

Chef wrote:

"When I quite smoking many years ago, I had to substitute the rituals of smoking with something else. My reason told me that I had to quite, but it didn't supply the means to do so. The means was different rituals. I'm quite sure that you have personal/social rituals that you don't recognize as such. You probably have a greeting ritual that makes you more comfortable in meeting strangers and even friends. See what it consists of and then change it or stop it altogether, and see how you feel.

 

I would go so far to say that searching for the objective way is a ritual that makes you feel more comfortable."

 

We should be objective and rely on empiricle evidences first if possible in any situation. And in this case your rituals only affect you and not others. Still , I am having problems really addressing what your saying here. Well Sir, you have stumped me here. I feel that there is something I'm missing in what you are saying. When thinking on morals the first thing that comes to my mind is how much of my personal freedom will I have to give up. All I can see when it comes to morality is damage control. I still believe that we can be objective in determing what is damaging and what is hundering some ones freedom unecassarily. I can't see beyond that.

 

Chef wrote:

"Supposing that the tribe should give up leg bouncing, because you see nothing in it, is an example of one-right-way syndrome."

 

I might only criticize thier methods in determining guilt and punnishment. If they gotta put themselves in a trance to get in the right mood before they make thier judgments on the parties involved in the conflict then hey, more power to them.

Forgive my backpeddling a little here Chef. Heh.

 

What you say here nags at me. I still worship a sky fairy. I still pray because I like the buzz and it gets me in the mood to be more honest. I never ask God for answers though. I don't expect any. I already tested that.

 

But still you nailed me when pointing out that I have silly rituals. This is embarrassing. The other thing is if it weren't for A.A. dogma I never would have developed a need or compulsion for honesty. I now realise it is sacred because ultimatley it is for success in surviving. Heres another situation were superstition gave me a decent start for a new life. But is it right for me to not count the misses of superstitious reasoning? Ritual and superstition hasn't always panned out so nicely for me or for others in my life.Theres gota be a more dependable way. An objective way.

 

Chef wrote:

"I think what you mean is, as long as folks are grounded in reality as you see it

. And you are correct, if everyone thought like you, the world would be instantly peaceful. However, since you have a unique understanding of reality that no one else can duplicate, it won't happen. That uniqueness is part of the reality of the human condition. As such it is illogical to ignore it."

 

Only when it comes to cause and effect of ones actions do I plead for objective methods. Perhaps if we were all more objective and had a better respect for empiricle eveidences we might find that we agree on more things than we did before. I think most people want to let other folks do thier thing so long as no one gets stepped on. But maybe I have to much faith in hmanity. I dunno. All I know is I would be happy if people could just do thier thing so long as they don't hinder me in my endeavors. Understanding cause and effect can go a long way in compromises or comming to the same conclusions in my uneducated opinion. Heh. Trust me Chef I want to like people and would enjoy others happiness. I believe most folks are like that deep down but are hindered by social pressures that come from upholding blind tradtions.

 

Chef wrote:

"And there's the rub isn't it? My tribe is perfectly willing to comprimise with Y'all as long as you use our methods to arrive at the compromise."

 

Only when it comes to understanding what causes damage and what is actually helpful in determining how much freedom we should allow folks. I would prefere that we be as liberal as is practical. But I feel we need to be objective to do this.

[NorthenSun]

I hope I'm not pissing you off to much to continue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chef,

 

Don't worry, you are not pissing me off, yet.

 

The stab is at objectivism’s ability or inability to arrive at absolute truth that everyone will follow. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, maybe not an aboslute truth on all issues, but tell me why we cannot develop a set of common moral principles that can be applied to all people? Are we doomed to perpetual wars; terrorism; occasional famine and genocide; racial, ethnic, and religious hatred; etc?

 

Maybe we are differing on the degree of moral principles I am suggesting? I am thinking of a rather small list of responsibilities and don'ts, not a complete description of what a person is required to believe.

 

More on the rest of your post later.

