PDA

View Full Version : Discover declares “The End of Morality”




Lucille
07-20-2011, 08:18 PM
Via Jesse (http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/07/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts_20.html):


As an aside, the other day I read an essay in a recent issue of Discover Magazine called, The End of Morality. I have not found it online yet, but I did find this commentary (http://www.tothesource.org/7_6_2011/7_6_2011_printer.htm) on it.

In this article, which promoted the triumph of scientific reason over mere emotion, it was put forward that it makes rational economic sense to kill one healthy person and harvest their organs, in order to provide them to five other people who could then live a higher quality of life on the whole.

And it held this out as the higher 'good' in the new scientific morality, freed of the restraints of the mere instinct to preserve innocent life.

The logical extensions of such reasoning should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a sense of history. And one does not even have to kill them to put them to the good service of the State, and those predestined for a higher quality of life, the übermenschen. At least, not in the beginning.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

No doubt these filthy mad scientist progs would have worked tirelessly for Hitler.

Lucille
07-20-2011, 08:38 PM
Here's the article:

http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/20110708?pg=3#pg1

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8y8SQf_qrTU/TieMIl-UTGI/AAAAAAAARTo/1zdZr9zMXik/s400/utilitarianism.JPG

Sola_Fide
07-20-2011, 08:44 PM
Can you murder a man to save someone?

Can you murder a man to accomplish the State's goals?

Can you murder a man because you deem him less than human?


To the post-modern mind, these questions are just academic exercises, nothing more.

KingRobbStark
07-20-2011, 11:10 PM
I dont think they can (despite their efforts) distinguish the difference between survival and morality. Morality is the essence of surivival, and will continue to EVOLVE in accordance to it.

Carehn
07-20-2011, 11:25 PM
This reminds me of Rothbards Anatomy of the State
(http://mises.org/store/Anatomy-of-the-State-P588.aspx)

The part about the nobles, or priest, or scientists and why they always support the state.

heavenlyboy34
07-20-2011, 11:53 PM
This reminds me of Rothbards Anatomy of the State
(http://mises.org/store/Anatomy-of-the-State-P588.aspx)

The part about the nobles, or priest, or scientists and why they always support the state.
indeed. One of the reasons the State likes to sponsor science is to "prove" that its depravities are "justified" by science.

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 11:57 PM
This reminds me of Rothbards Anatomy of the State
(http://mises.org/store/Anatomy-of-the-State-P588.aspx)

The part about the nobles, or priest, or scientists and why they always support the state.

Good point.

Strange the antipathy towards each other, science and religion, that has developed in the West, when the priest and science class usually worked hand in hand to solidify power over the people.

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 12:21 AM
Good point.

Strange the antipathy towards each other, science and religion, that has developed in the West, when the priest and science class usually worked hand in hand to solidify power over the people.



I would just make the distinction that the Reformation was the first time in history in which there was a clear distinction being made between the institution of the church and the institution of the state. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, etc. were very instructive in the fact that they asserted a clear separation between these two institutions. They decried the tyranny of the Roman State-Church. This of course inspired the Presbyterians of the American revolution. The seperation of the institutions of church and state is a distinctly Protestant idea. No time in history was there asserted a separation of these institutions like what was asserted during the Reformation.


Before the Reformation, Romanism had merged a very distorted Christianity with the State, creating a Roman state-church. Interestingly, the Roman state-church was really no different than how the Islamic mosque-state system is today. It became a tyrannical statist entity, that persecuted everyone, especially Protestants who defied the authority of the church on the basis of the Bible itself.


It is very interesting that with secularism, the institutions of church and state become merged again. Secularism's religion is Darwinism, which is the only established religion today. Darwinism's churches are the public schools, which all of us are forced to tithe to. Secularism is enforced in our public institutions by coercion. This is no different than the Roman state-church, but instead of a strange twisted Christianity fused with statism, you have Darwinism fused with statism.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 12:31 AM
I would just make the distinction that the Reformation was the first time in history in which there was a clear distinction being made between the institution of the church and the institution of the state. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, etc. were very instructive in the fact that they asserted a clear separation between these two institutions. They decried the tyranny of the Roman State-Church. This of course inspired the Presbyterians of the America revolution. The seperation of the institutions of church and state is a distinctly Protestant idea. No time in history was there asserted a separation of these institutions like what was asserted during the Reformation.

Very valid point, well stated.

Mini-Me
07-21-2011, 03:07 AM
With all their talk about heuristics, those scientists sure are blinded by the fact that judging "5 lives > 1 life" is also a heuristic. In a utilitarian sense, not all people are of equal value to "society," nor does anyone ever have the necessary information to accurately assess anyone's value (they do not know everything about the person, and they do not know everything about the future). Even if a utilitarian had access to all of this information, it would be the epitome of arrogance to assume they are smart enough (let alone unbiased enough) to accurately evaluate it and come to the correct conclusion, especially to a standard of certainty that would justify stripping the life/liberty/free will from another person. We all use rough calculations of utility, and that's fine when we all respect each other's boundaries and accept the individual consequences for our mistakes...but tearing down those boundaries and applying your rough utilitarian calculations to a matter as serious as another person's life (and implicitly acknowledging their right to calculate your own utility) is a different animal altogether. The more drastic an action you take, the more catastrophic the consequences will be if you are wrong.

"Rational" utilitarians may put forth more "mental effort" than emotional simpletons, but their best human efforts at utilitarianism are akin to applying a three-year-old's arithmetic to a nonlinear system containing billions of billions of unknown variables (unlimited variables, really), when there are more unknowns than known equations describing their relationship (and when the known equations themselves have been derived through heuristics). Anyone who confidently believes their pitiful arithmetic can justify making forceful or violent decisions with respect to others is not only an idiot but a menace. When your choices are between living in harmony with others and using force/coercion/violence to violate others, sticking with your instincts and emotions - or better yet, principles - is a much better bet than performing crude calculations (with the rough correctness probability of a dice roll) and making decisions for everyone else that carry enormous consequences. Emotions may be heuristics, and so are principles, but they at least they're good ones that err on the side of caution, respect free will, and take uncertainty, limited information, and incompetence into account far better than even the smartest person's application of utilitarianism...and anyone who believes they're a good enough judge of utility is quite frankly NOT the smartest person.

In short: Utilitarianism fails on its own merits, because actually applying it leads to chaotic results, and it removes obstacles to capricious use of extreme measures without sufficient justification...and that's assuming only a handful of honest, incorruptible, selfless utilitarians (who don't exist). It gets a whole lot more fun envisioning the real world, composed of 6 billion self-interested (and mostly stupid) people butting heads with each other. In the real world, utilitarianism isn't even necessarily rational; it can merely be a thinly veiled excuse for emotionally driven crimes.

In any case, the mere fact that humans disagree with each other on so many issues is a powerful testament to the uncertainty and subjectivity that follows utility judgments. We should strive to solve our differences with logic and reason instead of emotion, yes...but that is not always compatible with utilitarianism, which can just as easily seek to "justify" solving our differences through brute force and conquest. In practice, utilitarianism does more to threaten logic and reason than to promote it.

Given a rough utilitarian analysis, I'd say that routinely slaughtering all of the utilitarians on a biannual basis and harvesting them for parts would probably be in the interests of the greater good...but what if I'm wrong, and why would it be my right to make that call? ;)

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but God, I hate arrogant utilitarians more than perhaps anyone...so I had to rant.

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 08:10 AM
With all their talk about heuristics, those scientists sure are blinded by the fact that judging "5 lives > 1 life" is also a heuristic. In a utilitarian sense, not all people are of equal value to "society," nor does anyone ever have the necessary information to accurately assess anyone's value (they do not know everything about the person, and they do not know everything about the future). Even if a utilitarian had access to all of this information, it would be the epitome of arrogance to assume they are smart enough (let alone unbiased enough) to accurately evaluate it and come to the correct conclusion, especially to a standard of certainty that would justify stripping the life/liberty/free will from another person. We all use rough calculations of utility, and that's fine when we all respect each other's boundaries and accept the individual consequences for our mistakes...but tearing down those boundaries and applying your rough utilitarian calculations to a matter as serious as another person's life (and implicitly acknowledging their right to calculate your own utility) is a different animal altogether. The more drastic an action you take, the more catastrophic the consequences will be if you are wrong.

"Rational" utilitarians may put forth more "mental effort" than emotional simpletons, but their best human efforts at utilitarianism are akin to applying a three-year-old's arithmetic to a nonlinear system containing billions of billions of unknown variables (unlimited variables, really), when there are more unknowns than known equations describing their relationship (and when the known equations themselves have been derived through heuristics). Anyone who confidently believes their pitiful arithmetic can justify making forceful or violent decisions with respect to others is not only an idiot but a menace. When your choices are between living in harmony with others and using force/coercion/violence to violate others, sticking with your instincts and emotions - or better yet, principles - is a much better bet than performing crude calculations (with the rough correctness probability of a dice roll) and making decisions for everyone else that carry enormous consequences. Emotions may be heuristics, and so are principles, but they at least they're good ones that err on the side of caution, respect free will, and take uncertainty, limited information, and incompetence into account far better than even the smartest person's application of utilitarianism...and anyone who believes they're a good enough judge of utility is quite frankly NOT the smartest person.

In short: Utilitarianism fails on its own merits, because actually applying it leads to chaotic results, and it removes obstacles to capricious use of extreme measures without sufficient justification...and that's assuming only a handful of honest, incorruptible, selfless utilitarians (who don't exist). It gets a whole lot more fun envisioning the real world, composed of 6 billion self-interested (and mostly stupid) people butting heads with each other. In the real world, utilitarianism isn't even necessarily rational; it can merely be a thinly veiled excuse for emotionally driven crimes.

In any case, the mere fact that humans disagree with each other on so many issues is a powerful testament to the uncertainty and subjectivity that follows utility judgments. We should strive to solve our differences with logic and reason instead of emotion, yes...but that is not always compatible with utilitarianism, which can just as easily seek to "justify" solving our differences through brute force and conquest. In practice, utilitarianism does more to threaten logic and reason than to promote it.

Given a rough utilitarian analysis, I'd say that routinely slaughtering all of the utilitarians on a biannual basis and harvesting them for parts would probably be in the interests of the greater good...but what if I'm wrong, and why would it be my right to make that call? ;)

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but God, I hate arrogant utilitarians more than perhaps anyone...so I had to rant.



I appreciate your well thought out arguments Mini-Me.


Your criticism of utilitarianism is spot on. Utilitarianism fails as an ethical system because it is impossible to calculate the pains and pleasures needed to prove the most good for the most people. Utilitarianism also commits the "is-ought" fallacy because the FACT that men are motivated by pain or pleasure does not imply that they OUGHT to be.


But my severe criticism to the members on this board is that natural law is also based on a logic fallacy. Arguments from natural law are just as fallacious as utilitarian arguments.


Natural law theory violates the rule that conclusions of arguments can contain no more than the premises. If the premises of an argument are descriptive then, the conclusion must also be descriptive.


You cannot say "all things being equal, in a state of nature, men ought not harm each other's person or property". "Ought" cannot be derived from "is". The premise of that argument is DESCRIPTIVE, while the conclusion is PRESCRIPTIVE. It does not follow that just because nature is a certain way, men must behave a certain way. Natural law completely fails to provide ethical guidance.


That is my severe philosophical challenge to all of the Austrian hipsters here who think they have logical, consistent arguments. They don't. Their arguments, from natural law or utilitarianism, are based on logical fallacies.


Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property. It is the only sure defense of a free society.

mczerone
07-21-2011, 08:19 AM
An acceptance of subjective value exposes this question of involuntary sacrifice as one that only interests tyrants and psychopaths.

Tom in NYC
07-21-2011, 08:32 AM
I appreciate your well thought out arguments Mini-Me.


Your criticism of utilitarianism is spot on. Utilitarianism fails as an ethical system because it is impossible to calculate the pains and pleasures needed to prove the most good for the most people. Utilitarianism also commits the "is-ought" fallacy because the FACT that men are motivated by pain or pleasure does not imply that they OUGHT to be.


But my severe criticism to the members on this board is that natural law is also based on a logic fallacy. Arguments from natural law are just as fallacious as utilitarian arguments.


Natural law theory violates the rule that conclusions of arguments can contain no more than the premises. If the premises of an argument are descriptive then, the conclusion must also be descriptive.


You cannot say "all things being equal, in a state of nature, men ought not harm each other's person or property". "Ought" cannot be derived from "is". The premise of that argument is DESCRIPTIVE, while the conclusion is PRESCRIPTIVE. It does not follow that just because nature is a certain way, men must behave a certain way. Natural law completely fails to provide ethical guidance.


That is my severe philosophical challenge to all of the Austrian hipsters here who think they have logical, consistent arguments. They don't. Their arguments, from natural law or utilitarianism, are based on logical fallacies.


Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property. It is the only sure defense of a free society.

A few problems:

1. I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to that worldview

2. You cannot conclusively prove that I am incorrect for doing so, and I appreciate that your adherence to Christian thought prevents you from forcing me to believe it anyway.

3. I do have logical, consistent arguments. But they are merely arguments, not assertions of truth or facts about the unknowable.

I highly recommend the work of Richard Garner (much of which can be found here (http://beyondmorality.com/beyond-beyond-morality/) - it's a light read for a heavy subject) for a view into those like me, who feel that morality can't be known as an objective truth and approximates closer to an expression of preference or something similar. I think you'd be surprised at how humane some of us infidels can be.

specsaregood
07-21-2011, 08:37 AM
In this article, which promoted the triumph of scientific reason over mere emotion, it was put forward that it makes rational economic sense to kill one healthy person and harvest their organs, in order to provide them to five other people who could then live a higher quality of life on the whole

This sounds like the same possible end result of the cost/benefit analysis run govt idea promoted by some republican candidate(s). something i ranted about in another thread last week....

mczerone
07-21-2011, 09:10 AM
I appreciate your well thought out arguments Mini-Me.


Your criticism of utilitarianism is spot on. Utilitarianism fails as an ethical system because it is impossible to calculate the pains and pleasures needed to prove the most good for the most people. Utilitarianism also commits the "is-ought" fallacy because the FACT that men are motivated by pain or pleasure does not imply that they OUGHT to be.


But my severe criticism to the members on this board is that natural law is also based on a logic fallacy. Arguments from natural law are just as fallacious as utilitarian arguments.


Natural law theory violates the rule that conclusions of arguments can contain no more than the premises. If the premises of an argument are descriptive then, the conclusion must also be descriptive.


You cannot say "all things being equal, in a state of nature, men ought not harm each other's person or property". "Ought" cannot be derived from "is". The premise of that argument is DESCRIPTIVE, while the conclusion is PRESCRIPTIVE. It does not follow that just because nature is a certain way, men must behave a certain way. Natural law completely fails to provide ethical guidance.


That is my severe philosophical challenge to all of the Austrian hipsters here who think they have logical, consistent arguments. They don't. Their arguments, from natural law or utilitarianism, are based on logical fallacies.


Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property. It is the only sure defense of a free society.

Have you seen/read Hans Herman Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethic"?

Basically, anyone that can engage in argumentation must be granted reciprocal rights as to their argumentation partner. Anything less would deny them the right to hold opinions, values, and to make an argument.

