dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/21/85)
Well, there has been a discussion going on in this newsgroup of late in which Rich Rosen was asked (by Jeff Sargeant, I believe) what reason he can give to justify, e.g., not putting other bags of chemicals to violent ends. Some reasons given by Rich were: >>>Hardly. Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general, >>>are optimized by cooperation. Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and >>>benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference. To which Charley Wingate (among others) replied: >> Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >> benefits? Now, we may infer that Rich places a good deal of weight on the value of objective judgment, as evidenced by this except from a sideline of the discussion: > To whom have you produced convincing evidence of your argument? Yourself? > The reason no one can produce convincing evidence to support YOUR argument > might very well be that there IS none, in a real objective sense. 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. Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real reasons, he says: "because we like them". Because we like them. Because we *like* them? Yes, BECAUSE WE LIKE THEM! Pro......FOUND!! This is no more than the sanctification of desire. Instead of "might makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right". Any three-year-old could tell you that. I think I will stop reading Rich's articles, if that's what it boils down to... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/21/85)
> 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. > Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real > reasons, he says: "because we like them". > > Because we like them. Because we *like* them? Yes, BECAUSE WE LIKE > THEM! > > Pro......FOUND!! > > This is no more than the sanctification of desire. Instead of "might > makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right". > > Any three-year-old could tell you that. This type of argument sounds familiar. I wonder where I heard it before? You arndt taking lessons in philosophy 301 now, are you? :-) > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Padraig Houlahan.
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."
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
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/24/85)
>> [Paul DuBois] >> 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: >> >>> [Rich Rosen] >>> 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. > [Padraig Houlahan] > 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 get a different impression: nothing in an argument is admissible to Rich if it is not objective. If Rich wants to say that that is not his position, fine. But then he must allow subjectivity from other people. And he often objects when other people *are* subjective. > I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, > has not been challanged. That's right. So what? I already said before that I may agree with survival, etc., but I do so for my own reasons (which presumably Rich would not agree with). The "challenge" was for Rich to advance reasons of his *own* why anyone should agree with his statements. This he has not done, nor, I think, will he be able to. He certainly has not done it by justifying his preferences by reference to "liking them". If you think the discussion is about whether I agree with his *conclusions*, then you are mistaken. I'm wondering about his reasons for the conclusion. >> Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real >> reasons, he says: "because we like them". >> >> Because we like them. Because we *like* them? Yes, BECAUSE WE LIKE >> THEM! >> >> Pro......FOUND!! >> >> This is no more than the sanctification of desire. Instead of "might >> makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right". >> >> Any three-year-old could tell you that. > This type of argument sounds familiar. I wonder where I heard it before? > You arndt taking lessons in philosophy 301 now, are you? :-) "I note with interest that the correctness of my statements, in themselves, has not been challenged." It remains true that desire has been set up as the final arbiter. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Why are you standing on one leg?" | "I'm trying to see if I'm a stork."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/26/85)
>>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. >>[Padraig Houlahan] > I get a different impression: nothing in an argument is admissible to > Rich if it is not objective. If Rich wants to say that that is not his > position, fine. But then he must allow subjectivity from other > people. And he often objects when other people *are* subjective. [DUBOIS] People "liking" survival is not subjective. I'm not saying "I like survival, therefore it is valued". I'm saying that people gain pleasure from surviving. That is a physical fact about organisms. A drive for hunger leads to a pleasurable experience of eating, a drive for procreation leads to a pleasurable experience of sex. Etc. Death is a painful, non-pleasurable experience, and thus we seek to avoid it. In what way is this "subjective"? Why are you so desperate to admit subjectivity as a valid thing? Is it the only thing you've got? >>I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, >>has not been challanged. > That's right. So what? Yeah, what else is new? :-) > I already said before that I may agree with > survival, etc., but I do so for my own reasons (which presumably Rich > would not agree with). The "challenge" was for Rich to advance > reasons of his *own* why anyone should agree with his statements. This > he has not done, nor, I think, will he be able to. He certainly has > not done it by justifying his preferences by reference to "liking > them". If you think the discussion is about whether I agree with his > *conclusions*, then you are mistaken. I'm wondering about his > reasons for the conclusion. Funny, I didn't think these were "my" preferences. As I said above, people like life because they don't want to die, because dying is a painful thing. This is in our biochemistry. If we didn't like life, if we were organisms like Marvin the Paranoid Android from HHGttG ("Life, don't talk to me about life"), then we'd have died out long ago, not even surviving long enough to reproduce. Even Marvin, who hated life lasted millions of years. Perhaps because the alternative was worse. >>>Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real >>>reasons, he says: "because we like them". >>>This is no more than the sanctification of desire. Instead of "might >>>makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right". >>>Any three-year-old could tell you that. >>This type of argument sounds familiar. I wonder where I heard it before? >>You arndt taking lessons in philosophy 301 now, are you? :-) > "I note with interest that the correctness of my statements, in themselves, > has not been challenged." > It remains true that desire has been set up as the final arbiter. Of what? Of our own wishes to survive! Nothing more. What's the big deal? So what if we seek our survival because we desire it? What other reason might you want for surviving? The design of a god? You say above "like makes right". Since "right" is in the "like" of the beholder, that follows logically. It's a tautology!! Which is what I've been saying all along. Your views on a god determining absolute right and wrong have always been nothing more than a projection that your "right" is an absolute "right". No one has challenged the correctness of your statements. Indeed. But you seem to be the one who has the problem with it. What is that problem? -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/27/85)
> People "liking" survival is not subjective. I'm not saying "I like > survival, therefore it is valued". I'm saying that people gain pleasure > from surviving. That is a physical fact about organisms. A drive for > hunger leads to a pleasurable experience of eating, a drive for procreation > leads to a pleasurable experience of sex. Etc. Death is a painful, > non-pleasurable experience, and thus we seek to avoid it. Whoaaa. Have you tried it? How do you know? Perhaps we're downplaying a really great experience here. No one's come back to tell you what it was like. You *can* try it for yourself, but that won't be real informative to the rest of us.... Ok. So that was sarcasm. My point is: isn't that a *subjective* opinion? > ..... > > Funny, I didn't think these were "my" preferences. As I said above, people > like life because they don't want to die, because dying is a painful thing. > This is in our biochemistry. If we didn't like life, if we were organisms > like Marvin the Paranoid Android from HHGttG ("Life, don't talk to me about > life"), then we'd have died out long ago, not even surviving long enough to > reproduce. Even Marvin, who hated life lasted millions of years. Perhaps > because the alternative was worse. You're representing as binary (like life/or die) a choice that is really multiple. Life may be (and is!) fascinating. Which is not to say that we may not find death (or what may come after it) even more pleasurable. Again I state the obvious: did you try death? talk to anyone who did? Nope? Must be subjective.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/28/85)
>>People "liking" survival is not subjective. I'm not saying "I like >>survival, therefore it is valued". I'm saying that people gain pleasure >>from surviving. That is a physical fact about organisms. A drive for >>hunger leads to a pleasurable experience of eating, a drive for procreation >>leads to a pleasurable experience of sex. Etc. Death is a painful, >>non-pleasurable experience, and thus we seek to avoid it. > Whoaaa. Have you tried it? How do you know? Perhaps we're downplaying > a really great experience here. No one's come back to tell you what it was > like. You *can* try it for yourself, but that won't be real informative to > the rest of us.... > Ok. So that was sarcasm. My point is: isn't that a *subjective* opinion? Have you ever seen people dying? Talked to people approaching death? Don't give me this crap about how the pain of death is a "subjective opinion". >>Funny, I didn't think these were "my" preferences. As I said above, people >>like life because they don't want to die, because dying is a painful thing. >>This is in our biochemistry. If we didn't like life, if we were organisms >>like Marvin the Paranoid Android from HHGttG ("Life, don't talk to me about >>life"), then we'd have died out long ago, not even surviving long enough to >>reproduce. Even Marvin, who hated life lasted millions of years. Perhaps >>because the alternative was worse. > You're representing as binary (like life/or die) a choice that is really > multiple. Life may be (and is!) fascinating. Which is not to say that > we may not find death (or what may come after it) even more pleasurable. > Again I state the obvious: did you try death? talk to anyone who did? > Nope? Must be subjective. Yup, must be objective. Sorry. I don't see you volunteering to test your own hypothesis here, so I'll assume you're blowing hot air for its own sake. "After" death? If you really believed in your "afterlife", you'd be jumping at the chance to get there! (Hey, some people do just that, falling for it hook, line, and sinker!) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr