Thursday, August 28, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

by Sally Quinn - Washington Post

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/08/atheists_the_last_political_ou.html

Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Bob Tiernan is an agnostic. "I'm not a hard-core atheist", he says. He was raised a Catholic and went to Jesuit College and law school. He is a practicing lawyer who specializes in issues involving separation of church and state. He is also a Democrat. This week he was in Denver to protest what he sees as the dangerous mixing of religion and politics, and the sad exlusion of non-believers in a party known for its inclusiveness.

On Sunday, Tiernan attended the first event at the Democratic National Convention, an Interfaith Gathering attended by some 2,000 people at the Colorado Convention Center. Speaking were distinguished priests, rabbis, imams and religion scholars. "I sat through, I guess I'd have to call it, a service," says Tiernan. "People were responding in unison. In the middle, Leah Daughtry (a pastor and CEO of the Democratic National Convention Committee) spoke and said that despite what the media says, Democrats are people of faith."

Tiernan says he couldn't stand it any more. "I stood up and said, 'I'm a democrat but I'm not a person of faith.' I said, 'This looks like a church service to me and I never thought I would see the Democrats doing something like this." At that point, the police came and escorted Tiernan from the hall. They told him he could leave or stay and see what the Democrats wanted to do with him, so he stayed but nobody did anything so he left.

"The thing is," says Tiernan with a chuckle, "I'm not a career protester. I just don't like religion mixed with politics. It's wrong and it's dangerous."

The Interfaith Gathering was the first of several interfaith events scheduled during the convention. The Secular Coalition of America had written to Daughtry to ask that atheists, agnostics and secular humanists be included in these events. The Associated Press reported that she received the request but never responded.

The Democrats are in a real bind this year. In recent elections, the Republicans have owned religion. The evangelical base has helped Republican presidential candidates win elections while the Democrats have stood by helplessly. This year, the Democrats are bound to show they are just as religious as Republicans, but at what cost?

In his speeches, Barack Obama has talked not only about his own deep faith but about the rights of all Americans, including believers and non-believers. But if the Interfaith Gathering was an effort to show how inclusive they are, they failed. Between 10% and 12% of Americans openly say they're non-believers and many more privately admit to not being believers but feel it is socially unacceptable to say so in their communities.

At various times in years past, women, blacks, Jews and gays were the political outcasts in one or both parties. Now it seems the only group of untouchables are the atheists.

This year, the Democrats have chosen a black man as their presidential candidate and they nearly chose a woman. In 2000, a Jewish man was on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate. Gays have won the right to be married in several states and the Democrats now openly endorse civil unions.

Can you imagine an atheist running for or even being considered for President? Even Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church, an open-minded and inclusive evangelical, told Larry King that he could not vote for an atheist.

The Democrats know that they have a large non-believing constituency and they also know that to not accept them is the height of hypocrisy. On the other hand they realize that to recognize them formally would be the kiss of death.

So what is the party of unity, togetherness, compromise, inclusiveness and pluralism to do? Sadly, it seems they have taken Leah Daughtry's approach. Don't answer the mail.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, August 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 601 - 650 of 664 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

601. Comment #240396 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Okay, Richard, now's your chance to ban him, he'll never see it coming!

Other Comments by Diacanu

602. Comment #240397 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Diacanu-

I demand that you ban yourself for your persistent demands to ban Fanusi! Go stand in the corner!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

603. Comment #240398 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Stand in the corner.... but bring your laptop, cause that was hilarious!

Other Comments by J Mac

604. Comment #240403 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #240277 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

There are either no absolutes or some absolutes. It is not an absolute claim to say we must be skeptical. That is the scientific position, demonstrate absolutes or abandon them.

That is a great summary.

I think that, sometimes, we can lose track of which side we are on, and who our enemies and allies are. I don't think the intellectual battle we should be fighting should be atheism versus religion. It should be about absolutism versus skepticism. The foundation of reason is to admit that one might be wrong. I have many religious friends who are prepared to debate their views. I think that they are more friendly towards reason than atheists who have dogmatic views (such as libertarianism).

What we need to fight against is fundamentalism of any kind - be it religious, or political. I have come back after a short break and posted here because I think that there has been too little reaction here against political fundamentalism, perhaps because of the view that it may be an ally against religious fundamentalism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

605. Comment #240413 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 12:58 pm

ThoughtsCommonToad,

Of course, which is why I have been talking about using our human reason to discover these truths. But what is the position of the moral relativist? Nothing is absolute, all is realtive, and there's no point in even trying to find those truths. Because the quest to find any truth - moral or scientific - is based on the premise that those truths actually exist and that our reason is competent to understand them.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

606. Comment #240417 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Fanusi-

but what is the position of the moral relativist? Nothing is absolute, all is realtive, and there's no point in even trying to find those truths.

Prove it.

Other Comments by Diacanu

607. Comment #240418 by Paula Kirby on August 31, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Steve Zara: Have you read the excellent book "Evolving the Alien" by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen?

Afraid not, Steve. And I'm not going to make any rash promises either - I'm already feeling I'm going to need several lifetimes to read everything on my list.

I find the thought of eternal life utterly unappealing - the only thing that could reconcile me to the idea would be if I thought it would be a chance to do all the reading I hadn't had time to do during my Earth life. But reading doesn't seem to feature in any of the descriptions of the afterlife, does it? So just as well it's all mythical anyway.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

608. Comment #240420 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Because the quest to find any truth - moral or scientific - is based on the premise that those truths actually exist and that our reason is competent to understand them.

I think you have a seriously messed-up view of science. Science isn't about truths actually existing. It is about testing to see if a view might be right. Even if we get the evidence, it does not mean that the view is right, just that it hasn't yet been shown to be wrong.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

609. Comment #240427 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #240418 by Paula Kirby

Afraid not, Steve. And I'm not going to make any rash promises either - I'm already feeling I'm going to need several lifetimes to read everything on my list.

Fair enough. But I shall try and persuade you to put it high up on your list - it is an excellent book.

Indicentally, have you heard that our "mutual friend" David Robertson is writing a new book?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

610. Comment #240428 by NMcC on August 31, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Ken Ham of AIG has a rather 'healthy' attitude to incest. Whenever someone asks: 'Where did Cain get his wife?', he cheerfully proclaims that he married his sister. He then goes on to explain how 'back then' the gene pool hadn't yet gotten corrupted, and so God was was cool about the whole notion.

This always seems to me to be a tad dodgey from the Christian point of view. Surely God's objection to incest is based on concerns about ethics not genetics? Where am I going wrong here?

Whenever Ham strikes lucky (which, thankfully, isn't that often - I hope) and gets invited to address young kids, he always starts his tirade against 'evilution' by showing a picture of an ape-like creature and shouting out 'who thinks this is their grandmother?' I am fervently hoping for the day when he goes even more potty and, forgetting where he is, begins by shouting out 'Who wants to shag their sister?'

(The kids, of course, will be too young to understand the question - better put that in for the sake of propriety).

Other Comments by NMcC

611. Comment #240431 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Testing new avatar.

Other Comments by Diacanu

612. Comment #240432 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:26 pm

I think you have a seriously messed-up view of science. Science isn't about truths actually existing. It is about testing to see if a view might be right. Even if we get the evidence, it does not mean that the view is right, just that it hasn't yet been shown to be wrong.

Er... I'm an actual scientist, for the record. Of course when we investigate something we don't know that a given view or hypothesis is right - but we know that there is a view that will be right.

To give one example, I was testing the evolution of bacterial toxicity in a model strain over a series of generations. Starting out, I hypothesized that they'd become more toxic. This turned out to be not the case. They became less toxic.

That's the point. I didn't know what the correct answer was going to be, but I knew that there would be a correct answer.

Still, there's a more basic point here: "a seriously messed up view of science" - how very... absolutist. You're not invoking absolutes, are you steve? That'd be terrible! You keep saying so.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

613. Comment #240433 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Diacanu-

New avatar works!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

614. Comment #240435 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:29 pm

"how very... absolutist. You're not invoking absolutes, are you?"

Even if someone was speaking in absolutes about something not at all related to morality it does not mean there must be moral absolutes. Now your dichotomy has expanded to be either your moral system or complete nihilism in all areas?

I've got an absolute for you:

You're an absolute fuck wit.

Other Comments by J Mac

615. Comment #240437 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Comment #240432 by Fanusi Khiyal

Er... I'm an actual scientist, for the record. Of course when we investigate something we don't know that a given view or hypothesis is right - but we know that there is a view that will be right.

I have been an actual scientist for most of my life. I am 48, so that is a long time.

We don't know that there is a view that will be right. All views have to be shown to be possibly right by evidence. All views have to be questioned unless there is "proof".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

616. Comment #240440 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Getting absolutist, are we J Mac?

I've said this before: it isn't 'either my moral system'. I have not said that, I did not say that. What I have said is that, just as in the case of science, we may not know what the right answer to this or that question is, but the premise that there is a right answer forms the basis of all investigations.

I said multiple times that I'm happy to have an argument or a discussion about ethics - but how do you have an argument when it's denied that any answers are possible? Every time you condemn me or my writings, J Mac, you are doing so on the premise that there is some standard or measure by which I'm wrong.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

617. Comment #240443 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:39 pm

No I am doing so on the premise that there is some standard or measure by which you are arrogant and closed minded. But as it turns out there is nothing that can measure something that extreme.

No one has denied that answers are possible. Its just that no one here is willing to accept your answers simply because you repeat them the most.

Other Comments by J Mac

618. Comment #240445 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:40 pm

We don't know that there is a view that will be right. All views have to be shown to be possibly right by evidence. All views have to be questioned unless there is "proof".

Okay, explain that one. If there's no chance of a right answer - why investigate at all? Or if you are saying that there's potentially a right answer in some cases but not in others, then that itself is still open to investigation on a case by case basis - that is that the question "Does this problem have a right answer" is in itself answerable.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

619. Comment #240447 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:42 pm

No one has denied that answers are possible.

Really? Then what's all this talk about no absolutes in ethics? If there's no absolutes - how is any answer possible? How could you determine anything?

In your complaint against me, you once again invoked absolute characterizations - something you've been heavily against. If there are no absolutes, why do you use such language?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

620. Comment #240451 by Diacanu on August 31, 2008 at 1:45 pm

If there's no absolutes - how is any answer possible? How could you determine anything?

You lack imagination.
B-)

Other Comments by Diacanu

621. Comment #240454 by my lord of misrule on August 31, 2008 at 1:47 pm

In this realm of England, establishment ( of the C of E ) amounts to a form of state control of religion not a religious control of the state.
Of course in the good old U S of A, money talks. Religion is is big money and a has a big say. I know what side of the pond I would rather be on.

Up the diggers!

Other Comments by my lord of misrule

622. Comment #240457 by Paula Kirby on August 31, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Steve Zara: Indicentally, have you heard that our "mutual friend" David Robertson is writing a new book?

No one called David Robertson on my list of friends, I can assure you! Yes, I saw that he's planning to write a new book, based on the criticisms of his first one. Perhaps we should all be careful not to comment on book #2 at all - otherwise we risk him inflicting a third one on the world too.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

623. Comment #240459 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm

"If there's no absolutes - how is any answer possible?"

Geesh. Read your own posts Fanusi, you're like a broken record:

1) There is either absolute morality or no morality
2) I never said there was absolute morality or no morality
3) repeat 1 and 2 indefinitely.

Make up your damn mind and get back to us. Are you playing with that crappy dichotomy or not?

