| Hank Chinaski |
12-30-2005 08:31 AM |
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
My friend, the Physicist from Caltech and I have been debating the UMC. He believes there is no UMC and no God.
Physicist:
Harris disucsses the idea of moral being realistically right/wrong (not moral relativism). This doens't imply that someone designed such morals. I quote Harris:
The fact that our ethical intuitions have their roots in biology reveals that our efforts to ground ethics in religious conceptions of 'moral duty' are misguided… We simply do not need religious ideas to motivate us to live ethical lives. Once we begin thinking seriously about happiness and suffering, we find that our religious traditions are no more reliable on questions of ethics than they have been on scientific questions generally. P172
Robert Wright in the Moral Animal describes in detail how smart social creatures like ourselves would gravitate to certain behaviors because they are optimal for our species over time. Many economic behaviors follow from these moral or ethical behaviors - some that would not be technically rational when you only focus on economic utility of the particular item in question. Dean Kahneman, the Nobel lauerate in Economics, pursues these further to demonstrate humans are not in fact 'rational economic players' in all cicumstances, because we were built to operate in different envrionment from today's global marketplace. We were actually village people. YMCA.
Spanky:
There can be no morality without a higher power. Without a higher power morality jests comes down to self interest.
Without a higher power there is absolutely no rational reason why you should not take possessions from another person (steal) if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and if the taking of such possessions has no chance of effecting you life negatively in any way (and even if the taking of such possessions will cause extreme suffering to the person you take them from).
Do you disagree?
Physicist:
Absolutely disagree. Did you ever read the Moral Animal, or at least read my blog of it?
We are hardwired with emotions and we are not rational creatures - we are emotional creatures. In our evolutionary history, the higher brain - neocortex - with the powers of rational thought are new to the party. Before that our limbic (mammalian) brain governed us via crude emotions. Since most of the folks you'd encounter in your daily neolithic life would be the members of your family and your village, your emotions would be programmed to make you feel guilty for stealing from such folks.
In today's world, which is not what your genes were selected for, you encounter many strangers, and rationally - yes you should not worry, but you still do. Read about why you feel guilt when you don't help a homeless person in my blog about the Moral Animal.
Spanky:
You said - yes you should not worry but you do. Isn't that the bottom line. Just because we are instinctually programmed to do something does not make it right. Our instincts may tell us to be afraid of the dark, but that is not always a rational response. Our instincts tell us not to let needles be stuck in us, but we overcome that to get a vaccine shot. Once you understand an instinct is not in your best interest ignore it. Is that not the rational thing to do?
So the reason to avoid stealing is not because it is wrong but to avoid guilt? Then if you could engineer your brain, or take a drug to get rid of guilt you should, because then you could act rationally. Correct?
So I stand by my statement:
"Without a higher power there is absolutely no rational reason why you should not take possessions from another person (steal) if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and if the taking of such possessions has no chance of effecting you life negatively in any way (and even if the taking of such possessions will cause extreme suffering to the person you take them from)." Our instincts and conscience may tell us not to, but our instincts are telling us to not act rationally so we should ignore them.
Again, do you disagree?
PS. I don't need to read the "Moral Animal" to understand that there are evolutionary purposes behind our conscious and our concepts of good and evil. But as Nietzsche said, once you understand that these instincts for a conscious and good and evil are instincts that you don't need once you understand the game, you can move beyond good and evil, and become a superman because your can discard you conscience.
Physicist:
For those of us who can overcome our guilt, society has created laws and punishments precisely because we do overturn these genetic emotions.
None of this requires a higher being or intelligent design.
Since you are so stuck on this point, I really think you should at least read the blog of the book. You keep wanting validation. What's that about?
Nietzsche's superman (ubermensch - over man) from his epic Zarathustra doesn't exist today. He said it was something that we might create in the future (he thought via education, eugenics, discipline, but probably it will be genetic engineering, robotics that will create our successor species). And it is totally off-topic.
Spanky:
I don't understand what you mean by validation? I am searching for the truth. In order to search for the truth, you need to take position and then test that position. I have made a statement that seems to be true. You told me it was wrong, but then you didn't seem to be able to refute it. I am curious to know if you can refute it, and I am also curious to know if you can't refute it, why a rational person would not admit that. Is that hard to understand?
I stated:
Without a higher power there is absolutely no rational reason why you should not take possessions from another person (steal) if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and if the taking of such possessions has no chance of effecting you life negatively in any way (and even if the taking of such possessions will cause extreme suffering to the person you take them from).
Do you disagree?
You stated you disagree, but then you when you gave me the reason you disagreed you seem to actually agree. You said: and rationally - yes you should not worry, but you still do". You seem to say that rationally you should steal.
Then you stated that for those of us that overcome that guilt society has created laws. But that does not contradict my statement. In other words you don't steal to avoid punishment. If there was no punishment then you should steal. What you stated does not seem to contradict my statement but validate it.
Again, is my statement incorrect, and if it is, why is it incorrect?
Physicist:
If we had no laws against stealing - but we do, and we had no emotions providing guilt - but we do, and if we could be guaranteed no retribution nor punishment of any sort to us or anyone that we cared about, then perhaps we would all steal with impunity. But no such world exists? And if it did, how does this prove anything about a higher being.
The fact that people don't steal all the time today is precisely because of the things I pointed out, not because of a higher being. I'm sure - in your never ending quest for the truth - you could create some simple experiments to test this hypothesis. In fact, if you read, you may come to discover that these experiments have been done already. But that is your quest - not mine.
Lastly, to answer your question "Without a higher power, there is no rational reason why you should..." I already answered that by telling you that you have genetically programmed emotions to make you feel guilt, to feel empathy, to feel sympathy, etc. So there's your answer w/o needing a higher entity. Occam's razor cuts your higher being out deftly on this one.
