mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
[followups going to net.philosophy, since this doesn't concern Christianity] In article <397@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> A good many of us know that this is in no way an unrepresentative >> statement. So we would expect that in the reply to Charley, we would >> see some reason and logic exemplefied. But instead we find: >> > Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? >> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. >Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the >sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point >was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This >does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where >the claim is only presented as being subjective. >I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, >has not been challanged. Perhaps so, but, by the same token, he is not in a position to demand objective evidence on the part of others, anyway. And besides, he IS making an objective statement: that the morality of "Non-interference" is an absolute moral imperative. It's not that I necessarily agree with him (although, since I subscribe to a particular form of situational ethics, I do disagree); it's that, if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. I find Mike Huybensz in a much stronger position, precisely because he's willing to wrestle with this problem. If you are willing to back off to "it's advantageous to species survival", and drop the moral imperative, then I think you can construct a consistent position. But its authority is quite different in character, and requires assent. On thing that characterizes moral principles is that they hold whether or not you agree with them. Mike's position, however, requires assent to the notion that the tendency to desire continuation of the species should not be fought. But then, it isn't really proper to try to persuade others of the resulting ethical system. It ceases to have anything but personal proscriptive power. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Better get used to those bars, kid."
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/22/85)
In article <941@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > [followups going to net.philosophy, since this doesn't concern Christianity] Not a bad idea. > ... if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human > Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you > from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. Exactly my opinion. > I find Mike Huybensz in a much stronger position, precisely because he's > willing to wrestle with this problem. Thanks once again. I was wondering why my response received such a thundrous silence. (What, me pompous? :-) I assumed it was because most Christians couldn't begin to rebut it. I guess that's why Paul Dubois was assailing Rosen instead. (I'll probably read his rebuttal in the next note.... :-() > If you are willing to back off to "it's advantageous to species survival", > and drop the moral imperative, then I think you can construct a consistent > position. Eeek! I never said anything like that! And neither does evolutionary theory. Natural selection can occur on several levels: in humans the primary levels (recently) seem to have been individuals and tribal-size units. > But its authority is quite > different in character, and requires assent. On thing that characterizes > moral principles is that they hold whether or not you agree with them. Evolution and natural selection don't require assent: they happen willy-nilly (be sure to look that word up to see all the definitions.) > Mike's position, however, requires assent to the notion that the tendency to > desire continuation of the species should not be fought. But then, it isn't > really proper to try to persuade others of the resulting ethical system. It > ceases to have anything but personal proscriptive power. I don't understand your ideas of why my position requires any sort of assent. I haven't tried (here) to derive a moral system, but rather to explain how moral systems are a natural evolutionary phenomenon with adaptive power. A system that discourages persuading others of that system (all others, including children) would be as adaptive as a gene for sterility, because adaptation is not measured in individual survival, but in transmission of genes (or memes) to the following generation(s). A system that is only passed to children might be more adaptive than a system that is freely passed to anyone. And in a different environment (or niche) it might not. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>>Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >>>clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >>>wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >>>the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. [DUBOIS] >>Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the >>sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point >>was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This >>does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where >>the claim is only presented as being subjective. >>I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, >>has not been challanged. [HOULAHAN] > Perhaps so, but, by the same token, he is not in a position to demand > objective evidence on the part of others, anyway. And besides, he IS making > an objective statement: that the morality of "Non-interference" is an > absolute moral imperative. It's not that I necessarily agree with him > (although, since I subscribe to a particular form of situational ethics, I > do disagree); it's that, if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human > Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you > from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. First, as so many people have already told you, HUMAN NATURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS EXCEPT IN YOUR OWN MIND! The basis for that system has to do with optimization, nothing more. It would work just as well for fish morality or bear morality if those animals could come up with such a system, without relying on "fish nature" or "bear nature". Second, there's been plenty of supporting evidence, but you just choose to lift the "human nature" flag for no apparent reason in response. > I find Mike Huybensz in a much stronger position, precisely because he's > willing to wrestle with this problem. If you are willing to back off to > "it's advantageous to species survival", and drop the moral imperative, then > I think you can construct a consistent position. But its authority is quite > different in character, and requires assent. On thing that characterizes > moral principles is that they hold whether or not you agree with them. > Mike's position, however, requires assent to the notion that the tendency to > desire continuation of the species should not be fought. But then, it isn't > really proper to try to persuade others of the resulting ethical system. It > ceases to have anything but personal proscriptive power. I hate to overstate the obvious, because it always prompts Dubois to say "Wow! Profound! Duhhhhh!". But most people I know happen to enjoy surviving, because they know that when they die, living is over, and all the benefits associated with it disappear. Thus, they seek to continue living. Maximizing the likelihood of that compounded with the additional benefits associated with cooperation sound pretty strong to me. Why doesn't it sound that way to you? Amazing though, that the obvious is seemingly ignored by people like Dubois... -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/26/85)
>>... if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human >>Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you >>from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. [WINGATE] > Exactly my opinion. [HUYBENSZ] Who says you have to get from ANYWHERE to this principle, let alone specifically from "human nature"? So-called human nature has nothing to do with the principle involved. Whom do you have to justify this principle to? >>Mike's position, however, requires assent to the notion that the tendency to >>desire continuation of the species should not be fought. But then, it isn't >>really proper to try to persuade others of the resulting ethical system. It >>ceases to have anything but personal proscriptive power. > I don't understand your ideas of why my position requires any sort of assent. Me neither. > I guess that's why Paul Dubois was assailing Rosen instead. Methinks Paul is "assailing" me because the only answer he can come up with to such "obvious" statements is "PRO-FOUND!" -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/01/85)
In article <1314@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >>... if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human > >>Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you > >>from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. [WINGATE] > > > Exactly my opinion. [HUYBENSZ] > > Who says you have to get from ANYWHERE to this principle, let alone > specifically from "human nature"? So-called human nature has nothing to do > with the principle involved. Whom do you have to justify this principle to? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you were more or less a scientific materialist, Rich. You seem here to be retreating to a "because I say so" justification. Wouldn't you like to show us that your opinion (which you no doubt value) is based on something more than wishful thinking? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh