Ethics Discussion

Religions > Atheism > Ethics Discussion

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 45 of 47

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	17 Feb 2005 11:50:12 AM
Object:	Ethics Discussion

Went to a keynote address by this fellow last night. The text I found
is the basic gist of his oral address.
http://www.globalethics.org/corp/keynotes.html
He said several things which intrigued me.
The first is that, over a fifteen year study, encompassing all
demographics, there were some core values insofar as ethics were
concerned which everyone agreed were important. Those were honesty,
responsibility, respect, fairness, and compassion. Which was his
answer to cultural relativism insofar as ethics were concerned.
He also said that we are in an age where technology magnifies the
effects of unethical decisions in an historically unprecedented way.
He mentioned Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, and the Love Bug virus by way
of examples. Thus, he said, we are in an age where ethics matters a
great deal. I think his soundbite was "I don't think we can survive
the 21st century with 20th century ethics."
And finally -- and most intriguing to me in this era of rancorous
demonizing of any and all opposing views -- he said the ethical dilemma
isn't a matter of right versus wrong, for that wouldn't be a dilemma.
It's a matter of right versus right. Meaning, either side of an
argument favors, perhaps, one good over another. (His example was a
librarian asked to give information to a policeman in order to help
find a rapist, with the good principle of not handing over details of
what people were reading to the government -- think McCarthy -- versus
the good of catching a rapist).
<side note -- clearly, not everything falls into this category, but a
surprising number of arguments sure seem to>
I can think of a lot of our public debate which falls into that
category, and I'm wondering what would happen if the focus shifted from
trying to demonize and destroy opposing arguments -- therefore leaving
yours as the only option -- to discussing what good principles were
behind the arguments and then sorting through which one was the higher
good.
Like -- it's good to help the poor, and it's good to safeguard the
economy so that all can prosper.
Or it's good to protect the US against those who would harm its
citizens, and it's good to preserve individual liberty.
Or even the dreaded abortion debate.
I'm wondering what would happen if we, as a nation or world, addressed
the issues confounding us with honesty, with responsibility, with
respect for those who thought differently, with fairness, and with
compassion.
Sunny
who's dreaming today
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	19 Feb 2005 02:18:21 PM

In article <1108831020.815891.262420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:

Of course, you are free to act in your perceived self-interest.

I simply believe that individuals would not commit such acts if they
experience empathy. If they don't experience empathy, it is difficult
to believe that they will follow moral rules based on propaganda rather
than the threat of negative consequences.

If you believe that most people do not experience empathy, then perhaps
your strategy would be beneficial at the margins. I have a more hopeful
opinion of my fellow humans, so I am suspicious of such attempts to
control them.

-tg

Even those with little or no empathy will generally have some pride in
themselves, a self-image that they try to live up to, and have a code of
acceptable behaviour for themselves that they will try to follow without
the need for external pressures.
As long as such self-images are in reasonable conformity with the
general customs and the law, such people will cause few problems.
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	22 Feb 2005 06:01:42 AM

tg wrote:

rather

than the threat of negative consequences.

No doubt everyone feels empathy for another at one time, as well as
stronger emotions like friendship and love; certainly I have. But,
emotions being reactions to events, I don't expect anyone to feel
empathetic to everyone at all times - again, I certainly don't.
Even if someone did, it's unlikely that the emotion alone would tell
him how to act toward another person. Empathy alone might get som; it
could get him to go along with whatever the other one told him to do,
but even that would be of no help in the case where two people were
telling him to do two different things.
I can't see much chance of anyone following any rules without being
told what the rules are and why one should follow them - which sounds
almost like what you've called propaganda.
'Almost' because the 'reasons' don't have to involve persuasion or
propaganda, but could be merely threats.
But I have to see a moral code based on threats alone as being not just
marginally effective but probably counterproductive; for one reason,
because it's hard to feel empathy, friendship, or love for the people
making those threats or (if one has a bigger picture) those who benefit
from them.

If you believe that most people do not experience empathy, then

perhaps

your strategy would be beneficial at the margins. I have a more

hopeful

opinion of my fellow humans, so I am suspicious of such attempts to
control them.

-tg

User: "tg"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	22 Feb 2005 07:44:15 AM

I think you are not understanding the meaning of empathy---sounds more
like you are describing "sympathy". Empathy refers to a kind of
resonance of feeling, and it is probably teachable; certainly, the
range of empathy can be widened through education and experience of the
young.
I think that if you exclude a group (hopefully it is small) of
dysfunctional individuals, humans respond to the "pain" of others by
feeling pain themselves. Of course, we exclude others from this
relationship in order to survive when we are competing with them e.g.
dehumanization in warfare, although it is not necessarily easy or
always successful.
But you seem to think that, were people not taught that hacking someone
with an axe is "wrong", it would be a common practice. I just disagree
with this. I think that, if one is aware of the consequences of one's
actions, and the situation is not extreme, behavior is mediated by that
resonance with what the other individual will experience.
I object to values as opposed to law because values teach obedience to
authority rather than awareness. This obedience can always be perverted
to benefit those in authority, and so it is not in my interest.
-tg
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	26 Feb 2005 07:19:17 PM

"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<1109079855.443517.188120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...

I think you are not understanding the meaning of empathy---sounds more
like you are describing "sympathy".

No. This guy describes how I see 'empathy' vs. 'sympathy' shorter &
sweeter than I could:
"If you think you feel just like another person, you are feeling
empathy. If you just feel sorry for another person, you're feeling
sympathy."
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/empathy.html

Empathy refers to a kind of
resonance of feeling, and it is probably teachable; certainly, the
range of empathy can be widened through education and experience of the
young.

I think I see what you're saying; you're talking about empathy as an
ability, which is partly natural talent and partly acquired skill.
To the extent that it is skill, people could be trained how to
empathize; but like any skill, they'd either have to be taught to use
it, or see a value themselves in using it, or they wouldn't. To the
extent that it's natural ability, no one who normally empathized would
be able to not empathize; but that natural component could not be
increased.

I think that if you exclude a group (hopefully it is small) of
dysfunctional individuals, humans respond to the "pain" of others by
feeling pain themselves. Of course, we exclude others from this
relationship in order to survive when we are competing with them e.g.
dehumanization in warfare, although it is not necessarily easy or
always successful.

Last year's news of the goings-on among clean-cut American boys and
proper English boys at Abu Ghraib etc. (not to mention the snuff
videos from the other side) are pretty dramatic evidence that the
extent to which empathy is not natural, and can be turned off
completely. Armies in general provide good evidence that people can
be trained to not empathize as well as to empathize.

But you seem to think that, were people not taught that hacking someone
with an axe is "wrong", it would be a common practice.

Don't be sarcastic. Substitute 'blowing people up with bombs' for
'hacking someone with an axe,' and we've got something that's a common
enough practice - far too common, IMO.

I just disagree
with this.

Well, OK, that means I have the onus of making some arguments:
First, the fact that someone 'feels another's pain' (eg) does not mean
that he will not (just for that reason) not cause others pain. As an
extreme example: Heinrich Himmler agonized in his diaries over what
the "Final Solution" was causing to innocent Jews, and experienced at
least one nervous breakdown. But he refused to let those feelings get
in the way of doing his job.
Second, the fact that someone does not 'feel another's pain' (eg) does
not mean that he will (just for that reason) cause pain to anyone.
People can (and some do) cooperate for purely self-interested reasons.
I'd say that both are good reasons for not placing all eggs in the
empathy basket.

I think that, if one is aware of the consequences of one's
actions, and the situation is not extreme, behavior is mediated by that
resonance with what the other individual will experience.

I think, OTOH, that (to the extent that empathizing is an acquired
skill) people will empathize when they see value in empathizing, and
will not empathize when they see no value in doing so.

I object to values as opposed to law because values teach obedience to
authority rather than awareness.

That may be true of some moralities. (If those are what you mean here
by 'values' - that's not what I mean by it; for me, a value is simply
something that a person acts, or at least wills to act, to satisfy.)
But it's certainly not true of ethics, or moral education, in general;
that's based on understanding (dialogue) and critical thinking
(reasoning) far more than on any notions of obedience to any
authority.
Law, OTOH, is based solely on authority: laws are there simply
because the government says so; if they're obeyed solely because they
are laws, one is doing nothing but mindlessly obeying authority. And
unlike morality, laws are not a way of controlling behavior by
non-violent means - in most cases, they're explicitly based on the
threat of violence. To reiterate, for those not mindlessly obeying,
awareness of that threat can only increase resentment and disresepect
for laws, lawmakers, and law-beneficiaries - which increases the
temptation to cheat, by breaking laws one when (as in many cases)
there's little chance of being caught and punished.
It's hard to say which - the Himmlers who will do whatever the law
says, no matter their own thoughts or feelings, or the cheaters who
will violate any law if there's little threat to them - are more
dangerous.

This obedience can always be perverted
to benefit those in authority, and so it is not in my interest.

Well, laws being based on authority (like some, though not all,
moralities), they can and often have been so perverted). And laws
being as well based on violence (unlike morality) the consequences of
that perversion can be far more destructive to anyone's interest.
.

User: "tg"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	27 Feb 2005 02:32:58 PM

Well, you are making lots of assertions which conflict with evidence
and in some cases your reasoning is unclear.
There is always fuzziness about definitions, but people do research a
general category that would reasonably be called empathy. It includes
emotional and cognitive relationships, and for some people behavior,
although I would be very careful about including it.
Do you believe that people respond emotionally to other people?---have
you never felt like crying when you see someone cry, or shared in
"infectious laughter"? Too bad if you haven't, but most people would
say yes.
Have you never said (sincerely) to someone: "I know what it's like to
be in your shoes."? Too bad, etc...
I've already commented about warfare. It seems a universal that people
are traumatized when they kill someone up close, and they can
*identify*---a teenager, someone with a wife and family, someone just
like them. I've said in a couple of posts that it is a question of
numbers---most people don't sign up for the military, you know, and of
those who do, most are not sociopaths. Indeed, the process for making
them able to kill is extreme in many respects. So your examples of
violent behavior by a few are not probative.
Now, the part that might be interesting is where we compare the
potential efficacy of empathy v. morality/ethics in achieving some
goal. But I've yet to understand the implication of the distinctions
you attempt to make when you talk about values, morality, and law.
Is morality a set of rules for behavior, like the law, but without
violence as a consequence? If so, why would anyone follow them?
Are values something that can be determined in some way other than by
observing behavior? I understand the idea that if you make an effort to
achieve some goal, this defines that goal as a value. So I don't know
how one "arrives at" or "agrees to" values. If someone says, "I value
ice cream", I would offer some in exchange for money, and see how much
he would pay. But other than that, I have no reason to believe that he
indeed does value ice cream. Indeed, your claim that Himmler valued the
suffering of his victims is belied by his actions.
Would you care to explain?
-tg
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	02 Mar 2005 01:41:38 PM

"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<1109536378.453639.226680@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...

The only evidence for empathy (just as, as you've said the only
evidence of values) is evidence of behavior; and that's exactly what
you give down below.
Everything but the evidence of behavior is theory based on
introspection and inference; and that's really where we're
disagreeing, not on the level of hard data.

Do you believe that people respond emotionally to other people?---have
you never felt like crying when you see someone cry, or shared in
"infectious laughter"? Too bad if you haven't, but most people would
say yes.

I've done all that, and more; I've yawned when others have yawned, for
example. But that's only evidence that two people can share a
behavior. It isn't evidene even that the one is experiencing the
other's thoughts or emotions - for instance, an alternative
explanation of 'infectious laughter' is that everyone felt like
laughing for his own reasons (which are similar as they're all in the
same situation), and all that the first laugh gives them is a signal
that laughing's OK.
But even if there were some kind of psychic bonding going on here,
that doesn't imply anything about how these people will treat each
other, or even how they should treat each other. Experiencing this
sort of thing does not entail treating others in any particular way.
A Scrooge type personality may very well feel like crying when he sees
and hears others crying; but that doesn't mean he'll be motivated by
that to do anything about what's making them cry.

Have you never said (sincerely) to someone: "I know what it's like to
be in your shoes."? Too bad, etc...

Sure I have; but that's a matter of reasoning out what the other
person is going through and experiencing as a result - I'm not
actually experiencing what he's experiencing, and thinking and feeling
what he's thinking and feeling, but inferring what he's thinking and
feeling from his own behavior, and comparing that to what I'd think
and feel if it were me instead. It's not an automatic behavior (like
feeling like crying when he cries), but what I called a skill -
something that I've learned to do, and can do or not in any particular
situation. (In fact, I'd call it something else to distinguish it
from those automatic behaviors - 'understanding' sounds like a good
term.)
People can understand each other. But understanding doesn't entail
that they'll treat each other with kindness or consideration, either -
someone can use his understanding of others to take advantage of them,
for example.

I've already commented about warfare. It seems a universal that people
are traumatized when they kill someone up close, and they can
*identify*---a teenager, someone with a wife and family, someone just
like them. I've said in a couple of posts that it is a question of
numbers---most people don't sign up for the military, you know, and of
those who do, most are not sociopaths.

But that's the point: in the main, those who kill and maim each other
(in the military or not) are not sociopaths - it's not the case that
they're unaffected by others laughter or tears, or that they can't
understand how others think or feel. They're just not valuing those
things - those things aren't motivating their behavior. In which
case, either kind of empathy - natural psychic bonding or deliberate
learned understanding - is insufficient to lead to "moral" behavior -
the first, I'd say, because it's too weak by itself, the second
because it's not natural - people have to learn how to do it, and can
just as easily learn to not do it instead.

Indeed, the process for making
them able to kill is extreme in many respects.

Sure, it's an extreme process - it has to be, as it's meant to
eliminate the subject's own values (moral ones like "Don't kill" and
prudential ones like "Follow your own judgement") and replace them
with another set. But that's not evidence that one code is more
naturally human than the other - it could be that the earlier values
were all learned as well, and the evidence that they were learned is
the evidence that they can be unlearned.

So your examples of
violent behavior by a few are not probative.

Not meant to be - they're just counterexamples to the claim that
humans naturally experience a degree of empathy sufficient to ensure
their "good" behavior. Empathy, of any kind, is simply not enough.

Now, the part that might be interesting is where we compare the
potential efficacy of empathy v. morality/ethics in achieving some
goal. But I've yet to understand the implication of the distinctions
you attempt to make when you talk about values, morality, and law.

As I've been using them: a 'value' is simply a motivator (or possible
motivator) of someone's actions. 'Moralities' are sets of rules
telling people how they 'ought to' act. "Laws' are a certain type of
morality that are enforced - backed by force or threat and nothing
else.

Is morality a set of rules for behavior, like the law, but without
violence as a consequence? If so, why would anyone follow them?

The easy answer is that they follow the rules if they value them
sufficiently - can't have one without the other. But why would
anyone value the rules? The only reason, that I can see, is that
following the rules is a means to some end that the person himself
values. Figuring out which rules promote which values is a matter of
reasoning, which is different from morality (saying what the rules
are) so needs a different term for it - the one I'm most familiar with
is 'ethics.'

Are values something that can be determined in some way other than by
observing behavior?

Not others' values; but one can be aware of one's own, and predict
behavior just by knowing them. For instance, I know that I'll be
leaving for work in 1/2 hour (barring something happening to me that
prevents it), just by knowing that I value keeping my job. I also
value writing about stuff like this, and I'll still value it when I'm
on the bus for work, but that's a matter of ranking values.
That's harder to observe for others, as one can only observe what
someone else is doing and infer his highest-ranked values from that
but not the rest of his, lower-ranked values. I infer by analogy,
though, that other people have them, too.

I understand the idea that if you make an effort to
achieve some goal, this defines that goal as a value. So I don't know
how one "arrives at" or "agrees to" values. If someone says, "I value
ice cream", I would offer some in exchange for money, and see how much
he would pay. But other than that, I have no reason to believe that he
indeed does value ice cream.

You probabably do know whether you value ice cream or not, though; and
that the difference between you buying it one time when you go
shopping, and not in another, doesn't mean that you've changed your
mind about it; what it indicates is that in one case it's a more
important value than something else you could buy, and in the other
it's not (for example, if you don't buy ice cream because you 'need'
bread instead).

Indeed, your claim that Himmler valued the
suffering of his victims is belied by his actions.

You mean, I guess, that he valued their not suffering. But that's not
belied, unless Himmler had to value only one thing; which is false for
me. All his actions indicate that he valued other things more: doing
his job, serving his Leader, creating a racially pure country, serving
history, whatever. It is not a proof that he lacked empathy of either
kind - natural psychic affinity, or the ability to understand others,
or that he simply didn't value it at all.
Take a less extreme example: my father used to beat me with a belt.
Does that mean he was a sociopath, who just didn't realize that he was
causing me pain? Or that he was indifferent to whether I was in pain
or not? Or (as I suspect) that he did care about my being in pain,
but had other values that were more important to him at the time. I'd
suggest the latter, and I'd further suggest that those other values,
that did actually motivate his behavior, were purely 'moral' values -
he beat me so that I'd do the 'right' things (as he saw them), and
that beating me for that purpose was the 'right' thing for him to do.