Other Comments by J Mac

624. Comment #240461 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Paula-

I thought there was just going to be a reprint of the old one- but a second?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

625. Comment #240462 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #240447 by Fanusi Khiyal

Reason is not based on consequences, but on evidence. If you wish to abandon reason because you don't like the lack of answers, then why not have a chat with David Robertson. I am sure he would appreciate another convert.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

626. Comment #240463 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:55 pm

J Mac what is the matter with you? I have said that there is an absolute basis for morality; my moral views may not be it (though I believe them to be correct, else I would not hold them), but any discussion, any argument about morality must take as its basis the premise that there is an absolute morality, which can be discovered by reason. Else, why argue? What's the point? What's the point of investigating, or discussing, or reasoning about the subject? If there is no absolute, nothing to be found, then why bother?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

627. Comment #240468 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 1:57 pm

. If you wish to abandon reason because you don't like the lack of answers

*dryly* I've just been studying the cosmological red-shift. Reason seems to have found plenty of answers there. Or are you saying they're not correct? Are you seriously saying that there are no answers to be found from reason?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

628. Comment #240475 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:01 pm

"any argument about morality must take as its basis the premise that there is an absolute morality"

Not true. By making that statement you are rejecting the work of a significant portion, if not a majority, of moral philosophers. And this is the false dichotomy you continually set up then subsequently deny when you are confronted on it.

Debating with you is like trying to slice water. Quit being a slimy weasel long enough to address the issues at hand... wait, you cant.

You are like the theist trying to debate the existence of god with the rule for the debate: any discussion of reality must take as its basis the premise that god exists.

If you cannot wrap your small mind around any views other than your own that is one thing; but to deny that any other views exist simply because you cannot wrap your mind around them is arrogant and unproductive.

You state the rule to debating your moral view is that we must first accept your moral rule. Fuck that.

Other Comments by J Mac

629. Comment #240476 by epeeist on August 31, 2008 at 2:02 pm

I would contend that in music there is only standard, namely that of J.S. Bach. Everything else is second rate, unworthy of attention.

In fact I would go further, even in Bach there is only one piece that is perfect, namely the Art of Fugue.

It is obvious to me that there must be objective absolutism in music and it is epitomised by this particular piece.

Other Comments by epeeist

630. Comment #240479 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Fanusi

That's the point. I didn't know what the correct answer was going to be, but I knew that there would be a correct answer.

Here's a question. Are moving electron "waves" or "particles"? What's the answer to that scientific question?

Is it that there are no answers to some questions? I suggest not. It's probably because we sometimes ask the wrong questions. Without asserting my own views I could suggest that you're coming to firm conclusions without even asking the right questions.

Whatever, you cannot ask questions like those and always be so sure that there is a correct answer (which is what you said).

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

631. Comment #240480 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

If there's anyone weasely here Jmac it's you: If there is no absolute standard by which to measure, by which to prove or disprove a moral assertion, if, in fact, those assertions can't be proved in any way - then why have any kind of moral discussion at all? Could you answer that for once?

You state the rule to debating your moral view is that we must first accept your moral rule

How many times do I have to say that I don't say that?

Oh, your tones are getting very, very absolutist again. Heal thyself!

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

632. Comment #240481 by flying goose on August 31, 2008 at 2:06 pm

epeeist

I agree absolutley

Other Comments by flying goose

633. Comment #240483 by Paula Kirby on August 31, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Quetz: I thought there was just going to be a reprint of the old one- but a second?

'Fraid so. Think I saw that in one of his posts somewhere, anyway.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

634. Comment #240484 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Epeeist, I like you're thinking. Good call.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

635. Comment #240485 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Lazarus,

Is it that there are no answers to some questions? I suggest not. It's probably because we sometimes ask the wrong questions. Without asserting my own views I could suggest that your coming to firm conclusions without even asking the right questions.

Oh, that's entirely possible. Then what're the right questions, though? I'd like to hear them.

But my more general point is this: the passage you have written suggest that there are right answers to be found - and it's just a matter of figuring out how to get them. Did I read that right?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

636. Comment #240489 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Fanusi

Ok, my assertion is that there are right answers to be found, but you have to ask appropriate questions.

