----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action > > contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of > > the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more > > fundamental question. What is the basis for Bank's culture being your > > goal for morality? Why not the same goal as the antagonist in Earth? > > I certainly admit that my choice is subjective. Out of all the futures I > have imagined or read about, Banks' Culture is my favorite. This may be > an accident of nature (the specific path evolution took, the randomness > inherent in the gene formations of my ancestors, my environment, > etc.). My morals are not real knowledge. > > > But, I'd argue that the correctness of this choice cannot be tested by > > science. If you limit yourself to scientific knowledge, then right > > and wrong are just subjective values. > Yes, they are. OK, so what is the meaning of the word "ought?" For example, that a man "ought not to torture, rape, and kill a 5 year old girl." It is simply that his desire to do so conflicts with your desire to have him not do so? It morality simply a statement of desire for general outcomes? What I am getting at is that most people explicitly or implicitly have understandings of universals when they discuss things like human rights, morality, etc. Those that argue against this redefine morality so that it no longer resembles itself. For example, if you explore one of the more influential atheistic philosophies, post-modernism, you will find that it embraces the concept of morality as being no more than a useful narrative. It bases decision making, not in right or wrong, but on politics. The criterion for every decision is "what's in it for me?" To me, it seems more useful to state that post modernism argues against the existence of right and wrong, and argues for politics. > Surely you don't mean to equate our worldviews? I see surprising agreement on desirable goals. You are willing to sacrifice your own direct interest to help others. What you advocate seems to be consistent with holding the welfare of other human beings as equal to one's own. (This is not the same, of course as believing that you are responsible for another's welfare as much as your are for your own, but as at least a tacit agreement with acting as though others were to be treated as your equal. >Mine is based on the subjective choice of the best of all possible worlds. One assumption, > and that's it. Best for whom? If not for you, why bother? You see, I'm guessing that there are assumptions by which you judged Bank's world. >Everything else is based on observation and empiricism. But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. > I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would CHOOSE to have > a god as depicted in the Bible when presented with an infinite number > of possible choices (I'd rather have Bush in charge of the universe > than the god in the bible, and from me, that is saying something). It depends on how you mean depict. If you don't consider the changes in understanding that are clearly seen from the earliest Old Testament scripture through the later Old Testament, through the New Testament as evidence of a growing understanding, then I can see where you are coming from. But, I cannot see that living in a world where the Divine has been willing to explicitly express the greatest love possible for me is a horrid world to live in. This, however, is a tangent to the question of what can be known from experimental testing: or what are the consequences of logical positivism. Concluding that morality is subjective is quite reasonable in a logical positivistic philosophical system. Going further, I would argue that a logical positivist must reject free will. There is no experimental evidence for free will. Thus, in a logical positivistic system, there is no room for free will. This, IMHO, makes morality somewhat moot. It makes no more sense saying a man ought not to kill another man in cold blood than would make sense to argue that a lightning bolt ought not to have killed that golfer. Both things just happened, the idea that the person made a choice and the lightning bolt didn't would just be an illusion. So, in additional to morality, it seems clear to me that free will and responsibility have to be dropped to embrace logical positivism. Dan M. P.S. From your arguments so far, it appears that you accept logical positivism as the reasonable worldview. If you differ from it, please correct me. Much of my discussion plan is based on the known weaknesses of this philosophy...so it would be helpful to know when you differ from it. So far, I see no differences. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