[NorthenSun]

Only when it comes to cause and effect of ones actions do I plead for objective methods. Perhaps if we were all more objective and had a better respect for empiricle eveidences we might find that we agree on more things than we did before. I think most people want to let other folks do thier thing so long as no one gets stepped on. But maybe I have to much faith in hmanity. I dunno. All I know is I would be happy if people could just do thier thing so long as they don't hinder me in my endeavors. Understanding cause and effect can go a long way in compromises or comming to the same conclusions in my uneducated opinion. Heh. Trust me Chef I want to like people and would enjoy others happiness. I believe most folks are like that deep down but are hindered by social pressures that come from upholding blind tradtions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Euthyphro,

 

I think the full blown Ayn Rand Objectivism endorses this position of "do your own thing". My understanding is that it takes few positions on issues such as sexual morality, drinking, gambling, etc. People are granted a lot of freedom, but they have to take responsibility for their actions, and that other people are not mandated to bail them out of their mistakes.

This is different from most religious systems which require a person to be proactive in some manner to help people, regardless if the cause of their difficulty was self inflicted by irresponsible action.

[Guest Euthyphro]

To be honest I never even heard of Ayn Rand. I never read her. But I still think we can be objective in determining what is damaging and what is not. Also if I am to give up freedoms I want a good reason why. I'm all for being able to show how something is damaging instead of just taking it on faith like the traditionalsts do.

 

I think there is merit to being as liberal as is practical in giving folks room to breathe. Thats not to say I would not give up certain actions if I was aware of how I am affecting others. Also I would like to be more knowlegeable in what is help and what is not help. As I said before I like people and would enjoy thier happiness.

[white_raven23]

 

Well......

 

My butt fainted reading through this thread (WHY didn't I listen to Asimov?)

 

Now I have numb butt.

 

Hope you're all happy.

 

[chefranden]

Chef wrote:

"I don't think that Cerise was trying to say that science is better accomplished by bouncing on one leg. What was being taken care of was human relationships. If you want a scientific explanation "trance" changes brain chemistry. Science would give you a pill to do the same thing."

 

Life and death situations should not be based on such ridiculous methods. Individuals deserve better than that.

I’m assuming that you are referring to leg bouncing. You can be assured that if the leg tribe found their ritual ridiculous and useless they wouldn’t do it. Certainly it looks silly to me too, but it would be a mistake to think that these people are any stupider or less dignified then the average group, that has found a way to survive.

 

 

Chef wrote:

"Science requires the ritual of the method. Leg bouncing isn't in the science ritual."

If we count the misses and not just the bulls eyes we will see that the scientific method is better and more consistent in getting results than mere rituals.

It would depend upon what results you are looking for. For example how would science work to find out an objective position on what is polite? In American culture a burp at the dinner table is considered impolite and you should excuse yourself for it. In other cultures it is considered impolite if you don’t burp at the table. What would the hypothesis of proper burping look like? What predictions would it make? What experiments would be needed to uphold your theory? If you managed to bring this off, would the way of handling burps change or would people stick with tradition as it makes them feel good?

Leg bouncing is nonsense but so long as the methods used in determing guilt and punnishment aside from the leg bouncing is objective then who cares if they do the hokey pokey first?. I certainly don't. I enjoy cultural differnces more often than not. But thats just me. I can't speak for others. As a matter of fact I realize I should not even be discussing this because of my small knowlege base, but hey, theres no better way to learn than by sticking ones foot in ones mouth. I like to learn that way.

Of course manners don’t carry the weight of finding the perpetrator of a crime. I would rather see the culprit caught by forensic evidence then by examining the entrails of a sheep. I have been raised to take science seriously so my understanding of sheep entrails reading would be negative. The people of that culture will see reading sheep entrails just as just as I may find a jury trial. And it is quite likely that they will see jury trial as unjust as I find sheep entrail reading.

 

And I appreciate your taking time to explain your position Chef...

Thank you. I more trying to figure out what my position is.