To stay in the land of the vague, perhaps there is no such thing as morality. Perhaps there is no good and bad. So to ask whether incest is good or bad is not a question with a right answer (not in scientific terms)

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

637. Comment #240492 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Fanusi:

but any discussion, any argument about morality must take as its basis the premise that there is an absolute morality

Me:

How many times do I have to say that I don't say that?

Once more please. If you continue to yell your lie loud enough I might believe it. Mmm, no no I wont.

You say it in nearly every other post Fanusi, the ones in between are the ones where you deny saying it.

Other Comments by J Mac

638. Comment #240497 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 2:22 pm

JMac that there is an absolute morality, which may not necessarily be mine. An. Do you get this? Is this really so difficult? Is this point that any investigation has as its premise that there is an answer that we can find, though we may not know it yet, really so difficult?

Or are you, in fact saying that only my morality is absolute? Thanks, that's a nice compliment.

I very much doubt that your insane intellectual dishonesty will allow you to respond to any of those questions.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

639. Comment #240501 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 2:28 pm

"I very much doubt that your insane intellectual dishonesty will allow you to respond to any of those questions. "

I can respond to all of them:

Your "An" v. "Mine" distinction is beside the point. No one cares that much about your views, the debate in this thread has been about whether or not there can be a objective morality at all. It displays your arrogance however that you must assume it is all about you. It is not difficult to understand that distinction no. Is it difficult for you to understand that we cannot debate whether or not there is AN absolute moral system by taking as a premise that there is AN absolute moral system?

Only your morality is absolute? No, in fact I think you have one of the most subjective moralities I have ever encountered. If you find a view pleasing then you judge it to be objectively absolutely moral, if you find it displeasing you judge it to be absolutely objectively immoral. The views and arguments of others cannot dent your determination.

Other Comments by J Mac

640. Comment #240531 by Hellene on August 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm

590. Comment #240359 by Paula Kirby

From what I understand the deer population on the greek Island of Limnos was started by one pair of deer "gifted" to them from the island of Rhodes. A shepherd killed the male by bashing it on the head with a rock. He felt that the deer were competing with his sheep for grazing land. The female survived, and gave birth to a male. The Limnos herd is supposed to be the offspring of mother and son.

Other Comments by Hellene

641. Comment #240535 by Hellene on August 31, 2008 at 3:05 pm

EDIT double post.

Other Comments by Hellene

642. Comment #240540 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:10 pm

It displays your arrogance however that you must assume it is all about you

Oh, but JMac, time and time again, you have insisted that it the declaration that there is an absolute morality is synonomous with it being my absolute morality. Now you desperately try to retrench.

You call me arrogant, and all sorts of names - but what does that matter, if there is no absolute standard by which that can be gauged? This is the question that you don't answer - and you never will, as I think you are terrified of that answer.

If you find a view pleasing then you judge it to be objectively absolutely moral, if you find it displeasing you judge it to be absolutely objectively immoral. The views and arguments of others cannot dent your determination.

Even if this were true, and it is not, for I have learned much from many great moral teachers - even if it were true, what difference would it make to you? If there is no absolute morality by which my behaviour can be condemned, why do you try to do so? If there is no standard agaisnt which I can be measured and found lacking, why do you insist on finding me so? Every single commen here invokes the premise of there being such a standard. You are like the man who tries to argue against logic, and find that he has to invoke logic to argue against it, or the one who tries to argue against reason, but must accept reason to form his argument.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

643. Comment #240550 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Well, empirical science does have the premises that there is one objectively existent world out there and that we can gain knowledge about it.

It has to do that, and that's fine with me.

But the analogue for ethics would not be "there are absolute moral values", because for science, the premises assume that the domain exists and we have access to it. The analogue for ethics would be the premises that there are other agents and that our actions can influence them.

And no, ethics does not need to assume the existence of objective values. Again, you are making statements pertaining to a philosophical discipline when nearly all the experts disagree.

Would you do something similar in biology, or physics? I didn't think so.

The problem is, too many people think they somehow can question the majority of the experts in the field of philosophy, pertaining to philosophical questions.

Oh well..

