Rape Is Natural?
Watchtower~Weekly
Subject: Re: We are Primates and behave like primates.. free all
rapist today!
View: Complete Thread (272 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,
alt.support.depression.teens, alt.support.rape-survivors
Date: 1999/08/06
Well then you should protest to the american public school
system, that
teaches
that man is a mere animal, and when his biological urge occur,
he will act
acordingly.
Or does anyone denies That Humans are nothing more than evolved
super ape..
is Morals taught in school? in science?
or are morals part of religion that is taught as myth...
Rape is a very horrible thing,
what is more horrible, is that the teaching of evolution teaches
kids to
take a chance..
How many rape victims will ever be able to take thier victims to
court?
how many got away with it? and will never be caught, because
they learn that
human are here by mere chance,
and you only got one life to live. Take that chance, teache
evolution.. and
hence rapist take the chance and get away with it.
My wife was raped.. she could not ever Identify who did it..
in new york my oldest "daughter" was raped at 13, her rapist got
away with
it.. the was mentally damage so bad, that I had to remove her
from the
household.. 38,000 dollar for just to weeks at a juvinile
facilty for
nothing..
this is what evolution teaches...
and people on TO, say that I force out the home, when they do
not have all
the facts..
I would castrate the bastard who did it..
but I wil lnot have that oportunity.. so you guys can forward
this to my ISP
as well..
:RAPE OBSESSION?
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Gantz
nature, and other apes do the same.
so what is your point?
Cyde Weys
Gantz wrote:
> It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> nature, and other apes do the same.
>
> so what is your point?
Rape is natural in some animals.
But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
It's highly inadvisable to base your system of ethics and morals on a
single scientific theory, anyway.
Martin Willett
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>
>
and none of them had the decency to stop it.
Don't miss the show, a live webcast of the wrath of the gods!
#####
#### _\_
#### @ @
####. _\
##########____________ ~ ~ ~ SMITE!
##### #### |_\
#####`####-----. |''
#( # :### `.|
#| |# #|
#| | |
| | |
/__|==[]=<
|.. |
''' |
| |
| |
/ |
| http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
/ |
/___________\
SmiteCam\__/__/
Tuesday 14th June 2005
http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
--
Martin Willett
EKur...@aol.com
> Gantz wrote:
> > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> > nature, and other apes do the same.
"Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to
one another, are nature's every day performances." John Stuart Mill
> > so what is your point?
>
> Rape is natural in some animals.
>
> But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
> discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
>
> It's highly inadvisable to base your system of ethics and morals on a
> single scientific theory, anyway.
Naturalistic Fallacy
Description:
The argument tries to draw a conclusion about how things ought to be
based solely on information about how things are in fact. The
conclusion may be about moral duties or about ideal states of affairs;
but the unstated (and false) premiss is that we must always accept
things as they are.
Examples:
"According to the Theory of Evolution, the best creatures will survive.
Therefore we shouldn't make special efforts to feed the poor. If they
can't survive on their own, that just means they aren't as good as we
are."
"There have always been wars. Hence there is no reason for you to
object that our bombing of Serbia was morally wrong."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/naturalistic.asp
Cyde Weys
EKur...@aol.com wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Gantz wrote:
> > > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> > > nature, and other apes do the same.
>
> "Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to
> one another, are nature's every day performances." John Stuart Mill
Wow, I hadn't heard that quote before. That is a very apt quote! It
figures that he is a utilitarianism <
http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm >
> > > so what is your point?
> >
> > Rape is natural in some animals.
> >
> > But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
> > discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
> >
> > It's highly inadvisable to base your system of ethics and morals on a
> > single scientific theory, anyway.
>
> Naturalistic Fallacy
> Description:
> The argument tries to draw a conclusion about how things ought to be
> based solely on information about how things are in fact. The
> conclusion may be about moral duties or about ideal states of affairs;
> but the unstated (and false) premiss is that we must always accept
> things as they are.
Excellent, I hadn't heard this particular fallacy put into name before,
but thanks a lot for codifying it. This is very true. The way things
are is not the way they should ideally be.