 

We should be objective and rely on empiricle evidences first if possible in any situation…

This is the way I would “feel” most comfortable with. What will I do with those that don’t? If my group has enough power we can force those that don’t to do it our way. Such force doesn’t work all that well, as we are seeing again in Iraq for the umpteenth time. And in order to use force, it is necessary to give up the moral position we are fighting for. I’m willing to use force to defend my way of life, but I’m not willing to use it to force others away from their way of life. Why? Because there is no way to be sure that my way is the one-right-way. Hitler was sure. Stalin was sure. Osama is sure. Bush is sure. All of them were or are willing wreck havoc to make others see reason.

 

 

Well Sir, you have stumped me here. I feel that there is something I'm missing in what you are saying. When thinking on morals the first thing that comes to my mind is how much of my personal freedom will I have to give up. All I can see when it comes to morality is damage control. I still believe that we can be objective in determing what is damaging and what is hundering some ones freedom unecassarily. I can't see beyond that.

I’m sorry. I’m not yet offering an alternative to the question, “how shall we then live?” All I’m doing is trying to say that history shows that attempting to enforce one-right-way has been as devastating to people as totalitarian agriculture has been to the rest of the planet. Just as monoculture agriculture is devastating to the land, monoculture culture has been devastating to people. I think that will be true no matter who or what determines the one-right-way to be enforced.

 

But still you nailed me when pointing out that I have silly rituals. This is embarrassing. The other thing is if it weren't for A.A. dogma I never would have developed a need or compulsion for honesty. I now realise it is sacred because ultimatley it is for success in surviving. Heres another situation were superstition gave me a decent start for a new life. But is it right for me to not count the misses of superstitious reasoning? Ritual and superstition hasn't always panned out so nicely for me or for others in my life.Theres gota be a more dependable way. An objective way.

Your rituals are not silly. It is what humans do. We are only partially rational. To not take that into account as we try to figure out what to do is illogical.

 

Only when it comes to cause and effect of ones actions do I plead for objective methods.

I’m sorry, but this is the one thing that won’t happen. If you could stop being a subject maybe, but I would guess you would also stop being human. But how would you do this? How would you set yourself aside? And if you manage it, how will you get most everybody else to do it?

[Cerise]

Nothing prevents the B tribes from forming a cooperative defense agreement. I don't want to get too hung up in this example because it is very hypothetical, but you did stay tribe A has discovered a way to eliminate depression, end strife (war, hate, violence), ignorance, and poverty. These are very positive elements that most Tribes would want to emulate. Who would want to remain in a state of perpetual ignorance, poverty, war. etc.. ? (Actually if they were no longer ignorant they could figure out how to do anything, like defend themselves and grow food.) In this case I believe Tribe B would use a lot of means to achieve this end.  If you insist that there in no way to accomplish this without dying off, then of course they should not adopt bouncing, but then this example really would have little in common with the real world.

 

Yes, nothing prevents them from doing this. But if they had lived their whole lives not forming cooperative defense agreements, and still became successful at surviving, why should they start doing so now, just because Tribe A thinks it's a grand idea?

 

I think you are misunderstanding me. Tribe B is not derelict, raping and pillaging, dying out, or having rampant murders in their Tribe. They are doing just as well as Tribe A, only without the bounce method.

 

I know you don't mean this. Burning witches worked pretty well at spreading fear and suppressing dissent, does that make it ture (moral)?

 

Didn't work out well for witches, did it? What works takes into account what works for the whole of a society, not just the upper echlons. Spreading fear and suppressing dissent did not work well, as it eventually caused people to break away from the Puritan faith, and many communities could not survive with such an intense element of suspicion and fear within their midst. So, yes, I mean that "what works" is true. Burning witches didn't work.

Just like our culture, I believe, is currently not "working".

 

Yes, I agree there are cultural values and beliefs which can hold a society together and let it flourish.  But if they are ultimately not based in fact, the society risks damage when it comes in contact with a society that sees the correct reality.