In empirical science, we talk about observable things - spatio-temporal things and the structure and behaviour thereof. A statement of a physical fact would be like "behaviour b occurs in system S at time t", or "object o exhibits property p at time t" etc. How do we access and determine such things (or rather, attempt to falsify, and accept after corroboration)? Through observation.

What would a moral truth or fact even be?
Behaviour X causes suffering - that's a biological, social or physiological fact, not a moral one. "suffering is bad" would be.

We can know that you and I and most people think suffering is bad - but how could we know that it IS objectively bad - independent of what we and the others feel and think? What would objective moral values even be in our physical universe - and how could we discover "moral truths"?
We cannot observe moral values (since they do not exist), we can observe people acting under the conviction that they know about moral truths, people acting under moral convictions. But "truth" and "right"?

In the end - it is my decision that I accept an ethical system whose central thesis is

"An act is thought of as wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement."

(A much better theory than utilitarianism btw - for a comparison, see

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractualism/

It's a decision - not a discovery of truth.

And of course - 1)-4) (I listed them (p)ages ago) have not been demonstrated.

Other Comments by MPhil

644. Comment #240561 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 31, 2008 at 3:27 pm

We cannot observe moral values (since they do not exist

Then - and this is the question that keeps getting dodged - why argue about them? Why try to act in a moral manner, for that matter? Why try to figure out the right course of action? If moral values don't exist, why isn't every course of action and every code of values equal?

An act is thought of as wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement."

Mind if I just ask a few questions here? What is 'reasonably reject' - who decides that, and by what standard? If agreement is the basis, how does one form it?

The problem is, too many people think they somehow can question the majority of the experts in the field of philosophy, pertaining to philosophical questions.

*dryly* I'm restraining a snide comment. And the reason I'm restraining it is that there's a more serious one. Philosophy deals with fundamental issues - the nature of reality (metaphysics), our means of knowing it (epistemology), and how we should act (ethics).

What would objective moral values even be in our physical universe - and how could we discover "moral truths"?

I did say that there is a basic choice that needs to be taken, and that choice is to live. If you choose not to live, well, then that's not a problem for anyone, is it? But granting the choice to live has been made - and this is akin to your comment that it's a decision, not a discovery - then there are implications from that. Because if we have chosen to live, we have defined our life as a value - something we act to keep and protect. It follows that those courses of action which support that value are good, and thsoe that destroy it are evil. There are virtues - modes of action - that are demonstrably in the service of an individual's life: Justice, Honesty etc.

Yet there's still the more basic question: If there's no moral truths, no basis for right or wrong, what's the point of even discussing it? Some choose this, some choose that, and it's just a question of who dominates at whatever time. Seriously, could you explain that one to me?

Btw, thanks for the long post.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

645. Comment #240569 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:35 pm

If there is no absolute morality by which my behaviour can be condemned, why do you try to do so?

You are too bright to make statements like this, please.

I'm not even going to try to expand on what MPhil has been saying, he is far more intelligent and well versed on the subject than me (being that I know next to fuck all about the things he discusses). However, isn't the non-existence of objective morals just an obvious truth?

I can't understand all the fuss about this issue. How can things be somehow cosmically right or wrong?

I don't want to be hurt by someone else, and understand that others feel the same. Therefore, if we are to live together harmoniously and to maximise group benefits or happiness, we need to come up with a set of subjective rules about what is right or wrong.

Where is the problem?

Luckily, most of us have evolved emotional responses which make us want to not hurt, and in fact assist, others. This makes adherence to the rules somewhat possible.

If there is no standard agaisnt which I can be measured and found lacking, why do you insist on finding me so?

Because of our evolved emotional response, and because any act performed by you that harms another should, as far as possible, be contrary to the law of the land.

Stop sounding like a christian, please.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

646. Comment #240625 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Comment #240346 by J Mac

Science informed the above argument, but science alone could not make it. Some criteria had to exist outside of science for premise two.

Which, again, was my original contention. This discussion wasn't taking into account how science can inform philosophy in the process of pruning bad theories.