Heck, even from the raw principles of evolution we know rape isn't
necessarily right. Evolution operates on a "whatever works" principle,
not what is ideal. As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
Ken Shaw
Ken
Cyde Weys
Ken Shaw wrote:
> Would everyone watch the crossposts. No need to help jabby in his vendetta.
Gantz is Jabby? That would explain the morosity, porosity, and
stunning lack of sagacity as displayed by Gantz.
iksg...@gmail.com
EKur...@aol.com wrote:
> Naturalistic Fallacy
> Description:
> The argument tries to draw a conclusion about how things ought to be
> based solely on information about how things are in fact. The
> conclusion may be about moral duties or about ideal states of affairs;
> but the unstated (and false) premiss is that we must always accept
> things as they are.
>
> Examples:
> "According to the Theory of Evolution, the best creatures will survive.
> Therefore we shouldn't make special efforts to feed the poor. If they
> can't survive on their own, that just means they aren't as good as we
> are."
>
You know my football coach said something similar.
iksg...@gmail.com
Cyde Weys wrote:
> Gantz wrote:
> > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> > nature, and other apes do the same.
> >
> > so what is your point?
>
> Rape is natural in some animals.
Oh cut me a break. Human are animals. Biology 101.
>
> But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
> discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
You blew it with "morals". I can understand ethics. Morals is a
religious concept. And rape is ecouraged, have you ever seen a good
porno flick?
Rape is all about sex. Force violent rape is bad, however it is a
stargety for population continuence by an individual and a collectice
society. And that is history amigo.
>
> It's highly inadvisable to base your system of ethics and morals on a
> single scientific theory, anyway.
No such thing as morals.
And as for theories: Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape:
Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (2000). Whereas Thornhill and
Palmer have argued that sexual aggression is simply the product of
human evolution (i.e. "human nature"),
iksg...@gmail.com
Cyde Weys wrote:
> As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
You really don't live in the real world. Tell me Oh grand Kemosabe, How
come we do not live in the ideal world?
Ever heard of the tombstone theory?
Zachriel
iksg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Gantz wrote:
> > > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> > > nature, and other apes do the same.
> > >
> > > so what is your point?
> >
> > Rape is natural in some animals.
>
> Oh cut me a break. Human are animals. Biology 101.
>
> >
> > But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
> > discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
>
> You blew it with "morals". I can understand ethics. Morals is a
> religious concept. And rape is ecouraged, have you ever seen a good
> porno flick?
> Rape is all about sex. Force violent rape is bad, however it is a
> stargety for population continuence by an individual and a collectice
> society. And that is history amigo.
>
> >
> > It's highly inadvisable to base your system of ethics and morals on a
> > single scientific theory, anyway.
>
> No such thing as morals.
That is incorrect. Scientific evidence indicates that primates have an
innate sense of right and wrong, justice and fairplay, as befits social
creatures. Most humans have a strong sense of empathy, at least for
those who are close to us.
EKur...@aol.com
> Heck, even from the raw principles of evolution we know rape isn't
> necessarily right. Evolution operates on a "whatever works" principle,
> not what is ideal. As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
But which ideal? Supposing that we can reason our way to an ideal of
conduct is the naturalistic fallacy in another form. It may be that the
ideal is just a set of evolved predispositions, no more logically
compelling than selfishness. Consider the following from Pinker's "The
Blank Slate" (p 261):
"In the real world, people differ genetically in their selfish
tendencies. And in models of the evolution of altruism, actors may
evolve differences in their selfish tendencies. It could be a
coincidence, but it probably is not. Several biologists have adduced
evidence that psychopathy is a cheating strategy that evolved by
frequency-dependent selection. Statistical analyses show that a
psychopath, rather than merely falling at the end of a continuum for
one or two traits, has a distinct cluster of traits (superficial charm,
impulsivity, irresponsibility, callousness, guiltlessness, mendacity,
and exploitiveness) that sets him off from the rest of the population.
And many psychopaths show none of the subtle physical abnormalities
produced by biological noise, suggesting that psychopathy is not always
a biological mistake. The psychologist Linda Mealey has argued that
frequency-dependent selection has produced at least two kinds of
psychopaths. One kind consists of people who are genetically
predisposed to psychopathy regardless of how they grow up. The other
kind is made up of people who are predisposed to psychopathy only in
certain circumstances, namely when they perceive themselves to be
competitively disadvantaged in society and find themselves at home in a
group of other antisocial peers."