Spanky:
I NEVER SAID IT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT A HIGHER BEING. THE BELIEF IN A HIGHER BEING COULD MAKE THE ASSERTION UNTRUE SO I INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED THE EXISTENCE OF A HIGHER BEING TO MAKE THE STATEMENT TRUE. IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SUCH A WORLD DOES EXIST. YOU CAN DO IMMORAL THINGS ALL TIME AND GET AWAY WITH IT. THERE ARE CERTAIN WAYS YOU CAN CHEAT ON YOUR TAXES AND NEVER GET CAUGHT. AT MY SCHOOL WE HAD THE HONOR CODE AND YOU COULD TAKE EXAMS IN YOUR ROOM WITH THE DOOR LOCKED. YOU COULD CHEAT AND THERE WAS NO WAY YOU WOULD GET CAUGHT. IN ADDITION ONES INSTINCTS, INCLUDING OUR CONSCIENCE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON. MY INSTINCTS TELL ME NOT DO A LOT OF THINGS THAT I KNOW FROM A RATIONAL POINT OF VIEW I SHOULD NOT DO. MY INSTINCTS TELL ME NOT TO EAT VEGETABLES. BUT I DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE I KNOW IT IS HEALTHY. MY INSTINCTS TELL ME NOT TO LET MY PHYSICIAN STICK HIS FINGER UP MY ASS BUT I DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE I KNOW MY INSTINCTS ARE NOT WHAT ARE IN MY BEST INTEREST. IF MY CONSCIENCE IS TELLING ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I KNOW IS NOT IN MY SELF INTEREST I SHOULD IGNORE IT. ISN'T THAT THE RATIONAL THING TO DO.
YOU ARE MAKING SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE COMPLICATED. IF GUILT AND PUNISHMENT ARE THE ONLY THINGS STOPPING YOU FROM DOING CERTAIN ACTS THAT ARE YOU IN YOUR BEST INTEREST, THEN IF YOU ARE SURE YOU CAN AVOID PUNISHMENT, THEN YOU SHOULD IGNORE YOUR GUILT AND DO IT.
WHY DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT STATEMENT.
SO YOU ARE SAYING YOU DON'T STEAL PURELY BECAUSE OF A FEAR OF PUNISHMENT AND GUILT. ABSENT THOSE TWO THINGS YOU WOULD STEAL.
THE ANSWER THAT WE ARE GENETICALLY PROGRAMMED TO FEEL CERTAIN THINGS DOESN'T ADDRESS MY ASSERTION. SUCH AN ASSERTION IS IRRELEVANT TO MY STATEMENT.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS I SAID THAT WITHOUT A HIGHER POWER, THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON (FEELINGS DO NOT QUALIFY AS A RATIONAL REASON) TO NOT STEAL IF STEALING WILL BENEFIT YOU AND YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE NO RETRIBUTION.
YOU AGREE WITH ME. WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU AGREE WITH ME INSTEAD OF MAKING IT COMPLICATED BY BRINGING UP STUFF THAT WAS IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT ASSERTION IS TRUE. THOSE BEING
1) THE ASSERTION DID NOT ASSERT THERE IS A HIGHER POWER. SO YOUR DISCUSSION OF A HIGHER POWER DID NOT ADDRESS THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT.
2) THE ASSERTION TALKS ABOUT RATIONAL DECISIONS, SO EMOTION, INSTINCT AND A CONSCIENCE ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE.
3) THERE ARE TIMES IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE YOU CAN STEAL WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF RETRIBUTION, SO MY EXAMPLE DOES HAVE A REAL WORLD APPLICATION.
Physicist:
It is impossible for me to remove my emotions and genetic tendencies. I can attempt to overrule them, but you cannot eliminate them. You are oversimplifying things by discounting them out of hand. They are extremely powerful in human behavior, and to remove them from the equation is not realistic in my estimation.
So your example is not realistic, and doesn't really reflect the human condition. For machines, perhaps this is possible.
Spanky:
You may not be able to eliminate them, but don't you think you can overrule the. In other words, can't humans act rationally or are we trapped by our instincts?
And if you can act rationally (by overruling them), and if you can avoid punishment, why act morally?
Physicist:
You can overrule them, but you can't not feel them - w/o radical brain surgery perhaps. These feelings and laws are the true source of your moral code, but by cutting them out you are left with nothing but creatures that are not human for your experiment - rendering it meaningless. I believe these items describe actual human behavior quite well, and no higher beings or universal moral codes are necessary.
Many people overrule their emotions in circumstances where (immediate) punishment can be avoided. Here's an example from Sam Harris:
The notion of moral community resolves many paradoxes of human behavior. How is it, after all, that a Nazi guard could return each day from his labors at the crematoria and be a loving father to his children? The answer is surprisingly straightforward: the Jews he spent the day with torturing and killing were not objects of his moral concern… As we have seen, religion is one of the great limiters of moral identity, since most believers differentiate themselves, in moral terms, from those who do not share their faith. P176
They are not part of his moral concern because they can't punish him in any way, and because he feels no guilt in people whom he cannot identify with (even though he is capable of emotions). And in that circumstance he is able to steal the ultimate thing from another person - their life.
Where's the universal code to stop this person? Why do we feel this is so abhorrent? Precisely because we react emotionally - we would feel immense guilt, and can't fathom how you can continue to act normally by going home and playing with your children after slaughtering 100s of innocent, helpless fellow humans. Yet, we give no second thoughts to men who do the same in this country every day when they return after slaughtering 100s of fellow creatures; it's just that those fellow creatures are only pigs or cows so they elicit no feelings since they are 'not objects of your moral concern.' Bon appetit!
|
Do you think your friend could introduce me to Eva Silverstein? |