I'd say that this at least is a second "worldview" that "provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property."

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 09:28 AM
A few problems:

1. I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to that worldview

2. You cannot conclusively prove that I am incorrect for doing so, and I appreciate that your adherence to Christian thought prevents you from forcing me to believe it anyway.

3. I do have logical, consistent arguments. But they are merely arguments, not assertions of truth or facts about the unknowable.

I highly recommend the work of Richard Garner (much of which can be found here (http://beyondmorality.com/beyond-beyond-morality/) - it's a light read for a heavy subject) for a view into those like me, who feel that morality can't be known as an objective truth and approximates closer to an expression of preference or something similar. I think you'd be surprised at how humane some of us infidels can be.

Okay.....so we are totally denying prescriptions, then? Let's look into that. First, let's deal with something in your post....

First, it is completely irrational to say:


I do have logical, consistent arguments.

And then in the next sentence say:


But they are merely arguments, not assertions of truth or facts about the unknowable.


Every argument is an assertion of truth, really. And because truths are propositional, (axioms or deductions from axioms), all arguments are in the final sense arguments from an unproven presupposition.(Crazy to think about, huh?)


Secondly, it is impossible to separate ethics from logic, because logic is based on truth or falsity. Because you cannot seperate ethics from logic, to deny prescriptions like you are doing (by saying everything is preference), is in reality saying that logical argumentation and consistency in argumentation is just preferential as well.


But you can't even make an argument, EVEN TYPE A WORD, without affirming the premise "I ought to use the law of identity". To deny prescriptions is to deny rational argumentation itself.

I mean, why ought you be truthful and honest in argumentation? Why be ethical? I was just admonished to be ethical by Mczerone. Was he right in admonishing me? Ought I use ethical argumentation? Or should I just tell him that I PREFER to be dishonest and irrational? If there are no prescriptions, why should I or you use ethics in argumentation?

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 09:40 AM
Have you seen/read Hans Herman Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethic"?

Basically, anyone that can engage in argumentation must be granted reciprocal rights as to their argumentation partner. Anything less would deny them the right to hold opinions, values, and to make an argument.

I'd say that this at least is a second "worldview" that "provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property."

For the sake of the discussion, I would definitely entertain the possibility of another worldview logically defending the concept of a free society. But I would have to hear another argument other than ones from natural law, utilitarianism, or totally denying prescriptions....since I've shown how those arguments fail. Unless someone is going to try to defend either of those three. I am all ears....

Pericles
07-21-2011, 09:47 AM
I would just make the distinction that the Reformation was the first time in history in which there was a clear distinction being made between the institution of the church and the institution of the state. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, etc. were very instructive in the fact that they asserted a clear separation between these two institutions. They decried the tyranny of the Roman State-Church. This of course inspired the Presbyterians of the American revolution. The seperation of the institutions of church and state is a distinctly Protestant idea. No time in history was there asserted a separation of these institutions like what was asserted during the Reformation.


Before the Reformation, Romanism had merged a very distorted Christianity with the State, creating a Roman state-church. Interestingly, the Roman state-church was really no different than how the Islamic mosque-state system is today. It became a tyrannical statist entity, that persecuted everyone, especially Protestants who defied the authority of the church on the basis of the Bible itself.


It is very interesting that with secularism, the institutions of church and state become merged again. Secularism's religion is Darwinism, which is the only established religion today. Darwinism's churches are the public schools, which all of us are forced to tithe to. Secularism is enforced in our public institutions by coercion. This is no different than the Roman state-church, but instead of a strange twisted Christianity fused with statism, you have Darwinism fused with statism.

+rep

ChaosControl
07-21-2011, 09:47 AM
That is absolutely disgusting and I'd fight such an evil organization with every bit of my being.
You know what I wouldn't consider murder? Killing the bastards advocating this sick crap.

If this is "reason", then **** "reason".

I defend virtue, not this crap that makes me think of some kind of sick dystopia.

libertyjam
07-21-2011, 09:55 AM
Via Jesse (http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/07/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts_20.html):



No doubt these filthy mad scientist progs would have worked tirelessly for Hitler.

This is very timely to a movie I just watched regarding what it might be like if this sort of thinking was adopted and the consequences for the subjects that was very good. Everyone should check out the movie "Never Let Me Go"

Tom in NYC
07-21-2011, 09:57 AM
For the sake of the discussion, I would definitely entertain the possibility of another worldview logically defending the concept of a free society. But I would have to hear another argument other than ones from natural law, utilitarianism, or totally denying prescriptions....since I've shown how those arguments fail. Unless someone is going to try to defend either of those three. I am all ears....

You have certainly not shown that denying prescriptions is a failure to be consistent or logical. Philosophers have made careers out of debating this issue, so I doubt we'll reconcile it on a forum. Simply replacing "I ought to use the law of identity" with "I prefer to use the law of identity [because I believe it to be the best way to have others understand my point, etc. etc.]" would suffice.

For me, it's an epistemological question - you simply cannot know certain things (perhaps anything, a la Locke's probably rising sun, a priori vs. a posteriori, etc.) with absolute certainty. You cannot know with certainty that "murder is wrong" save by defining the thing as wrong, which is not expressing anything new or absolute. My conclusion is that without knowing with certainty whether things are right or wrong, I can only act on preference based on the knowledge - however loosely we need to define the evidence and logic I possess to make it practical - I have. I'm a fallibilist, I guess, and since I could be wrong, I don't feel comfortable enforcing my beliefs on others.

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 10:12 AM
You have certainly not shown that denying prescriptions is a failure to be consistent or logical. Philosophers have made careers out of debating this issue, so I doubt we'll reconcile it on a forum. Simply replacing "I ought to use the law of identity" with "I prefer to use the law of identity " would suffice.

[B]For me, it's an epistemological question - you simply cannot know certain things (perhaps anything, a la Locke's probably rising sun, a priori vs. a posteriori, etc.) with absolute certainty. You cannot know with certainty that "murder is wrong" save by defining the thing as wrong, which is not expressing anything new or absolute. My conclusion is that without knowing with certainty whether things are right or wrong, I can only act on preference based on the knowledge - however loosely we need to define the evidence and logic I possess to make it practical - I have. I'm a fallibilist, I guess, and since I could be wrong, I don't feel comfortable enforcing my beliefs on others.

Well, your epistemology is self-refuting. For example, are you certain that you cannot know anything for certain? You see...it is self-refuting to make a claim like that.

You say:


My conclusion is that without knowing with certainty whether things are right or wrong, I can only act on preference based on the knowledge - however loosely we need to define the evidence and logic I possess to make it practical - I have.

Is THIS^^^ position "right"? But you say "I can't know if anything is right or wrong". But, it looks to me that you are using this method of reasoning as the foundation of your entire philosophy. If you can't know anything for certain, why would you be arguing for this method of reasoning to be used and acting like you "know" it is correct? Are you just being disingenuous?

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 10:17 AM
You have certainly not shown that denying prescriptions is a failure to be consistent or logical. Philosophers have made careers out of debating this issue, so I doubt we'll reconcile it on a forum. Simply replacing "I ought to use the law of identity" with "I prefer to use the law of identity [because I believe it to be the best way to have others understand my point, etc. etc.]" would suffice.

Tom,

Is it equally preferrential to deny the law of identity?

How is that possible?

Yieu
07-21-2011, 10:22 AM
Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property. It is the only sure defense of a free society.

You had me up until you narrowed it down to only one religion.

Hinduism provides that defense of ethics and property as well. Our religions are not as different as you think. There is no need to be exclusivist.

robert68
07-21-2011, 10:26 AM
...Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property. It is the only sure defense of a free society.

Self-delusion.

Tom in NYC
07-21-2011, 10:27 AM
Well, your epistemology is self-refuting. For example, are you certain that you cannot know anything for certain? You see...it is self-refuting to make a claim like that.

You say:



Is THIS^^^ position "right"? But you say "I can't know if anything is right or wrong". But, it looks to me that you are using this method of reasoning as the foundation of your entire philosophy. If you can't know anything for certain, why would you be arguing for this method of reasoning to be used and acting like you "know" it is correct? Are you just being disingenuous?

To explain somewhat more succinctly than I probably could - via Wikipedia's Munchhausen Trilemma article:


If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:

* The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
* The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
* The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

Most Christians and natural law folks use the third argument and most atheists I talk to run into the first and then the second.

As to the last bit: I'm not expressing absolute certainty about anything, really. I've admitted that I can be wrong and I'm just going on what I think I can understand. For pragmatism's sake, I adjust my life based on new information, as I subjectively process it. I understand your argument to be "How can you be certain that nothing is certain?" Well, I understand that 'nothing is certain' to be true pro tempore, if you will, until such time as a critically analyzed statement could be considered certain and take its place. Then I could fully reject the idea that I don't have any objective certainty.

Tom in NYC
07-21-2011, 10:28 AM
Tom,

Is it equally preferrential to deny the law of identity?

How is that possible?

I'm not sure I grasp what you mean. And why it is relevant. Could you explain?

Sola_Fide
07-21-2011, 10:31 AM
Self-delusion.

Ad hominem and no arguments made at all^^^.


If you think that you have the arguments to defend a free society, then let em loose my man. That's what this thread is about at the present time.

Let's look into the various worldviews and see who upholds the standards of logic and who doesn't.

Tom in NYC
07-21-2011, 10:36 AM
Ad hominem and no arguments made at all^^^.


If you think that you have the arguments to defend a free society, then let em loose my man. That's what this thread is about at the present time.

Let's look into the various worldviews and see who upholds the standards of logic and who doesn't.

I don't think we can have that conversation. I don't think the Bible stands up to logic starting with the very definition of the God who is supposed to have written it. But I'd prefer not to have that chat, since I find it unproductive amongst those who have their minds made up already. So if that's the direction it is headed, I will take my leave.

swiftfoxmark2
07-21-2011, 10:47 AM
The question of murdering one man to save five will never be that simple. The State will always set up a standard to determine a person's worth based on age, ability, and history. In other words, the one man to die might be a criminal while the five who live might be productive citizens. Because there is no morality in this, it comes down to the usefulness of the individual to the State.

freejack
07-21-2011, 11:47 AM
The question of murdering one man to save five will never be that simple. The State will always set up a standard to determine a person's worth based on age, ability, and history. In other words, the one man to die might be a criminal while the five who live might be productive citizens. Because there is no morality in this, it comes down to the usefulness of the individual to the State.