 

Every society believes they have the "correct reality". What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if values are based on what you would call a fact or what you would call a fiction. What matters is whether or not it works.

 

Suppose believing the moon is made of cheese results in your  believing a meteor made of rock will never collide with the earth, and then you do nothing to prevent one (assuming you could). Ok, a little far out, but suppose you ignore potential global warming because burning fossil fuels has worked out well in the past, or suppose you refuse to believe that AIDS is caused by a virus, as one African leader did.

 

If your tribe starts dying out, it ain't working. African leaders beliving that AIDS is caused by evil spirits, whatever, if this belief does not prevent or slow or stop the deaths of his people, then it's obviously not working.

 

And has anyone proved that global warming is anything but a natural cycle in the earth's temperature adjustments? In any case, a lot more people have asthma now then they did before people started going crazy with the fossil fuel burning. Obviously not working.

 

If you can provide a better method than Objective Reasoning for developing this set of moral principles, lets hear it. 

 

How can you "reason" objectively? You are a human, are you not? Or are you suggesting that we get some computers to spit out some moral precepts for us so we can make sure we are not the subject?

 

Both of these tribes recognize the common morality of not stealing. Both recognize the need for some form of punishment and atonement. Both limit the extent of punishment (i.e, neither system is excessively cruel). The differences are only a matter the form and degree of punishment.

 

Yes, but I don't see what this has to do with "objective reasoning". Perhaps Tribe A thinks that stealing is wrong because it angers the ground spirits. Perhaps Tribe B thinks stealing is wrong because it diminishes tribal resources. If you consider Tribe A making a case from superstition or fiction, and Tribe B making a case from observed fact, does that make Tribe B's acknowledgement of stealing being wrong more effective then Tribe A's?

[Guest Euthyphro]

Chef wrote:

"You can be assured that if the leg tribe found their ritual ridiculous and useless they wouldn’t do it"

 

I don't know if thier ritual is really doing anything. I'd bet they don't know either. They just believe. Maybe thier spiritual leaders are very competent in knowing how to handle disagreements or crimes commited and the dance is just a means to keep the crowd under control for the final decisions. Heehee. So maybe the leaders are objective in solving problems. Maybe they have decent methods. But theres a way to find out and thats to study the people and thier rituals.

 

Chef wrote:

"Certainly it looks silly to me too, but it would be a mistake to think that these people are any stupider or less dignified then the average group, that has found a way to survive."

 

And you are right. I personaly am no better than the "Primitives" and there are many other of my fellows who are no better either. But our Scientists have superior methods than they do in understanding nature. And Science will continue to develope better means for humanity to understand itself and nature, which will be very useful for everyone regardless if they understand that it is benefiting them or not.

 

Chef wrote:

"It would depend upon what results you are looking for."

 

Just because they got lucky using thier superstitious methods does not mean they will be so lucky all the time using that kind of reasoning. Not being able to think outside of the box or not having a good enough grounding in reality has cost me. How much has it cost them? In the long run how much will superstition cost them? But people this primitive should be left to anthropologists to study and help. I think the tribesmen was not a great way of trying to punch holes in objective morality. Ideas have to be sold and not forced on folks. And I think this is possible in the Western World. Yes, even in America.

 

Chef wrote:

"For example how would science work to find out an objective position on what is polite?"

 

I hope anyone who supports objective ethics will not push to control every aspect of living. In the case of what is polite I would have to be familiar with the country that I am in at the time. I'll go by thier ideas of what is polite while I'm in thier country.

 

Chef wrote:

"The people of that culture will see reading sheep entrails just as just as I may find a jury trial. And it is quite likely that they will see jury trial as unjust as I find sheep entrail reading."

 

Yea that is probably going to be true with some of them. Does not mean that in reality they are giving the accused a fair deal. It might be a fair deal though, if in reality thier magic man is really using his head to figure this stuff out and is keeping his people ignorant of his methods for whatever reasons. Heh.

 

Chef wrote:

"And in order to use force, it is necessary to give up the moral position we are fighting for."

 

I totaly understand this concept. I think changing minds is the better way.

 

But I have no idea exactly what it is I'm trying to sell. I never got to read anything on objective moraliy yet. I am just desperate to get fundies off my back by changing the minds of luke warm xians who in thier ignorance support fundies. I think laws that protect us from damage while leaving out superstitious ideas is better for everyone. If a fundy thinks hookers are bad he don't have to go to one. If a fundie thinks other religions are evil then he don't have to go to that religions temples. Fair is fair. I want to live in a diverse America and not a Theocratic Amerika. I don't even want our culture to be xian because it is oppresive. When AUB was talking about an objective way to help folks get along it sounded very good to me. It still does.

 

What could be worse? A theocracy or a country that goes by objective ethics? I'll take the good with the bad from objective ethics over an oppresive and totaly lame "Do it because God says so!" "Those folks are doing evil! God Says so!" "Give me your money! God says so!" "Lets convert the primitives overseas to democracy by force! God says so!"

 

If most of us are stuck in our schitsophrenic perceptions of a God thingy do we have to make it worse by saying "God says so!" ? I am tired of control freaks waving books around written by pretenders. If I am not allowed to do something I want it to be for a good reason and definately not for a lame ass reason like God says so. God never told me anything and they can shove thier book. I guess the reason I butted in this thread is because I am very frustrated.

[NorthenSun]

Cerise,

 

The reason I object to moral diversity (moral subjectivism) is because it leads to elitism and opens the door to discrimination. It allows people an excuse to act differently towards select groups on the basis of some false cultural “values” claim. For example an elitist can make the claim that blacks or Hispanics have a culture which is fundamentally different from white people. “They don’t have the same moral values as whites”. This leads to the notion that trying to improve the living standards of minorities is futile because their culture prevents it.

 

I live in Texas where a higher percentage of Hispanic youth drop out of school than the average population. An elitist can say that the Hispanic culture places a higher value on immediate gains (a job, a car, a family) vs. postponing this in favor of the longer term advantages of obtaining a high school diploma and going on to college. So any attempt to reduce the drop out rate is really a waste of time and money. The same idea can be applied to blacks. Sure some may be good athletes, but they really don’t want to be coaches, let alone owners of the teams. Blacks come from a slave culture which does not value education, so attempting to get more blacks into college is really a waste of time. Black culture (ghetto culture) actually values being on the bottom rung of society.

 

The same argument applies to any culture that claims legitimacy for treating women as second class citizens because it is part of their cultural “values” and historical tradition.

 

The elitist can easily deny that he is a racist or sexist, after all his actions are justified because of the inherent cultural moral differences between his group and the others.

 

What I am saying is that I believe there are certain moral values (rights, responsibilities) that apply universally to all people, and the argument that culture and tradition prevents their application is false.

[NorthenSun]

The stab is at objectivism’s ability or inability to arrive at absolute truth that everyone will follow.  It is agreed by me that religion has been unable to produce such a thing.  I used to think that objective reason could arrive at such a destination.  Now I'm thinking that there is no such destination.  While there may be a theory of everything in physics, there won't be a theory of everything in human morality.  And that is the reality that needs to be dealt with.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chef,

 

I used to be a moral relativist. That is, I believed that morality was subject to individual or cultural interpretations, and that all ethics was in some way situational. There were no universal or absolute standards. But this example bothered me:

 

In WWII the group of non-Jewish Germans who held power decided that all Jews should be killed, exterminated, even their remains burned and obliterated. For some reason, from their subjective perspective, this was deemed to be a morally right and acceptable action. The Jews, I presume, thought the opposite. That is, from their subjective perspective, they believed that they should be allowed to live, and it was morally right that they should not be terminated. If morality is only valid from a subjective viewpoint, then neither side can be judged to be either right or wrong. (The side with the bigger gas chambers wins.)