Would you care to explain?
-tg

User: "Publius"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	02 Mar 2005 07:35:08 PM

(George Dance) wrote in
news:fa6f97d4.0503021141.43013d8f@posting.google.com:

That's harder to observe for others, as one can only observe what
someone else is doing and infer his highest-ranked values from that
but not the rest of his, lower-ranked values. I infer by analogy,
though, that other people have them, too.

How successfully one can infer others' values depends on how well one knows
that person. Spouses, for example, and lifelong friends, can reconstruct
one another's value hierarchies quite accurately, from low to high. People
can also disclose their values verbally --- but a close relationship is
important there, too, because it helps one decide how much credibility to
attach to those reports.
Good post.

.

User: ""
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	03 Mar 2005 03:39:50 PM

I will say more about empathy once I'm clear on what you are saying WRT
values.
You say:
As I've been using them:
A 'value' is simply a motivator (or possible motivator) of someone's
actions.
'Moralities' are sets of rules telling people how they 'ought to' act.
"Laws' are a certain type of morality that are enforced - backed by
force or threat and nothing else.
end quote
I could work with this just fine, as long as we stipulate that values
must be demonstrated: there is an action and an outcome, and we decide
(within reason) that the outcome was the motivation for the action.
But...
When I say:
Is morality a set of rules for behavior, like the law, but without
violence as a consequence? If so, why would anyone follow them?
And you say:
The easy answer is that they follow the rules if they value them
sufficiently - can't have one without the other. But why would
anyone value the rules? The only reason, that I can see, is that
following the rules is a means to some end that the person himself
values. Figuring out which rules promote which values is a matter of
reasoning, which is different from morality (saying what the rules are)
so needs a different term for it - the one I'm most familiar with is
'ethics.'
end quote
.... I am mystified by "... which rules *promote* which values..."
because it sounds like you are talking about 'moral values' or morality
again. I got into the same trouble earlier, where I thought you *were*
talking about morality...
tg:
I object to values as opposed to law because values teach obedience to
authority rather than awareness.
Dance:
That may be true of some moralities. (If those are what you mean here
by 'values' - that's not what I mean by it; for me, a value is simply
something that a person acts, or at least wills to act, to satisfy.)
But it's certainly not true of ethics, or moral education, in general;
that's based on understanding (dialogue) and critical thinking
(reasoning) far more than on any notions of obedience to any authority.
end quote
So you need to explain what you mean by promoting values. It clearly
isn't the same as acting to achieve a value---give money, get ice
cream. You seem to go from one definition to another within that
paragraph.
-tg
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	05 Mar 2005 02:08:46 AM

wrote:

I will say more about empathy once I'm clear on what you are saying >

WRT values.

You say:
As I've been using them:

A 'value' is simply a motivator (or possible motivator) of someone's

actions.

'Moralities' are sets of rules telling people how they 'ought to'

act.

"Laws' are a certain type of morality that are enforced - backed by
force or threat and nothing else.
end quote

I could work with this just fine, as long as we stipulate that values
must be demonstrated: there is an action and an outcome, and we

decide

(within reason) that the outcome was the motivation for the action.

OK; I could quibble about that, but I'll save that until it's
important.

But...

When I say:

Is morality a set of rules for behavior, like the law, but without
violence as a consequence? If so, why would anyone follow them?

And you say:

The easy answer is that they follow the rules if they value them
sufficiently - can't have one without the other. But why would
anyone value the rules? The only reason, that I can see, is that
following the rules is a means to some end that the person himself
values. Figuring out which rules promote which values is a matter of
reasoning, which is different from morality (saying what the rules

are)

so needs a different term for it - the one I'm most familiar with is

'ethics.'

end quote

... I am mystified by "... which rules *promote* which values..."
because it sounds like you are talking about 'moral values' or

morality

again. I got into the same trouble earlier, where I thought you

*were* talking about morality...
I mean the individual's own values or motivators. Let me try to give a
concrete example of 'figuring out which rules promote which values.'
I value a number of things as ends - things I simply want - and other
things because they're intermediate ends - means to those ends. And I
act in certain ways because those actions are means to either type of
end.
Many of those ends will be satisfied only in the future; my continued
existence into the future - my staying alive - is a necessary means to
all of them. So my staying alive is an important intermediate end, as
important as all the ends it's a means to - and I value it as much.
A moral rule (not to mention a law) that no one may murder me obviously
increases my chances of staying alive (over that in a society that did
not have one), so it's an important further means to that end, and in
turn a means I have to value as highly. Since I value having that
rule, I commit to that rule: advocate it and act in accordance with
it.
I also have to persuade others to act in accordance with it. I can't
expect someone else to commit to it because it t because it increases
my chances of staying alive; but if it increases their chances of
staying alive, then they'll have the same (good) reasons to commit to
it that I do.
A moral rule that no one may murder anyone, period, is a rule that
others are likely to follow, which does imply that no one may murder
me. So it's reasonable for me to value this rule, just because I value
staying alive.

tg:
I object to values as opposed to law because values teach obedience

authority rather than awareness.

Dance:
That may be true of some moralities. (If those are what you mean here
by 'values' - that's not what I mean by it; for me, a value is simply
something that a person acts, or at least wills to act, to satisfy.)
But it's certainly not true of ethics, or moral education, in

general;

that's based on understanding (dialogue) and critical thinking
(reasoning) far more than on any notions of obedience to any

authority.

end quote

So you need to explain what you mean by promoting values. It clearly
isn't the same as acting to achieve a value---give money, get ice
cream. You seem to go from one definition to another within that
paragraph.
-tg

No; perhaps I'm just not making the connection clear. Let's use this
example.
I value eating ice cream, so I value buying it at the store. It's
reasonable for me to value everything that's a means to that end. That
includes the existence of the store, which isn't simply a given; if
shoplifting weren't considered morally (as well as legally) wrong - if
the common practice was that people simply walked into whatever stores
there were and took whatever they wanted - this store probably wouldn't
be here for my convenience. Since I value it being there (because I
value being able to get ice cream there), it's reasonable for me to
value a moral rule against shoplifting, too.
.