People need to realize that once they take from the state, they become owned by the state by way of indebtedness. The question of the value of a life should never even be contemplated by the state in a truly free society since the worth of a man can only be determined by him/herself.

fisharmor
07-21-2011, 11:54 AM
Before the Reformation, Romanism had merged a very distorted Christianity with the State, creating a Roman state-church. Interestingly, the Roman state-church was really no different than how the Islamic mosque-state system is today. It became a tyrannical statist entity, that persecuted everyone, especially Protestants who defied the authority of the church on the basis of the Bible itself.

I don't mean to offend, but this really gets my goat. I'm sure you don't mean to but it sounds like you're propagating the textbook protestant version of Church history, where between the book of Acts and Luther's nailing the 95 theses to the door, very little happened.

The Roman state-church as you call it is an oversimplification. Rulers in medieval Europe always had the option to buck the Church and frequently did. Sometimes the entire country was put under interdict, where the Pope declared that Communion would not be dispensed in that country, and the priests complied with the order. At that point the ruler was dealing with an entire populace whose mortal souls were in danger, and given the fact that the majority were Christian, he or she could be looking down the barrel of a revolt.
This is the greatest extent I've ever read about to which the Church held control over the state, and I have not read that it was done regularly or lightly.

There are also cases in pre-reformation Europe where rulers were able to do whatever the hell they pleased and get away with it, and the Pope can cram it with walnuts. Philip the Fair is someone I was reading about recently - the guy who burned all the Templars. Turns out the Order of the Temple was answerable only to the Pope. That didn't stop Philip from charging them, torturing them into false confessions, and arranging for their defense counsel to "disappear".
This was 200 years before the reformation. A lot can happen in 200 years, but it's important to note that the Roman state-church didn't always exist in the form it did in 1517.

Moreover, this narrative ignores Christianity's red-headed step child, only the 2nd largest denomination on Earth currently and most likely the 1st largest in its heyday - Eastern Orthodoxy. Before making pronouncements on the state-church, we ought to examine the longest lasting empire in the entire history of Earth, which was Christian.
My understanding of Byzantium is that there was a distinction between the Emperor and the Archbishop: they were certainly different roles and different people filled them. I also understand that the Emperor needed to be eligible to be a priest for some reason, so I think it's blurrier than what we have today.

The point is that like the rest of you entire swaths of history have been either deliberately or ignorantly omitted from my public education. If my brother-in-law wasn't an Orthodox priest, I might not know what little I do know. But before we can declare absolutes, we might need to look into the guys whose doctrine and practice have been unaltered for more time than any other denomination.

Echoes
07-21-2011, 12:02 PM
Statism backed by science is the biggest threat to the world, its how they justify eugenics, environmentalism, banning bulbs, kidnapping fat kids and all kinds of stuff. These crazy stories come out daily.

mczerone
07-21-2011, 12:10 PM
Ad hominem and no arguments made at all^^^.


If you think that you have the arguments to defend a free society, then let em loose my man. That's what this thread is about at the present time.

Let's look into the various worldviews and see who upholds the standards of logic and who doesn't.

I gave you one, and you said you'd be "up for discussion". Still, we agree that no man should be involuntarily sacrificed for any "greater good", because only individuals can gauge what is "good" and which among them are "greater".

I believe that I have a logical system of morality, and that the results will agree with Christian morality in most every case. I'm not here to argue who's system is "better", only that there are more moral people than just those that follow Jesus.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 12:11 PM
Woot! Outstanding!


With all their talk about heuristics, those scientists sure are blinded by the fact that judging "5 lives > 1 life" is also a heuristic. In a utilitarian sense, not all people are of equal value to "society," nor does anyone ever have the necessary information to accurately assess anyone's value (they do not know everything about the person, and they do not know everything about the future). Even if a utilitarian had access to all of this information, it would be the epitome of arrogance to assume they are smart enough (let alone unbiased enough) to accurately evaluate it and come to the correct conclusion, especially to a standard of certainty that would justify stripping the life/liberty/free will from another person. We all use rough calculations of utility, and that's fine when we all respect each other's boundaries and accept the individual consequences for our mistakes...but tearing down those boundaries and applying your rough utilitarian calculations to a matter as serious as another person's life (and implicitly acknowledging their right to calculate your own utility) is a different animal altogether. The more drastic an action you take, the more catastrophic the consequences will be if you are wrong.

"Rational" utilitarians may put forth more "mental effort" than emotional simpletons, but their best human efforts at utilitarianism are akin to applying a three-year-old's arithmetic to a nonlinear system containing billions of billions of unknown variables (unlimited variables, really), when there are more unknowns than known equations describing their relationship (and when the known equations themselves have been derived through heuristics). Anyone who confidently believes their pitiful arithmetic can justify making forceful or violent decisions with respect to others is not only an idiot but a menace. When your choices are between living in harmony with others and using force/coercion/violence to violate others, sticking with your instincts and emotions - or better yet, principles - is a much better bet than performing crude calculations (with the rough correctness probability of a dice roll) and making decisions for everyone else that carry enormous consequences. Emotions may be heuristics, and so are principles, but they at least they're good ones that err on the side of caution, respect free will, and take uncertainty, limited information, and incompetence into account far better than even the smartest person's application of utilitarianism...and anyone who believes they're a good enough judge of utility is quite frankly NOT the smartest person.