Comment #240349 by MPhil

Not true - some questions of philosophy are just not something to which empirical science can contribute anything, like "how to words refer to objects", or "what is existence"

With all due respect to you, to your amazing philosophical scholarship, and to philosophy for its undoubted merits, I find these statements amounting to little more than hogwash.

Philosophy has run around in circles to that question (and similar ones) for millennia, without being able to provide an unequivocal and satisfactory answer. What philosophy has had to show for it is diametrically opposed opinions of competing groups of thinkers, each one claiming to have refuted the others.

Science has answered it satisfactorily in less than 150 years, and I honestly doubt that there is anything to be add by anyone to the fact that, for something to exist, it has to be made of matter (anything that has mass and volume, if you prefer) or energy, which at closer scrutiny are one and the same.
I shall pre-empt your objections concerning ideas, fictional characters, and hypothetical entities pointing you to Meme Theory, unsurprisingly ostracised by many philosophers, because it further reveals philosophy as an obsolete tool for investigating many of the ever-shrinking complexities of reality. As for mathematical entities, let math take care of itself, which it does wonderfully.

Through the perfectly satisfactory reductionistic approach of Sheehan:

Automatic translations of patterns from substrate to substrate to substrate, and back again, provide looping pathways by which patterns can iteratively replicate, mutate and evolve. Many such looping pathways exist both within a single brain (to create an intelligent mind) and among many brains (to create culture, language and technology). We speak words through vibrational patterns of the larynx, which get translated to pressure waves in air, which then get translated to vibrations of a listener's ear drum, which then get translated to waves of cochlear fluid inside the inner ear, which then get translated to patterns of neural firings, which then get translated to patterns of neural connections, thereby establishing a memory of the spoken words in the listener's mind.

but I think you misunderstand philosophy.

It is most certainly the case, I am by no means an expert. I have studied with some attention what was required of me by my curriculum, and a certain deal more. I found science so much more informative, clear and personal-opinion-free, that I have devoted myself to what by all objective standards is our most effective tool for unlocking the secrets of the universe.
This doesn't and shouldnt' detract from the respect that I have for you and for many great philosophers, some of which I blame for being unable to recognise the failures of their methods, and for a degree of self-aggrandising attitude in the face of defeat.

We first need to morally value life and health in order for science to be able to tell us that we shouldn't commit incest, because all science can say is "incest is detrimental to life and health" - but it doesn't and can never tell us that life and health is morally good, that's prescriptive ethics.

Actually, I totally agree here. Earlier, I must have again expressed myself poorly.

A few minor quibbles, though. Isn't it most likely uncontroversial, by now, that health is preferable to sickness, or are the philosophers still debating over that one?

Secondly, to further my point on how science must inform philosophy: how could you even establish that a person is healthy without science to show it?
Take for example symptomless malignant cancer, where only clinical examinations can provide a realistic picture of a patient.

Concerning my "refutation" of utilitarianism

That will have to wait, sorry.

Paula

I hope this answers your question, too.

Other Comments by decius

647. Comment #240628 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Decius,

You answered my concern well, thank you.

Your earlier post did not seem clear as it seemed to claim that science alone could prescribe that one ought not engage in incest or that incest was bad.

"Isn't it most likely uncontroversial, by now, that health is preferable to sickness, or are the philosophers still debating over that one? "

I'd agree that is uncontroversial, but I will point out that the preference of health to sickness cannot be made (only informed) by science. Science can tell us what the consequences of various actions or decisions may be; it cannot tell us which consequences should be sought after.

Other Comments by J Mac

648. Comment #240641 by MPhil on August 31, 2008 at 6:40 pm

decius,

I find these statements amounting to little more than hogwash.

Oh dear....

Philosophy has run around in circles to that question (and similar ones) for millennia, without being able to provide an unequivocal and satisfactory answer.

I think you're falling into the trap of being both simplistic and circular - some questions just aren't empirical, and thus, you will never
get uniequivocal answers - you demand something that cannot be got because of the nature of what is investigated, not the tools and theories pertaining to that domain.