 

If even in this extreme case no objective moral standards can be applied to judge what is right or wrong, then the whole concept of morality and ethics seems essentially useless to me. I believe there have to be some objective moral standards that apply to all of humanity, regardless of any personal or cultural perspective.

[chefranden]

Ok, maybe not an aboslute truth on all issues, but tell me why we cannot develop a set of common moral principles that can be applied to all people? Are we doomed to perpetual wars; terrorism; occasional  famine and genocide; racial, ethnic, and religious hatred; etc?

 

Maybe we are differing on the degree of moral principles I am suggesting? I am thinking of a rather small list of responsibilities and don'ts, not a complete description of what a person is required to believe.

 

More on the rest of your post later.

 

Actually there is such a thing. From my subjective point of view, I like it. Seems like a no-brainer to me for everone to go, "you betcha". However, they don't. Even countries that have endorsed it are not keen on actually doing it. Why?

 

Remember the Geneva Conventions? The United States and Great Britian have violated 6 or 8 of these time and again in both Gulf Wars. Why?

[chefranden]

Chef wrote:

"You can be assured that if the leg tribe found their ritual ridiculous and useless they wouldn’t do it"

I don't know if thier ritual is really doing anything. I'd bet they don't know either. They just believe. Maybe thier spiritual leaders are very competent in knowing how to handle disagreements or crimes commited and the dance is just a means to keep the crowd under control for the final decisions. Heehee. So maybe the leaders are objective in solving problems. Maybe they have decent methods. But theres a way to find out and thats to study the people and thier rituals.

 

For sure you don't know. It isn't a part of the experience that shaped your world view. They know, or they wouldn't do it. I read somewhere that ballet started among French knights as training to get coordinated in battle. Kind of a sissy war dance. Would they have done it if it didn't work?

 

Did you know that the military still teaches close order drill? Why? People don't go into battle lined up in rows anymore. They teach it because it makes a bunch of strangers into a cohesive unit willing to accomplish the same mission. I imagine group leg bouncing could have the same effect.

 

 

Chef wrote:

"Certainly it looks silly to me too, but it would be a mistake to think that these people are any stupider or less dignified then the average group, that has found a way to survive."

 

And you are right. I personaly am no better than the "Primitives" and there are many other of my fellows who are no better either. But our Scientists have superior methods than they do in understanding nature. And Science will continue to develope better means for humanity to understand itself and nature, which will be very useful for everyone regardless if they understand that it is benefiting them or not.

Really? If you had to survive in the rain forest would you rather be with a scientist or an Yanomami?

 

Some of the benefits of Science: PCB's; Nuclear weapons; depleted uranium; mindless jobs; population explosion; cluster bombs; global warming; oil spills; DDT; Acid Rain; Deforestation; Multitudes of extinctions; poison gas; smog; rush hour; etc and so on.

 

Chef wrote:

"It would depend upon what results you are looking for."

 

Just because they got lucky using thier superstitious methods does not mean they will be so lucky all the time using that kind of reasoning. Not being able to think outside of the box or not having a good enough grounding in reality has cost me. How much has it cost them? In the long run how much will superstition cost them? But people this primitive should be left to anthropologists to study and help. I think the tribesmen was not a great way of trying to punch holes in objective morality. Ideas have to be sold and not forced on folks. And I think this is possible in the Western World. Yes, even in America.

It is a common human trait to mark behavior that is strange as stupid, which is what you mean by superstitious. I'm sure the leg bouncers would return the favor if you were to demonstrate something radically different from their point of view.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by cost them. If it has been part of their survival strategy for 1000 years or even 100 it hasn't cost them. I suppose it could cost them the chance to live anonymously in a modern high rise apartment complex and spend 2-3 hours a day in rush hour traffic on the way to a mindless job so they can afford to watch reruns of Cheers on the telly, instead of being part of a community in which everyone matters. Or it might cost them the chance to live in a cardboard and tin shack and work for 6cents an hour 12-14 hours a day making shoes for Americans.

