More Dawkins idiocy...

[icehorse]

outhouse,

Not sure of the context here, but if you're going far enough back, you ought to include the estimates 80 million Hindus slaughtered in the name of Islamic conquest.

 

[Augustus]

Education and knowledge VERSES THIS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Islamic genocide by the millions not even using the hundreds of thousands. Most westerners don't even have a clue how bad islamic violence really is but wish to open borders ignorantly.

Casualties: 3,000,000 - Nigeria, by Muslim [Hausa] dominated forces against the Ibo / Christians [1966-1970].[38][39]

Casualties: 3,500,000 - Sudan - from 1953 to 2005.[27] Including 2,500,000 between 1983-2005.[28][29]
Nature: Arab Islamic "supremacy" over "inferior" Southerners. [30][31] Jihad declared in 1983 by Numeiri,[32] and 1991 by al-Bashir.[33]

Casualties: 2,700,000 Chritians - (1915-1923) by Ottoman-Empire Muslim Turkey. 750,000 Assyrians, 500,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians.[1]
Nature: 1.) Ethnic cleansing.[2] 2.) Islamic Jihad.[3]

Casualties: 3,000,000 - Bangladesh, 1971 (by Pakistan).[43]
Nature: Islamic Pakistanis' contempt for "impure" Bengalis.[44]

Casualties: Between 500,000 and 1,500,000 - Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).[62]
Nature: 1.) Sunni-Shiite intolerance.[63] 2.) Arab racism/supremacy against Persians by Baathist Iraq.[64] 3.) Persian racism against Arabs.[65]

How is this related to the morality of eating pork chops and human exceptionalism?

I hereby crown you king of pointless off topic nonsense

Bravo!

 

[Augustus]

This gets back to the question of your philosophical bedrock. If you grant me that morals are based on WBCC, then these factual claims can be based on science. If you cannot grant me WBCC, then I'd ask you what you can grant me. If you cannot grant me anything along these lines, then you're coming from the position of a moral relativist, which is what I suggested many posts ago.

To be honest, it is a hard sell.

We are omnivorous animals, that's what biology tells us. Nothing about our biological make up tells us we are supposed to care about the well being of pigs or cows.

You don't eat mammals but do eat chickens, conscious creatures albeit less developed ones. This is arbitrary, you could be a perfectly healthy vegan.

We evolved to eat meat. What scientific theory tells us we are wrong to do so?

There are many ethical and rational arguments I agree, but subjective morality they are, not objective fact.

 

[icehorse]

To be honest, it is a hard sell.

We are omnivorous animals, that's what biology tells us. Nothing about our biological make up tells us we are supposed to care about the well being of pigs or cows.

You don't eat mammals but do eat chickens, conscious creatures albeit less developed ones. This is arbitrary, you could be a perfectly healthy vegan.

We evolved to eat meat. What scientific theory tells us we are wrong to do so?

There are many ethical and rational arguments I agree, but subjective morality they are, not objective fact.

And I'll ask again, what's your philosophical bedrock? I've told you mine, WBCC, what's yours?

 

[outhouse]

outhouse,

Not sure of the context here, but if you're going far enough back, you ought to include the estimates 80 million Hindus slaughtered in the name of Islamic conquest.

I did not know about it. Or I would have.

 

[outhouse]

What scientific theory tells us we are wrong to do so?

Non sequitur

 

[Augustus]

And I'll ask again, what's your philosophical bedrock? I've told you mine, WBCC, what's yours?

I don't really have one.

Golden rule I suppose if I have to pick something. I don't think that it is objectively justifiable though, even though there are very strong logical arguments in favour of it.

Something like WBCC is even less scientifically justifiable and runs into more logical problems to (as I mentioned before).

In regard to relativism, as animals we do have some kind of nature; we aren't a totally blank slate. There is probably a low level of morality that we can state is objective, but it gets nowhere near any kind of UNDHR, WBCC, golden rule level.

Human history is full of cannibalism, head-hunting, genocide, torture, deliberate starvation, etc. Violence is as much part of our nature as kindness, many of us actively enjoy it (actively or passively - see the nationalist fervour during war). As long as we have a flimsy justification, we are happy to hate, harm and kill.

Science is not going to fix our morals. The best it can do is to help identify ways in which we can avoid the situations in which our violent side takes over. Our nature doesn't really change, we need to focus on providing the environment in which our good sides can best flourish.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

To me, you either commit to a few bedrock axioms, or you're a relativist. It's certainly okay to be a relativist, but it's a real conversation killer, because at any point in the conversation the relativist can play the "that's subjective" card.

Further, I'd say that much of science is built on a few axioms that the relativist can take issue with. For example, in the area of "health", it's common for us to conclude that longer, more disease-free lives are "better". Almost all of health care is built upon that idea. But the relativist can say "who's to say that longer, disease-free lives are better?", and thereby scuttle the entire discussion.

 

[Augustus]

To me, you either commit to a few bedrock axioms, or you're a relativist. It's certainly okay to be a relativist, but it's a real conversation killer, because at any point in the conversation the relativist can play the "that's subjective" card.

As I said before, I'm happy to justify and promote by beliefs through reasoning and logic and I don't think all belief systems are equally good.

To be honest, I think trying to ground morality 'objectively' is an impediment rather than a boon. There is absolutely no way you can justify WBCC objectively. Well being of humans collectively is, in my opinion, untenable, but WBCC in a meat eating animal is a non-starter.

These natural rights ideas are based on western monotheism with the God part missing. Many great Enlightenment thinkers were Christians (although often not mainstream Christians) who believed in Divine Providence, when secular thinkers developed their ideas, they just missed out the God part.

If we do have objective morals, they will be closer to the 'morals' of a chimp than to a post-Enlightenment philosophical perspective. I also think it is highly unlikely that our 'objective' morality rests on individual rights as we evolved to live in a group, and the traditional social morality throughout history has been based on the group. The individual rights idea is really only a few centuries old.

How can you justify calling something objective when it seemingly goes against our evolved nature?

In addition, once you think of morals as being 'objective' then you start to believe that everybody should think the same way (which won't ever happen). Then people often start to use force to try to persuade those who stand in the way of progress which simply causes more problems.

Morality doesn't need to be objective though, the only people who need an objective morality are those who have made such a fuss about being uber-rational that they can't just accept that most of our morality is subjective and a product of our environment. Argue about practical benefits rather than objective foundations.

Present your views and promote them in your society, but understand that others from a different background living in different social conditions will not necessarily come to share your views. No matter how much you want to change this, you can't. Only they can.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We evolved to eat meat.

We evolved to be able to eat meat. That doesn't mean we can't survive without it.

 

[icehorse]

Augustus,

Yours sounds like the relativist stance. Let's get back to health care for a minute. Are you comfortable saying that longer, disease-free lives are objectively "better"?

Second, if we were to pursue objective morality, we wouldn't need to limit ourselves to one approach. It's most likely that there are many good approaches to objective morality. As I've offered before, it could be that some people flourish under a benevolent dictatorship, while others prefer a democracy. Why not allow for both? (I agree that there is an intuition here that a key to WBCC would be freedom to choose, but that intuition could be researched.)

 

[Augustus]

Are you comfortable saying that longer, disease-free lives are objectively "better"?

Disease free yes. Longer, up to a point, and with caveats (i.e length of life v quality of life are often trade offs, also old people often want to die as they have 'had enough').

Fewer mothers dying in childbirth would be something objectively better

Second, if we were to pursue objective morality, we wouldn't need to limit ourselves to one approach. It's most likely that there are many good approaches to objective morality. As I've offered before, it could be that some people flourish under a benevolent dictatorship, while others prefer a democracy. Why not allow for both? (I agree that there is an intuition here that a key to WBCC would be freedom to choose, but that intuition could be researched.)

Seems like you want to avoid being a 'relativist' as you see it as a dirty word. Morality relies on so much subtlety, nuance and contradiction that we can't use 'objective' without destroying the meaning of the word.

If you use Harris' example: a world in which everybody had a perfect life full of joy would be objectively better than a world in which everybody had a terrible life filled with constant terror and torment. I can agree with that.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really translate well to the real world. Is security 'better' than freedom? Is happiness better than long life? Is it greatest good for greatest number, or reducing harm to the most vulnerable?

These things often contradict each other and don't have an objective answer. Some people like freedom and danger, other people like boring and predictable security.

In the Ottoman Empire, Mehmet II created a law that said whichever of his sons took the throne should kill off all his brothers. Surely this must contradict your 'objective' morality. However, there was a reason for this law. By forcing his sons to fight for the throne, then you got a survival of the fittest. Many kingdoms and empires have been lost because the first born was weak and ineffective. Once someone took the throne, all of his brothers were now potential rivals and figureheads for rebellion, killing them quickly prevented future rebellions and further death.

I think searching for an 'objective' morality might even be dangerous. You won't find one, anything will just be a crude simplification of a complex issue. Communists and Jacobins showed the brutality that can result from considering aspects of complex human life 'objectively wrong'.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Ok, so you're not a strict relativist. (BTW, I don't think relativist is a dirty word, but I think it's a dead end, do-nothing philosophy.)

I like your example of "security vs. freedom". It's nice and juicy and complex! Harris's perspective (which seems like a good one), is that the pursuit of objective morality will be an ongoing project - similar to most other scientific pursuits. It's a project that will create some partial solutions, that will suffer setbacks, and so on. But ultimately it's a project that will make progress towards defining morals (and ethics no doubt), that lead to greater WBCC.

And once again, no one ever said that this project's goal is to create some sort of single solution. There are probably many good solutions to WBCC.

If you think pursuing objective morality is dangerous, what would you propose instead? It strikes me that the world won't much longer survive the current mythological, illogical, fear-based, divisive, tribal approach to morality.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think relativist is a dirty word, but I think it's a dead end, do-nothing philosophy

That's really based on a media stereotype of extreme relativism, rather than what it really is.

Harris's perspective (which seems like a good one), is that the pursuit of objective morality will be an ongoing project - similar to most other scientific pursuits. It's a project that will create some partial solutions, that will suffer setbacks, and so on. But ultimately it's a project that will make progress towards defining morals (and ethics no doubt), that lead to greater WBCC.

What's wrong with philosophy and logic though? New atheists have painted themselves into a corner with their 'extreme' rationalism. We will never be fully rational no matter how much some people would like us to be (they themselves are far less rational than they believe).

If you think pursuing objective morality is dangerous, what would you propose instead? It strikes me that the world won't much longer survive the current mythological, illogical, fear-based, divisive, tribal approach to morality.

The problem imo is that an objective morality is impossible, so we will choose certain measurable metrics to act as a substitute for morality. We end up with a simplistic 'model' of morality. It might then become an exercise in hitting metrics (you see the negative effects this has on education for example) rather than an exercise in promoting well being.

You can see the problem in economics where a simplified normative model gets mistaken for the real world. Decisions are made according to the model, not reality, with often disastrous effects.

Also when you start making things 'scientific' rather than about values, you encourage the sort of fundamentalist thinking seen after the French Revolution or resulting from scientific racism. These concepts are not going to be left to academics, they will become popularised and political. Even though rationalists pretend otherwise, the Enlightenment produced a lot of intolerance and violence. Something being 'objectively' true encourages extremism in the same way as religious extremism.

Even if you do create an objective morality then it won't make any difference to people who don't want to buy into it. They'll still think what they like.

People should just promote their values as they do now. Unfortunately, those who preach tolerant, liberal morals often don't live up to them in reality leading to charges of hypocrisy and their rejection across many parts of the world.

 

[prometheus11]

I disagree that "something being objectively true encourages extremism in the same way as religious extremism."