If you want to opt for logical empiricism and say that only empirical questions are meaningful, that's your prerogative, but that's a bad choice.

I shall pre-empt your objections concerning ideas, fictional characters, and hypothetical entities pointing you to Meme Theory, unsurprisingly ostracised by many philosophers, because it further reveals philosophy as an obsolete tool for investigating many of the ever-shrinking complexities of reality.

Bad choice - meme theory is nothing more than a useful metaphor, an interpretational device...it's not science... or would you care to tell me what the ontological status of memes is? No memeticist has ever answered that one - I#ve read Dawkins and Blackmore and Dennett, and I love their work. But meme theory is far, far too unscientific to be science. It is an interpretational device, nothing more.

And your claim about what meme theory reveals philosophy to be is just factually wrong, and frankly, quite arrogant.

Through the perfectly satisfactory reductionistic approach of Sheehan:

I'm a reductionist myself - but that account is no account at all of the denotation-relation, nor of the ontological status of fictional entities or any such thing.

I found science so much more informative, clear and personal-opinion-free, that I have devoted myself to what by all objective standards is our most effective tool for unlocking the secrets of the universe.

I love science, and I will agree that philosophy has much to do with personal opinion - but actually, that enriches it, since we get a far broader and more interesting range of theories. I personally find philosophy and empirical science just as interesting, informative etc.

As for the "secrets of the universe"... As I said, there are valid questions that cannot be approached empirically. But you seem not to be willing (a matter of taste or patience?) to appraoch these questions, and would rather sidestep them

As for mathematical entities, let math take care of itself, which it does wonderfully.

You'll forgive me if I don't find that satisfactory :) It is another valid question - that empirical science cannot answer.

That you don't think it worthy or interesting is fine with me - just as it is fine with me that people don't care about empirical science. I couldn't live without either philosophy or science - but each after his own, right?

This doesn't and shouldnt' detract from the respect that I have for you and for many great philosophers,

Thank you - I appreciate that.

some of which I blame for being unable to recognise the failures of their methods, and for a degree of self-aggrandising attitude in the face of defeat.

You'll get no argument from me here.

I would just ask you not to adopt logical empiricism and claim that only problems one can apporach empirically are worth investigating... because at times, your comment sounded a lot like it.

I think I don't have to tell you about the self-undermining nature of empiricism :)

Secondly, to further my point on how science must inform philosophy: how could you even establish that a person is healthy without science to show it?
Take for example symptomless malignant cancer, where only clinical examinations can provide a realistic picture of a patient.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this has anything to do with the point I was making :/

So, good day then :)

Other Comments by MPhil

649. Comment #240643 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 6:46 pm

"meme theory is nothing more than a useful metaphor, an interpretational device...it's not science"

*Sigh of relief*

I'm glad someone else brought that up. I'm rather tired of fighting that battle.

Very useful metaphor indeed, but not science.

Other Comments by J Mac

650. Comment #240652 by Bonzai on August 31, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Fanusi

Here is an analogy hopefully will clear things up.There may be an "absolutely" best way,--fastest and cheapest way,-- to get to B, say, take the tube.

You can find that out empirically by trying other modes of transportation: walking, take a taxi, take the bus. But this presumes that you do want to get to B to begin with.

Your little experiment,--trying out different ways to get to point B,--doesn't tell you why you should get to point B. Why not C? Now you may say why the hell do I want to go to C? I want to go to the mega store at B, there are only hospitals and factories in C. But this consideration is external to your scheme of comparing which is the best way of travel to B. It has to be taken for granted before you investigate the possible alternative modes of transportation.

So, the tube may be "absolutely" the best way to go to B. But it is not absolutely the best way because that depends on where you want to go. There may be good reasons that you only want to go to B, but that has to be specified beforehand.

Now your foes don't disagree that you should go to point B. They are saying that you should not say "the tube is the absolutely best way to travel" without the added condition "to B". This is really a rather pedantic debate imo.

Other Comments by Bonzai

Reload Comments | Back to Top