User: "tg"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	06 Mar 2005 05:20:04 PM

Unfortunately, George, one person's quibble may be another's
deal-breaker. I am concerned that you are setting up some ultimate
evasion, not only because of your unwillingness to deal only with
empirical tests, but because of this convoluted reasoning about values
and causal chains. You say:
"...so it's an important further means to that end, and in turn a means
I have to value as highly. Since I value having that rule, I commit
to that rule: advocate it and act in accordance with it."
So you value obeying and advocating the (non-law) rule against killing
as much as you value a reduced chance of being killed. But we know that
the value of a thing in the future is always less than the value of the
same thing in the present, so you are setting up an undeterminable
hierarchy---"value as highly" becomes meaningless; you would obviously
not obey the rule if you were threatened with immediate death, but you
might attend a rally to advocate the rule even if there were some
small risk of death, and so on. For me, having such a conversation
about angels on the head of a pin is a waste of time.
Noting my reservations, we will continue.
1) I have not argued against law. You 'should not' link morality and
law as you do in your statements. I claim that law is sufficient along
with empathy; indeed, you are the one who has made negative comments
about law.
2) I asked for an explanation of "promote values". As well as I can
understand it, you have describe 'achieving values'.
If others don't kill you, the value of not dying from others killing
you has been achieved.
If others don't shoplift, the value of the store not going out of
business and inconveniencing you has been achieved.
You claim that all actions intermediate to these outcomes are values
because they lead to the 'ultimate' goal. So everything is simply a
matter of self-interest.
If you define morality/ethics exclusively as means for you to achieve
your values, then we can begin to question the efficacy of this
approach. And so we return to my observations earlier (the old
sub-thread to which you responded.)
If we are dealing with rational, educated (know the consequence of
their actions) actors, there is no reason to believe that they will act
against their self-interest. If you claim that it is in your
self-interest not to shop-lift ice cream, then it is also in everyone
else's self-interest. If you claim that not killing others increases
your prospects for survival, then this is also true for others. So we
are faced with the question of why we need these 'rules' that you
propose to advocate and follow. What does the word 'wrong' tell us? Is
'wrong' just something which isn't in my self interest? And if it is,
why do I need to be told it?
-tg
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	06 Mar 2005 07:35:15 PM

tg wrote:

My quibbles were nothing about that; just footnotes to what we agreed
on, about values being demonstrated through actions: (1) Everyone has a
set of values, not just one; (2) an act usually shows only the actor's
most important value at the time, which varies; and not even that, as
an act can satisfy more than one value, which together are more more
than the most important; (3) two people can cooperate if in one action
if they see it as a means to their end, even if they have different
ends - one can't infer from their cooperation that their values aren't
the same, nor can one infer that people who don't share the same values
can't cooperate.
You say:

So you value obeying and advocating the (non-law) rule against

killing

as much as you value a reduced chance of being killed. But we know

that

the value of a thing in the future is always less than the value of

the

same thing in the present, so you are setting up an undeterminable
hierarchy---"value as highly" becomes meaningless;

Well, no, I don't just value not being killed in the future; I value it
in the present as well - it's always necessary for me to act. Having a
moral rule against killing isn't a high priority to me; but OTOH, I
don't actually have to act for it - just not act in certain ways - so
there's no real cost to me in following it, either.

you would obviously
not obey the rule if you were threatened with immediate death,

Well, I dunno; morally, I'd say, there'd be no obligation to obey the
rule in that case. Legally, though, in my country (on my reading of
the Criminal Code) I'd be a murderer if I killed in self-defence, so
that might be a deterrent.

but you
might attend a rally to advocate the rule even if there were some
small risk of death, and so on. For me, having such a conversation
about angels on the head of a pin is a waste of time.

All I have to do, to commit to the "Murder is wrong") rule I want, is
to believe it's true (say it's true, etc.) and act as if it's true
(don't go around killing people). Getting agreement on a correct rule
has to involve some philosophical defining, argument, etc., which not
everyone has to do - but someone's gotta do it, and I enjoy it. 8)

Noting my reservations, we will continue.

1) I have not argued against law. You 'should not' link morality and
law as you do in your statements. I claim that law is sufficient

along

with empathy; indeed, you are the one who has made negative comments

about law.
Sure. I don't think that law works as well as morality; but it if
either one worked as well, I'd say we should get rid of law altogher.
Both are ways to control others' behavior, to solve the problem of
violence - morality by non-violent persuasion, law by monopolizing
violence in a government. The second is far worse; the gains we get
from it are more than offset by the violence that governments can use
against us which law itself can only partly restrain, if at all.

2) I asked for an explanation of "promote values". As well as I can
understand it, you have describe 'achieving values'.

By 'promote' values, I meant 'act to achieve' them; doing anything that
helps bring them about (including writing about them or teaching
them)..

If others don't kill you, the value of not dying from others killing
you has been achieved.

For now; but it's an ongoing value, as I always have some ends that
require my continuing existence. I achieved it today, but I have to
achieve it again tomorrow; fortunately, since we have a widespread
consensus that murder is wrong (as well as a law plus empathy) I don't
have to do much.

If others don't shoplift, the value of the store not going out of
business and inconveniencing you has been achieved.

For now; but it's ongoing as well.

You claim that all actions intermediate to these outcomes are values
because they lead to the 'ultimate' goal.

Well, I was really saying that my not killing and not shoplifting were
values because they were means to other ends - self-preservation in one
case, having a convenient store to buy from. But, yes, acts that were
means to them would be valuable, too.

So everything is simply a
matter of self-interest.

Properly understood self-interest.

If you define morality/ethics exclusively as means for you to achieve
your values, then we can begin to question the efficacy of this
approach. And so we return to my observations earlier (the old
sub-thread to which you responded.)

If we are dealing with rational, educated (know the consequence of
their actions) actors, there is no reason to believe that they will

act

against their self-interest.

I suppose that people can't be wrong about their ultimate ends, but
they certainly can be wrong about which acts are means to which ends,
through incomplete information or just not thinking things through.
You may have added to 'educated' to deal with that; but I find that
sort of question-begging; the only 'education' that I'd see as
sufficient to have everyone act in their rightly understood
self-interest would be exactly the 'moral education' I've been arguing
for (and which you dismissed as 'propaganda').

If you claim that it is in your
self-interest not to shop-lift ice cream, then it is also in everyone
else's self-interest. If you claim that not killing others increases
your prospects for survival, then this is also true for others.

(Did I really use 'shop-lifting ice cream' as an example? I'm
splitting a gut imagining myself in a store behind the counter,
scooping ice cream by hand into one of my pockets. 8)
But, seriously...
People don't act on what's true, they act on their beliefs (what they
think is true). A 10-year-old kid who's most pressing value on a hot
summer day is a cold ice-cream cone isn't going to stop and think about
his action's effect on the store (and on others as an example), for
instance; there's no way he's going to figure out that he has a reason
to not steal. But he could readily understand the theory, if it was
explained to him.

So we
are faced with the question of why we need these 'rules' that you
propose to advocate and follow. What does the word 'wrong' tell us?

I define "X is wrong" as "People in general ought not to do."

Is
'wrong' just something which isn't in my self interest? And if it is,
why do I need to be told it?

'Wrong' doesn't mean 'not in my self-interest' - and it certainly
doesn't mean 'what I don't think is in my self-interest.' Exploring
and explaining the connections between morality and interest requires
ethical theory and ethical instruction.
.

User: "Publius"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	27 Feb 2005 03:22:02 PM

"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1109536378.453639.226680
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Is morality a set of rules for behavior, like the law, but without
violence as a consequence? If so, why would anyone follow them?

If they do, it is only because they come to see them as reasonable and to
their benefit in the long run.

Indeed, your claim that Himmler valued the suffering of his victims is
belied by his actions.

When you realize an individual's are arranged in a hierarchy, this makes
sense. Others' lives may have ranked somewhere in his Himmler's hierarchy,
but not as high as serving his Fuehrer. So he sacrificed a lesser value for
a greater one (by his lights). People do that all the time, and if the
sacrificed value ranks high, it always saddens. But you are right --- his
actions reveal his values. They show what counts the most.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	22 Feb 2005 07:11:31 PM

On 22 Feb 2005 04:01:42 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
said in alt.atheism:

I can't see much chance of anyone following any rules without being
told what the rules are and why one should follow them

And therein lies the problem, George. How to explain morals to
someone who has none. One helps others because it's what one does -
not because of empathy or fear of a god.

But I have to see a moral code based on threats alone as being not just
marginally effective but probably counterproductive; for one reason,
because it's hard to feel empathy, friendship, or love for the people
making those threats or (if one has a bigger picture) those who benefit
from them.

Which is why some need threats made by a god.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "tg"
Title: Against Ethics	23 Feb 2005 05:25:06 AM

Al Klein wrote:

On 22 Feb 2005 04:01:42 -0800, "George Dance"

<georgedance04@yahoo.ca>

said in alt.atheism:

I can't see much chance of anyone following any rules without being
told what the rules are and why one should follow them

And therein lies the problem, George. How to explain morals to
someone who has none. One helps others because it's what one does -
not because of empathy or fear of a god.

***
Of course, it is far more difficult to explain empathy to someone who
has none. That's why serial killers are not to be released from prison.
What follows from empathy, on an intellectual or non-emotional level,
is a willingness to perceive "other's" forms of understanding.
It is clear that many people *do* help others because they follow
religious authorities who rely on fear of a god.
It is clear that many people adhere to some moral code or other because
they have been indoctrinated to have negative feelings if they deviate,
and positive feelings---a smug satisfaction about "what one does"; a
sense of belonging to an elite class, when they perform correctly.
The original question had to do with what would be the most beneficial
system for a society. So one may consider one's preferences: Would I
rather live among people who are deluded, or, smug and probably
hypocritical, or, among those for whom my welfare is an innate and
automatic component of their decision-making? Huh. Let me think.
-tg
.

User: "Publius"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	24 Feb 2005 04:06:23 PM

"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1109157906.628239.235660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

The original question had to do with what would be the most beneficial
system for a society. So one may consider one's preferences: Would I
rather live among people who are deluded, or, smug and probably
hypocritical, or, among those for whom my welfare is an innate and
automatic component of their decision-making? Huh. Let me think.

Sorry for jumping in late here. I've perused the other posts in this
thread, and think I understand the gist of your position, which seems to
be summarized here:

Of course, you are free to act in your perceived self-interest.
I simply believe that individuals would not commit such acts if they
experience empathy. If they don't experience empathy, it is difficult
to believe that they will follow moral rules based on propaganda
rather than the threat of negative consequences.
If you believe that most people do not experience empathy, then
perhaps your strategy would be beneficial at the margins. I have a
more hopeful opinion of my fellow humans, so I am suspicious of such
attempts to control them.