Positive Sex Fiend
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Gantz wrote:
> > > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> > > nature, and other apes do the same.
> > >
> > > so what is your point?
> >
> > Rape is natural in some animals.
>
> Oh cut me a break. Human are animals. Biology 101.
>
> >
> > But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
> > discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
>
> You blew it with "morals". I can understand ethics. Morals is a
> religious concept.
Wrong, numbnuts. "Morals" is not a religious concept. "Ethics" are a
group decided code of conduct. These are generally things that are put
into writing by a professional organization and are meant for the members
of that organization or for the practitioners of a particular profession.
"Morals" are the INDIVIDUAL set of rules that a person lives by; how an
individual decides what is "right" and what is "wrong".
> And rape is ecouraged, have you ever seen a good
> porno flick?
> Rape is all about sex. Force violent rape is bad, however it is a
> stargety for population continuence by an individual and a collectice
> society. And that is history amigo.
>
> >
> > It's highly inadvisable to base your system of ethics and morals on a
> > single scientific theory, anyway.
>
> No such thing as morals.
Catch a clue!
> And as for theories: Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape:
> Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (2000). Whereas Thornhill and
> Palmer have argued that sexual aggression is simply the product of
> human evolution (i.e. "human nature"),
--
"It is ordinarily said that criminal law is designed to protect property
and to protect persons, and if society's only interest in controlling sex
behavior were to protect persons, then the criminal codes concerned with
assault and battery should provide adequate protection. The fact that there
is a body of sex laws which is apart from the laws protecting persons is
evidence of their distinct function, namely that of protecting custom."
~ Alfred Kinsey, W. Pomeroy and C. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male,
(Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 1948)
Cyde Weys
iksg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Gantz wrote:
> > > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
> > > nature, and other apes do the same.
> > >
> > > so what is your point?
> >
> > Rape is natural in some animals.
>
> Oh cut me a break. Human are animals. Biology 101.
You obviously know nothing about me or my posting history if you think
I consider humans not to be animals.
> >
> > But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
> > discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
>
> You blew it with "morals". I can understand ethics. Morals is a
> religious concept.
Morals are not a religious concept. It is only the religious who would
have you believe that.
> And rape is ecouraged, have you ever seen a good porno flick?
This says a lot more for your disgusting viewing habits than anything
ingrained about the human race. For the record, all of the porno I
watch is not only consensual, but it's shown as consensual on-screen
too (i.e. simulated rape doesn't count as being consensual just because
the actors are getting paid and know it's not real).
> Rape is all about sex. Force violent rape is bad, however it is a
> stargety for population continuence by an individual and a collectice
> society. And that is history amigo.
Rape is not a valid reproductive strategy at all. Try it and get
locked up. No further reproducing or taking care of kids for you.
TomS
<1117031870....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Cyde Weys stated..."
But, what if these features of the world of life are due to
"intelligent design", rather than "mere chance" (as the anti-
evolutionists like to put it)?
Can we draw moral consequences from "the way things were
designed to be"?
If we have the bodies of animals because of a purposeful
decision by our intelligent designers, does that mean that we
ought to "act like animals"?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
Cyde Weys
EKur...@aol.com wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Heck, even from the raw principles of evolution we know rape isn't
> > necessarily right. Evolution operates on a "whatever works" principle,
> > not what is ideal. As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> > go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
>
> But which ideal? Supposing that we can reason our way to an ideal of
> conduct is the naturalistic fallacy in another form. It may be that the
> ideal is just a set of evolved predispositions, no more logically
> compelling than selfishness. Consider the following from Pinker's "The
> Blank Slate" (p 261):
You make a good point. Ideal is indeed relative. I consider ideal to
be what is best for the largest number of people. This will be a very
diverse society as there is a large range in what is best for different
people. Regardless, I think we can all agree that we are very far from
ideal right now.
Cyde Weys
iksg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> > go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
>
> You really don't live in the real world. Tell me Oh grand Kemosabe, How
> come we do not live in the ideal world?
Because the ideal world is impossible. Just because something is
impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get closer to it.
> Ever heard of the tombstone theory?
No I haven't. Please edify me, Oh grand Kemosabe.
Zachriel
EKur...@aol.com wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Heck, even from the raw principles of evolution we know rape isn't
> > necessarily right. Evolution operates on a "whatever works" principle,
> > not what is ideal. As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> > go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
>
> But which ideal? Supposing that we can reason our way to an ideal of
> conduct is the naturalistic fallacy in another form. It may be that the
> ideal is just a set of evolved predispositions, no more logically
> compelling than selfishness.
That's correct. Love, compassion, a sense of justice, are evolved
predispositions. Ants are social creatures that have none of these
characteristics. However, humans have these predispositions, including
a complex social structure devised to reinforce these aspects of our
nature. Even criminals often experience regret for their actions, or
justify it in their minds. "I never killed anybody who didn't need
killing." "She had it coming"
Love, compassion and regret are not logical, but are quite natural in
the majority of the human species.
Zachriel
Zachriel wrote:
> EKur...@aol.com wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > Heck, even from the raw principles of evolution we know rape isn't
> > > necessarily right. Evolution operates on a "whatever works" principle,
> > > not what is ideal. As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> > > go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
> >
> > But which ideal? Supposing that we can reason our way to an ideal of
> > conduct is the naturalistic fallacy in another form. It may be that the
> > ideal is just a set of evolved predispositions, no more logically
> > compelling than selfishness.
>
> That's correct. Love, compassion, a sense of justice, are evolved
> predispositions. Ants are social creatures that have none of these
> characteristics. However, humans have these predispositions, including
> a complex social structure devised to reinforce these aspects of our
> nature. Even criminals often experience regret for their actions, or
> justify it in their minds. "I never killed anybody who didn't need
> killing." "She had it coming"
>
> Love, compassion and regret are not logical, but are quite natural in
> the majority of the human species.
However, once accepting certain philosophical precepts, then logic can
be used to derive codes of behavior. For instance, by placing an a
priori value on human life, we can derive laws against murder. This may
be the sense that Cyde Weys intends when referring to an "ideal".
Scott
"Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:1117036727.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Naturalistic Fallacy.
Naturalism: There are no moral values in nature. Nature is amoral. If you
put an a priori value on human life, an inherent dignity, you are rejecting
philosophical Naturalism. There can be contractual civil rights but no
natural rights.
Scott
EKur...@aol.com
Where's the fun in t.o when you agree with everyone?
One might add that some aspects of religion (eternity of suffering etc)
are pretty obviously an attempt to scare the recalcitrant minority into
behaving themselves. This creates distortions of understanding in the
religious: many of them cannot imagine the autonomous operation of
conscience, and inevitably conclude that atheism implies immorality or
amorality. In fact, the problem of conscience is more acute for the
atheist since he has no source of forgiveness - unlike Catholics, for
example, who can sin from Saturday to Thursday, confess on Friday, and
then be back sinning again the next day.
iksg...@gmail.com
Zachriel wrote:
> That is incorrect. Scientific evidence indicates that primates have an
> innate sense of right and wrong, justice and fairplay, as befits social
> creatures.
BOING!! It is called instincts.
>Most humans have a strong sense of empathy, at least for
> those who are close to us.
>
>
Instincts. You creationist should need to stop anthromorphing animals
into moralistic beings from another dimension.
iksg...@gmail.com
Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> Rape is not a valid reproductive strategy at all. Try it and get
> locked up. No further reproducing or taking care of kids for you.
Let me show you how Parent treat their kids into todays world. A world
you refuse to belive in.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/8976501.htm
as for rapist getting away, you have to think in the whole world, not
Meaganville USA
http://www.dancewithshadows.com/rapes_india.asp
New Delhi - the rape capital of India?
Mumbai cop rapes girl in Marine Drive
Rapes are being reported from the capital of India with alarming
regularity. The latest has been the rape of a Swiss diplomat who was
abducted from the IFFI parking lot and raped in her own car. The same
day, a girl student was raped by a school principal.