How does the discovery of objective truth encourage extremism?

How is that encouragement similar to the encouragement of religious extremism?

Or, are those two, combined claims of yours a bit extravagant and far-fetched?

 

[icehorse]

Augustus...

Really? The media stereotypes relativism? My guess is that 99% of the folks in "media" wouldn't know relativism if it bit them on the nose. But regardless, this isn't a stereotype, this is logically what relativism amounts to. Anyone can think this through for themselves, there's nothing magical going on here.

Next you mention " 'extreme' rationalism". This is simply a mis-characterization. I think the work of Daniel Kahneman is well known in scientific circles - he did win a Nobel prize after all.

As for the impossibility of objective morality... have you noticed lately how many "impossible" things we've accomplished in the last couple of hundred years? But for the sake of discussion, let's say we can never achieve perfect objective morality? Well we can never achieve perfect health either, does that mean we shouldn't pursue health science? As was said earlier, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Life is chock full of imperfect improvements, why shouldn't we allow the same standard for objective morality?

Next you talk about science vs. values. This is not an either / or pursuit. Science HAS values, and science can study values. Hume was just wrong, we can logically look at what we ought to do.

As for people promoting their values... isn't that ultimately what's led to most of our wars through history? Religion has done a downright horrible job in the care and feeding of morals.

 

[outhouse]

This thread for me is a solid exercise that philosophy is one of the easiest classes to pervert out of context, from other methods of study.

Its like an excuse to pervert knowledge, and twist things into perversion.

Here a little knowledge is obviously dangerous.

 

[Augustus]

Really? The media stereotypes relativism? My guess is that 99% of the folks in "media" wouldn't know relativism if it bit them on the nose. But regardless, this isn't a stereotype, this is logically what relativism amounts to. Anyone can think this through for themselves, there's nothing magical going on here.

It's common in the op-eds. Anyway, it doesn't logically amount to that. just because morals are to some extent relative, doesn't mean you can't favour some over the other. The problem is not caused by relativism, but by relativism in combinations with several other concepts. If they are missing you don't have a problem.

Next you mention " 'extreme' rationalism". This is simply a mis-characterization. I think the work of Daniel Kahneman is well known in scientific circles - he did win a Nobel prize after all.

Has Kahneman written on this?

His ideas run counter the the idea of 'extreme' rationalists as they show that some of our irrationalities are actually perfectly rational.

Well we can never achieve perfect health either, does that mean we shouldn't pursue health science?

Health care is a good example. Health is extremely complex and we often engage in attribute substitution (cholesterol levels for health, etc), we are also biased towards excessive treatment often making health worse instead of better.

'Scientific' best practice is frequently wrong and harmful, practitioners frequently misunderstand the science and the science is frequently distorted by self-interested groups (such as drug corps.)

Once the 'science' is established it becomes hard to overturn orthodoxy even when it is known to be wrong.

These are the kind of issues that might occur re: morality also. And the benefits will be less apparent than in healthcare to cancel them out.

Next you talk about science vs. values. This is not an either / or pursuit. Science HAS values, and science can study values. Hume was just wrong, we can logically look at what we ought to do.

I'm talking about how humans approach information once it has become 'science'. Deeming something 'scientific' has a similar effect to saying 'god said it' - people become overconfident and too sure of themselves.

I'm also talking about effect in society, not normative functioning of academic science in a vacuum. Especially when you try to scientise something so complex and non-linear.

As for people promoting their values... isn't that ultimately what's led to most of our wars through history? Religion has done a downright horrible job in the care and feeding of morals.

What difference will saying they are objective have then? Where's the silver bullet?

Also what happens if 'science' discovers something decidedly illiberal in our morality?

 

[Deidre]

If there is such a phrase as 'radical atheist,' Dawkins would fit that. ^_^

 

[outhouse]

'Scientific' best practice is frequently wrong and harmful,

Nothing you could ever substantiate. Sounds like rhetoric to me.