In short: Utilitarianism fails on its own merits, because actually applying it leads to chaotic results, and it removes obstacles to capricious use of extreme measures without sufficient justification...and that's assuming only a handful of honest, incorruptible, selfless utilitarians (who don't exist). It gets a whole lot more fun envisioning the real world, composed of 6 billion self-interested (and mostly stupid) people butting heads with each other. In the real world, utilitarianism isn't even necessarily rational; it can merely be a thinly veiled excuse for emotionally driven crimes.

In any case, the mere fact that humans disagree with each other on so many issues is a powerful testament to the uncertainty and subjectivity that follows utility judgments. We should strive to solve our differences with logic and reason instead of emotion, yes...but that is not always compatible with utilitarianism, which can just as easily seek to "justify" solving our differences through brute force and conquest. In practice, utilitarianism does more to threaten logic and reason than to promote it.

Given a rough utilitarian analysis, I'd say that routinely slaughtering all of the utilitarians on a biannual basis and harvesting them for parts would probably be in the interests of the greater good...but what if I'm wrong, and why would it be my right to make that call? ;)

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but God, I hate arrogant utilitarians more than perhaps anyone...so I had to rant.

outspoken
07-21-2011, 12:36 PM
I don't think most Christians would say that God wrote the Bible but rather 'inspired' (translated literally as 'In or With God') by a higher power. Islam is a little more adamant about their belief that Muhammad had his subjects literally write down what he believed to be derived from God word for word. There is something about evangelical atheism that I find rather repugnant but that probably has to do with my own previous arrogance in denial/acceptance of a higher power than myself. A little older, a little humbler if not wiser...

osan
08-15-2011, 12:51 PM
I

Utilitarianism fails as an ethical system because it is impossible to calculate the pains and pleasures needed to prove the most good for the most people. Utilitarianism also commits the "is-ought" fallacy because the FACT that men are motivated by pain or pleasure does not imply that they OUGHT to be.

It fails far more fundamentally and catastrophically than this. The most basic assumptions underpinning utilitarianism are, for lack of a prettier way of putting it, pure and utter bullshit. Take those away and the entire house is exposed as cards and comes crashing to the ground in flutters and whispers.



If the premises of an argument are descriptive then, the conclusion must also be descriptive. Can you cite a credible source for this? I am not arguing against you, but an merely asking for a cite.



"Ought" cannot be derived from "is".You are sure about this? "God forbids us to murder" - definitely an "is". Therefore, we must not murder - definitely an ought.


The premise of that argument is DESCRIPTIVE, while the conclusion is PRESCRIPTIVE. It does not follow that just because nature is a certain way, men must behave a certain way. Natural law completely fails to provide ethical guidance.I am not sure I can agree. "we are equal, we each possess equal rights to life and property. Therefore is it immoral for one man to violate the rights of another and so we must refrain from doing so". Here we have three descriptive premises - equal rights in general, equal claims to life, and equal claims to property". The descriptive intermediate inference is that it is immoral for one man to violate the rights of another. Based on that inference, the prescriptive conclusion is validly reached that one ought not violate the rights of others. I see nothing invalid or untruthful in this. Do you?

Descriptive elements may often imply the prescriptions. It is wrong to murder, therefore thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not murder because it is wrong. These are equivalent in their semantics despite the grammatical differences.




Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logically airtight defense of ethics and property. It is the only sure defense of a free society.This is just about the silliest thing I've read in a while. This claim surpasses the limits of fail-saturation for credibility. Believe what you will, but claims such as this are unconvincing. Were your logic soundly unbreakable, I would have precious little choice but to accept it, and I would regardless of whether I liked the idea. I am, in fact, unmoved. You would have to do better than this because I am slicker than the average bear in such arenas. :)

osan
08-15-2011, 12:55 PM
Can you murder a man to save someone?

Can you murder a man to accomplish the State's goals?

Can you murder a man because you deem him less than human?


To the post-modern mind, these questions are just academic exercises, nothing more.

Methinks you may have meant to use "may" rather than "can", because the answers to all your questions as stated are "yes". I most certainly CAN murder one man to save another. May I? That answer is something of less clear in some cases.

osan
08-15-2011, 03:31 PM
Here's the article:

Good golly miss Molly... the reasoning entertained in that article, that of utilitarianism, is full of gaping holes. John Stuart Mill had some serious reasoning deficiencies, it seems.

I would respond to the whole question of the morality of throwing the man under the trolley from a few perspectives, all of which expose the idiocy of the "greater good" argument in glaring fashion.