Discussions of some of the points you raise are currently underway in
other threads in this group. You seem to be holding out for a
restoration of "tribal resonance."
In one of those discussions I posted the following:
"Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
hundred members---small enough that all of its members knew all of the
others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
one another's births, tended one another's illnesses, shared one
another's possessions, and married one another's cousins. They knew and
trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
part of every other�s life.
"The organic model is a reasonable approximation of the structure of such
societies. But with the rise of civilization---the culture of cities---
that model began to break down. People found themselves living in large
communities in which most of the people around them were strangers, with
whom they had no familial or other personal ties, and often very little
in common. People began to notice the differences among them---
differences in coloration and bone structure, in habits of dress, in
temperament and mannerisms, in interests and tastes, and eventually even
in religion and language. They discovered individuality.
"That was a huge transformation, not merely of the social structure, but
of the human psyche. The traditional tribal control mechanisms, based on
age and personal stature, gave way to formal systems of governance---
politics. The tribesman�s intuitive sense of right and wrong, which
derived primarily from his personal ties to and regard for his fellows,
gave way to formal systems of ethics. Indeed, ethics, like law, is a code
for regulating behavior among *strangers*---among people who have no
personal interest in one another�s welfare.
"That change has had psychic costs. Most of us long to be a part of
something larger than ourselves. But the organic society that continues
to beckon from our long primate ancestry is lost to history. It is
irrecoverable. Modern societies are meta-communities---public venues for
personal interactions. They provide opportunities for individuals to
forge relationships with others, but supply no content for those
relationships. They are like public playing fields---they offer space and
seating, but each team brings its own gear, its own personnel, and its
own game with its own rules. The house rules are few and general: 'No
reservations accepted: first-come, first served,' 'Do not intrude on
others� games,' and 'Pick up your litter.'"
Civilizations are societies of strangers. They are also societies of
individuals; their members have well-defined personal identities which
clearly and sharply differentiate them. The kind of empathy you envision
is only possible among small, isolated, intimately interacting groups,
such as pre-civilized tribes. Once people begin to see themselves as
individuals --- and they inevitably do so when they live in large
"communities of strangers" --- the possibility of community-wide empathy
disappears.
Nor is it something that can be taught. Or rather, it can be taught, in
the sense that one can describe it and point to examples --- but from the
pupil's point of view, it is just another value or virtue, competing for
their allegiance with dozens of alternatives, many incompatible.
There is utterly no prospect of securing universal agreement on values in
large, modern societies, and it is that commonality in values upon which
tribal resonance, or empathy, rests. So you give up that futile task. You
accept that people will hold diverse, incompatible, irreconcilable
values, that they will have different interests, be motivated
differently, regard different things as virtues and vices. And then you
try to find some rules which, if generally followed, will allow people to
realize as many of their own peculiar values as possible.
In societies of strangers, that is the best you can hope to do.
.

User: "John Jones"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	27 Feb 2005 04:22:08 PM

Are you BuddhaThu? I notice you fail to respond to challenging posts,
like him, or to original material that would normally interest you,
like him, and sometimes have a fondness of theory geneology, like him.
What are you up to? Keep your bloody hands off my material.
John Jones
JJ
.

User: "Publius"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	27 Feb 2005 08:22:19 PM

"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:1109542928.444921.101010
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Aaargh! I guess I'm in the doghouse now. Sorry if I haven't responded to
some of your posts. I'm afraid I don't find much substance in most of them,
though some of them are humorous.
Which material are you now claiming as "yours?" That in the preceding post
of mine in this thread?
Nope, not Buddha Thu.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	23 Feb 2005 10:32:47 AM

On 23 Feb 2005 03:25:06 -0800, "tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> said in
alt.atheism:

The original question had to do with what would be the most beneficial
system for a society.

That would depend entirely on the society. If it were a society of
beings with morals, that would suffice. If it were an amoral society
some system of either punishment (laws) or promise of punishment
(religion) would be needed. If it were a totally sociopathic society
one would have to do unto others before others did unto him.

So one may consider one's preferences: Would I
rather live among people who are deluded, or, smug and probably
hypocritical, or, among those for whom my welfare is an innate and
automatic component of their decision-making? Huh. Let me think.

One can't choose one's species. :)
Regardless of what kind of people you'd rather live among, you live
among those of your own species, and you have to take them as you find
them.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	23 Feb 2005 12:34:43 PM

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:32:47 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On 23 Feb 2005 03:25:06 -0800, "tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> said in
alt.atheism:

The original question had to do with what would be the most beneficial
system for a society.

One can't choose one's species. :)

Regardless of what kind of people you'd rather live among, you live
among those of your own species, and you have to take them as you find
them.

/antics
Do I *have* to? (heavy disgruntled sigh)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "tg"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	24 Feb 2005 08:24:07 AM

When someone snips a pertinent part of my post, I assume that I have
made them uncomfortable. So I just want you to know: I feel your pain.
To repeat the crux of the issue---you and George seem to believe that
most people are sociopaths, and I don't, which may be an empirical
question. But it is illogical to believe that people who are sociopaths
will adhere to a moral code regardless of their self-interest.
*My* species behaves according to self-interest. It also has empathy.
This is a matter of evolution; it is a way to achieve the coexistence
of cooperation and competition, which is beneficial to the species.
-tg
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	05 Mar 2005 01:16:56 AM

tg wrote:

When someone snips a pertinent part of my post, I assume that I have
made them uncomfortable. So I just want you to know: I feel your

pain.

To repeat the crux of the issue---you and George seem to believe that
most people are sociopaths, and I don't, which may be an empirical
question.

I certainly don't. (I realize this is an old post that I'm replying
to.) I've been arguing that most people who act 'badly' are not
sociopaths; and therefore empathy alone is not sufficient for 'good'
behavior.
But it is illogical to believe that people who are sociopaths

will adhere to a moral code regardless of their self-interest.

But social cooperation is not 'regardless of self-interest.' People
can and do cooperate because it is in their interest; respect rights
because having rights is in their interest; consider acts of aggression
wrong, becaue not being aggressed against is in their interest; and all
that. Which is my second criticism I've been making; empathy is also
not necessary for 'good' behavior.

*My* species behaves according to self-interest. It also has empathy.
This is a matter of evolution; it is a way to achieve the coexistence
of cooperation and competition, which is beneficial to the species.
-tg

But cooperation, too, can be (and in some cases is) founded on
self-interest; and arguably all of them are. IME this guy makes the
best such argument:
"Social cooperation has nothing to do with personal love or with a
general commandment to love one another. People do not cooperate under
the division of labor because they love or should love one another.
They cooperate because this best serves their own interests. Neither
love not charity nor any other sympathetic sentiments but rightly
understood selfishness is what originally impelled man to adjust
himself to the requirements of society, to respect the rights and
freedoms of his fellow men and to substitute peaceful collaboration for
enmity and conflict."
- Ludwig von Mises, "The Individual & Society," /Human Action (Yale,
1941) 168-69
http://www.mises.com/humanaction/chap8sec6.asp
.

User: "Publius"
Title: Re: Against Ethics	05 Mar 2005 02:16:41 AM

"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1110007016.913092.186780@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

But cooperation, too, can be (and in some cases is) founded on
self-interest; and arguably all of them are. IME this guy makes the
best such argument:

"Social cooperation has nothing to do with personal love or with a
general commandment to love one another. People do not cooperate under
the division of labor because they love or should love one another.
They cooperate because this best serves their own interests. Neither
love not charity nor any other sympathetic sentiments but rightly
understood selfishness is what originally impelled man to adjust
himself to the requirements of society, to respect the rights and
freedoms of his fellow men and to substitute peaceful collaboration for
enmity and conflict."
- Ludwig von Mises, "The Individual & Society," /Human Action (Yale,
1941) 168-69
http://www.mises.com/humanaction/chap8sec6.asp

Yup. Mises, along with his student F. A. Hayek, largely wrote the book on
these issues.
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	26 Feb 2005 05:53:01 AM

Al Klein wrote:

On 22 Feb 2005 04:01:42 -0800, "George Dance"

<georgedance04@yahoo.ca>

said in alt.atheism:

I can't see much chance of anyone following any rules without being
told what the rules are and why one should follow them

And therein lies the problem, George. How to explain morals to
someone who has none. One helps others because it's what one does -
not because of empathy or fear of a god.

It may be that some people behave in some way or another just because
of their nature; but that's doubtful, as anyone can change his
behavior radically over time. One factor that can change behavior is
other people telling one what to do, and giving reasons; which is hard
to do in some cases, but not (that I can see) an insurmountable
problem.

But I have to see a moral code based on threats alone as being not

just

marginally effective but probably counterproductive; for one reason,
because it's hard to feel empathy, friendship, or love for the

people

making those threats or (if one has a bigger picture) those who

benefit

from them.

I should add that that problem dovetails quite nicely with the other
problem with laws - that they give a person no reason for to do or not
do anything, in situations where the person will not be caught - to
make law a crude and clumsy method of behavior control.

Which is why some need threats made by a god.

Gods do solve both problems. Because gods (allegedly) see everything,
there's no chance of not being caught and punished; as gods (allegedly)
know everything, even one's faults, even thinking about doing wrong can
mean punishment. And, as one (allegedly) owes everything one values to
a god, then violating the rules can be seen as a matter of violating
one's own values.
That could very well be a reason why gods and their attendant
moralities are as common, in different societies, as law codes.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced

that a vivid

consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the

betterment and

ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially

a law-giver who

works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

User: "rugged individuals"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	27 Feb 2005 01:03:52 AM

"George Dance" wrote : "I can't see much chance of anyone following any
rules without being
told what the rules are and why one should follow them.
Apparently, you have no belief in "Natural Law", or "Conscience".
While one can debate the existence of an instinctual, inborn, "image of the
Creator" sense of right and wrong (given present day amorality or moral
relativism), I think most rational human beings (until recently) would never
have doubted that certain behavior was so obviously "inhuman", or repugnant,
or of low quality that it could be called by any individual in any culture
WRONG.
Like it or not, the mark of the Creator is in us all in the form of
conscience, which is ignored to an individual's detriment. In fact, to
borrow a theme from many threads in this group, it should be realized that
the perception of "punishment" by God arises not so much from some act of
vengeance by the Godhead against the poor sinner as it does from the sense
of separation from the "grace" of the Godhead -- less theistically, from a
sense of personal well-being -- caused by a willful violation of conscience
which is "felt" as emotional discomfort. You "know" when you have done
wrong. There is an automatic sense of shame, or of having fallen short. Many
of us have desensitized ourselves to the ramifications of such violations of
conscience through the multitude of repeated transgressions, but we know it
is a sociopathic constitution that has buried the effects of conscience
entirely.
It is the natural law (effectively written in each heart, soul, mind,
psyche, or whatever you want to call it) that enables ethical principles to
be stated and accepted generally. Even the atheistic humanists out there
must acknowledge something essentially true (and generally accepted as such)
about right and wrong that enables us to codify rules of behavior with the
expectation that they will be observed by all of us so that violations can
be punished for the protection of all against the certain harm such
violations cause.
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Ethics Discussion	04 Mar 2005 01:24:10 PM

rugged individuals wrote:

"George Dance" wrote : "I can't see much chance of anyone following

any

rules without being
told what the rules are and why one should follow them.

Apparently, you have no belief in "Natural Law", or "Conscience".

No, there may be a 'natural law' - it really depends on what you mean
by the phrase. And it's a definite fact that people refrain from doing
things, or feel remorse later, for reasons of 'conscience' - some
apparently basic belief that those things are wrong. What I don't
believe is that those two concepts have anything to do with each other.

While one can debate the existence of an instinctual, inborn, "image

of the

Creator" sense of right and wrong (given present day amorality or

moral

relativism), I think most rational human beings (until recently)

would never

have doubted that certain behavior was so obviously "inhuman", or

repugnant,

or of low quality that it could be called by any individual in any

culture WRONG.
Well, sure, some humans have always had beliefs like that; and there
are still plenty of those in the modern age. But that's evidence that
their consciences are telling them what behavior really is wrong, only
if all their consciences tell them that the same behavior is inhuman
and repugnant. If one person's conscience tells him that doing x is
wrong (because it's obviously inhuman and repugnant), and another one's
tells her that not doing x is wrong (because it's obviously inhuman and
r