 

Chef wrote:

"For example how would science work to find out an objective position on what is polite?"

 

I hope anyone who supports objective ethics will not push to control every aspect of living. In the case of what is polite I would have to be familiar with the country that I am in at the time. I'll go by thier ideas of what is polite while I'm in thier country.

You missed the point. How would science develope a theory of politeness? If that would be though how much more so a theory of moraity?

 

Chef wrote:

"The people of that culture will see reading sheep entrails just as just as I may find a jury trial. And it is quite likely that they will see jury trial as unjust as I find sheep entrail reading."

 

Yea that is probably going to be true with some of them. Does not mean that in reality they are giving the accused a fair deal. It might be a fair deal though, if in reality thier magic man is really using his head to figure this stuff out and is keeping his people ignorant of his methods for whatever reasons. Heh.

I think that if you study our justice system closely you will find that the accused seldom get a fair deal, unless they have money -- then they are likely to get a deal that is more than fair. Do you think that our war criminal thieves in the White House will even be brought to trial, let alone spend a minute in jail?.

 

And our magic men (oops) lawyers use their heads to figure stuff out, keeping the people ignorant of their methods for what ever reason.

 

Chef wrote:

"And in order to use force, it is necessary to give up the moral position we are fighting for."

 

I totaly understand this concept. I think changing minds is the better way.

Change minds to what? Our way of thinking, or their way of thinking? If you find you don't want to give up your sacred world view, why would they? The beginning of modern war is this: Those people should be like us.

 

But I have no idea exactly what it is I'm trying to sell. I never got to read anything on objective moraliy yet. I am just desperate to get fundies off my back by changing the minds of luke warm xians who in thier ignorance support fundies. I think laws that protect us from damage while leaving out superstitious ideas is better for everyone. If a fundy thinks hookers are bad he don't have to go to one. If a fundie thinks other religions are evil then he don't have to go to that religions temples. Fair is fair. I want to live in a diverse America and not a Theocratic Amerika. I don't even want our culture to be xian because it is oppresive. When AUB was talking about an objective way to help folks get along it sounded very good to me. It still does.

 

If you think that leg bouncing is bad you don't have to do it.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of subjective thinking since it gets people lost in the woods. However, I no fan of objective thinking either, since it gets people lost in the desert. Both sides of the issue think that there must be a moral equivalent of the "law of gravity". If there is it will turn out to be relative to the observer's experience.

 

What could be worse? A theocracy or a country that goes by objective ethics? I'll take the good with the bad from objective ethics over an oppresive and totaly lame "Do it because God says so!" "Those folks are doing evil! God Says so!"  "Give me your money! God says so!" "Lets convert the primitives overseas to democracy by force! God says so!"

Depends on who you ask. I know some folks that would think they'd died and gone to heaven if the US became a theocracy. I wouldn't like it, cause I likely get the stake.

 

If most of us are stuck in our schitsophrenic perceptions of a God thingy do we have to make it worse by saying "God says so!" ? I am tired of control freaks waving books around written by pretenders. If I am not allowed to do something I want it to be for a good reason and definately not for a lame ass reason like God says so. God never told me anything and they can shove thier book. I guess the reason I butted in this thread is because I am very frustrated.

 

I ain't so sure it would be better by saying "Einstein says so!" or by saying "The International Council of Science says so!"

 

I hear your frustration. I don't want anyone telling me what to do unless I have a say -- and I'm not talking about a vote for a guy I don't know personally! Oops now you know. I'm not just a guy that thinks knowledge is relative to human understanding, I'm an anarchist as well. I'm bound to come to a bad end.

[NorthenSun]

You are about to find out how truly perverse I am.  I think that we should abolish schools all together and let children find out for themselves what is true alongside their parents, extended families, and real communities. Link

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chef,

 

Interesting link.