First, if one accepts the premise that it is in fact "morally acceptable" (whatever that might precisely mean and which was never defined in the article - fie on the author for this) to kill an innocent and presumably unwilling third party for the sake of others, then it follows that the intended sacrificial lamb is indeed morally obliged to submit to the will of others as such for "the greater good". This stern and strict implication cannot be avoided if the premise is accepted. This further implies that the targeted man is therefore prohibited from acting in his own defense, a clear, direct, diametric, and unequivocal contradiction to the notion that he holds claims to life equal to that of his fellows. It does, in fact, thoroughly deny any right to life whatsoever except as the arbitrarily and most likely capriciously determined "greater good" may deign to grant. Life, thereby, becomes a privilege and not a right. Hooba dooba.

Now, consider where action is so fast that the designated sacrificial lamb is unaware of the situation and perceives his attacker as nothing more. He responds and successfully preserves himself by killing his attacker. The premise would imply that he acted criminally and was, in fact, guilty of murder in addition to the crime of refusing to submit to execution for the sake of his fellows.

Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever to limit action for "greater good" because the notion itself is necessarily arbitrary. Therefore, I deem that the greater good is for me to kill my neighbor for the sake of taking his stash of gold coins because I have determined that my family needs his gold more than does he. After all, he is single and I have 4 children who need to go to college.

The only morally acceptable act is one of willful self sacrifice. Imposition of such upon another who has not been consulted or otherwise does not agree is inherently immoral even if one million other lives stand to be saved. To stand idly by in preference to murdering an innocent, though a million souls perished as a result nevertheless leaves one in a morally pure state whereas the opposite leaves one guilty of murder. We are not morally required to act in the aid of our fellows and I would go so far as to say that we are in fact prohibited from so acting if it means that we knowingly and willfully bring take life from another. This choice is not for us to make.

The forceful implications of the basic premise are absurd on their faces. In that capacity alone they wholly destroy the utilitarian argument in toto. That they eviscerate all notions of individual rights through severe contradiction further pile drives this nonsense into the dirt. That they reduce life to a privilege, arbitrarily granted and taken away by one's fellows holding no demonstrable authority to so judge welds the tungsten coffin tightly shut in watertight fashion and sinks it to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Good gravy... the incredible idiocy to which some people subscribe!

Kluge
02-28-2012, 09:25 PM
With all their talk about heuristics, those scientists sure are blinded by the fact that judging "5 lives > 1 life" is also a heuristic. In a utilitarian sense, not all people are of equal value to "society," nor does anyone ever have the necessary information to accurately assess anyone's value (they do not know everything about the person, and they do not know everything about the future). Even if a utilitarian had access to all of this information, it would be the epitome of arrogance to assume they are smart enough (let alone unbiased enough) to accurately evaluate it and come to the correct conclusion, especially to a standard of certainty that would justify stripping the life/liberty/free will from another person. We all use rough calculations of utility, and that's fine when we all respect each other's boundaries and accept the individual consequences for our mistakes...but tearing down those boundaries and applying your rough utilitarian calculations to a matter as serious as another person's life (and implicitly acknowledging their right to calculate your own utility) is a different animal altogether. The more drastic an action you take, the more catastrophic the consequences will be if you are wrong.

"Rational" utilitarians may put forth more "mental effort" than emotional simpletons, but their best human efforts at utilitarianism are akin to applying a three-year-old's arithmetic to a nonlinear system containing billions of billions of unknown variables (unlimited variables, really), when there are more unknowns than known equations describing their relationship (and when the known equations themselves have been derived through heuristics). Anyone who confidently believes their pitiful arithmetic can justify making forceful or violent decisions with respect to others is not only an idiot but a menace. When your choices are between living in harmony with others and using force/coercion/violence to violate others, sticking with your instincts and emotions - or better yet, principles - is a much better bet than performing crude calculations (with the rough correctness probability of a dice roll) and making decisions for everyone else that carry enormous consequences. Emotions may be heuristics, and so are principles, but they at least they're good ones that err on the side of caution, respect free will, and take uncertainty, limited information, and incompetence into account far better than even the smartest person's application of utilitarianism...and anyone who believes they're a good enough judge of utility is quite frankly NOT the smartest person.

In short: Utilitarianism fails on its own merits, because actually applying it leads to chaotic results, and it removes obstacles to capricious use of extreme measures without sufficient justification...and that's assuming only a handful of honest, incorruptible, selfless utilitarians (who don't exist). It gets a whole lot more fun envisioning the real world, composed of 6 billion self-interested (and mostly stupid) people butting heads with each other. In the real world, utilitarianism isn't even necessarily rational; it can merely be a thinly veiled excuse for emotionally driven crimes.

In any case, the mere fact that humans disagree with each other on so many issues is a powerful testament to the uncertainty and subjectivity that follows utility judgments. We should strive to solve our differences with logic and reason instead of emotion, yes...but that is not always compatible with utilitarianism, which can just as easily seek to "justify" solving our differences through brute force and conquest. In practice, utilitarianism does more to threaten logic and reason than to promote it.

Given a rough utilitarian analysis, I'd say that routinely slaughtering all of the utilitarians on a biannual basis and harvesting them for parts would probably be in the interests of the greater good...but what if I'm wrong, and why would it be my right to make that call? ;)

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but God, I hate arrogant utilitarians more than perhaps anyone...so I had to rant.

Just wanted to quote Mini-Me so more people can read his posts.

Without doubt, one of the most brilliant and humble posters on this forum. +rep.