 

I’m always a little skeptical of a demogague who would equate the actions of the founders of a school system with those of the likes of a Hitler or Stalin. And I have observed that often those who advocate for the elimination of the public school system are really motivated by a simple desire to implement some voucher payment scheme that permits the government to help pay for their children’s private or home school education.

 

That being noted, he does make a one interesting point in his Sept 2003 Harpers article. Most astutely he identifies the latent capacity for extraordinary achievement in young people as demonstrated by the lives of Franklin, Farragut, Edison, etc. I don’t think everyone is a potential genius, but if we really challenged all the students, the results might be amazing. I would agree with him that we probably set much too low expectations of what teens could and should learn in school. This is partly what Bill Cosby has be arguing, and also Bush’s “soft bigotry of low expectations”.

 

Eliminate public schools. No. Make them more challenging and relevant. Yes.

[Cerise]

It's a nice idea NorthernSun, but how are you going to make public school more challenging? It's already been established that different children learn at a different rate, and not everybody wants to learn the same thing. Personally, I could care less about math beyond the level I used for my day to day activities (which include basic operations of adding, subtraction, multiplication, and division, stuff we were pretty much done with by grade six). If they made math more challenging by say, introducing me to physics in grade seven, I would most likely, me not giving a rip about math, fail horribly.

 

The kid next to me, who happens to be extremely interested in math and horribly uninterested in Shakespeare, would have a different view of what he might find "challenging" instead of just "impossible".

 

There really is no good way to challenge children using a set curicuulum, the current grading system (or any grading system for that matter), or the resources we have now (i.e. textbooks and anthologies with absolutely no relevence, written with absolutely no skill or care).

 

Even the university works as a public school, and not a university. You aren't allowed to learn what interests you and only what interests you...heaven forbid if you even try. Fortunately, I find most of literature interesting, but I still had to take modern women's lit and middle english language, plus a shitload of theory I'll never really use in order to get my degree. And I was extremely restricted in what I could write about, what I could say...hell, there were only a handful of courses in which I could make up my own essay topics! The rest was pure public school.

[chefranden]

...

As to Chef, I regard emotions as the origins of morality, as empathy and altruism are instinctive, and affect us emotionally, and were our moral basis before we began to reason.  Now that we can have a more well thought out approach to ethics, (more accurate and thorough) morality does not have an emotional basis.  Indeed as it has to be based on epistemological standards, in other words objective truth, emotions has to be removed from the first stage of the process, as we need a strictly empirical basis of knowledge, before we can proceed to prescribe ethics to humanity.  I can be very emotional at times, and I do trust that my emotions are mostly correct, but that is only because they are based on the knowledge I have dispassionately collected.  I do not trust them to find truth, just to react to it correctly. 

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

That I think is the basis of the disagreements between myself and Chef, he trusts emotions, I trust empiricism.

 

Aub,

 

I'm glad you have slowed down a bit. It is hard to keep up with that wizard mind of yours. I've taken the liberty to add a word (red) to your post as it seems to be missing.

 

I'm a bit confused as to how morals have an emotional base and then loose that base when reason shows up. The reason I'm confused is that morals are so obviously still attached to emotion. From what I've read about the brain the older emotional part is still activated before the prefrontal cortex when one encounters a "situation". That is we react before we analyze. That would seem to suggest that emotion still comes first.

 

Certainly reason analyzes the reaction to see if it was appropriate, but even then it does not do so dispassionately. I have just read Joao Magueijo's Faster than the Speed of Light. I was struck by how much emotion went into his discovery of variable speed light theory. I don't know if the theory will prove to be correct, but it was brought to us at least in part by emotion.

 

My question is how do you turn off your obvious passion to dispassionately explore the facts and then turn it back on again to react to the truth?

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

This is not quite correct. I don't trust emotion as opposed to reason. I'm just saying, that it is impossible to turn of human sensibility and be left with just reason to arrive at some universal moral absolute. Even if such a thing existed it would still have to be understood relative to billions of individual unique subjects in the same way to get the same behavior. Somehow that just doesn't seem reasonable to me.