The intention of this story is not to declare Delhi, or any other city,
the rape capital. We try to examine the social causes specific to the
cities under discussion that lead to rapes and associated crimes.
There is no intention in this article to justify rape. But we do
seriously plan to examine the issue of rape in all its aspects. We
shall try to steer clear of conventional wisdom. After all,
conventional wisdom has been around for as long as society existed, and
rapes still do continue.
Who gets raped?
Everyone. According to some statistics, only one in 69 rape cases in
India are even reported. Only 20 % of those reported result in
convictions for the rape accused.
http://www.malostratos.com/contenido/biblioteca/articulos/rapethemostintimate2.htm
Get back to me, When you decide to join the planet Earth.
Zachriel
Love is natural in humans. So are feelings of compassion and justice.
To say that people yearn to be free is a naturalistic (and true)
assertion. It does not apply to Nature in general.
A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
intellectual discourse. They are usually based on shared values.
>
> Scott
iksg...@gmail.com
Cyde Weys wrote:
> iksg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> >
> > > As intelligent beings it is our responsibility to
> > > go further than "whatever works" and try to create the ideal.
> >
> > You really don't live in the real world. Tell me Oh grand Kemosabe, How
> > come we do not live in the ideal world?
>
> Because the ideal world is impossible. Just because something is
> impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get closer to it.
>
Actually the higher echelons of society does exactly that, let other
try to achieve the impossible, why they make use of the availible.
These individuals survive. Those idealist are the one that die off very
young, like those american soldier in Iraq.
> > Ever heard of the tombstone theory?
>
> No I haven't. Please edify me, Oh grand Kemosabe.
You recall a drug, or a car, after x amount of people have died.
the drug of the day is Crestor.
Remember Vioxx?
Vietnam anyone?
VoiceOfReason
And his preoccupation with rape.
Lance
crossposting flametroll like J@briol/Gantz/iksgorkon/geister,
trim as many groups as possible from
the NG line to target your audiance. Folks in s.a.p. already
know not to followup the J@bster, they, one and all, think
J@bby is a first class freaked out religious megakook.
My feed does not carry alt.talk.creationism so this has been
also removed. J@BR10L is utterly untouchable except for
certain criminal actions he has propogated on the UseNet which
has caused him to resort to anonymous remailers. He was
responsible in encouraging one member of another group to
commit suicide. He was also blocked from posting to a rape
support group as he advocated that women who were raped and
had subsequently abortions should be reraped because they
interferred with the will of god. He is a genuinely vicious,
coldhearted and deamonic spirit on the UseNet, he cares
nothing about any group, not even ARJW, as posters to the
group claim that he single handedly destroyed the group making
it a breeding ground of forgers and other malicious posters.
He will use any group that serves his goals of creating flame
wars into groups he has a bone to pick, s.a.p. is one because
it discusses the evolution of humans.
General Rule number #2- be wary of following up or attacking
people who post from anonymous remailers, this is an
incredibly difficult way of posting, and therefore they must
have a good reason, like they don't have anyother choice.
Regular posters of groups who are engaged in topical
discussions should use proper 'given' names as there is a
certain malice associated with anonymous posting in most folks
experiences.
IOW get smart fast and J@BR!0L will leave your group.
Ignore him, reduce the number of groups in followup. I can
assure that he will move to more fertile ground quickly.
He has not interest in rec.ponds except to dupe in niave
UseNet participants into a flame war. ~Roy~ is exactly doing
as Jabriol wants, willing or unwilling, he is now a
participant in the J@BS attempt at paralyzing groups with
floods of offtopic messages. He may even be one of Jabriols
sockpuppets.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Robert
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Geister
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not iksgorkon
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Gantz
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not judgedred
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Usenet Hegemon
Ignore the nym shifting king of killfiles pro rape pervert. He's
not worth replying to. Regards
Scott
yes it *is*.
> So are feelings of compassion and justice.
as are a lack of feelings of compassion and justice *is* also natural in
humans. De-empathizing an enemy *is* natural to humans.
> To say that people yearn to be free is a naturalistic (and true)
> assertion.
Yes it *is*. But *is* it universal to all humans trans-culturally, and
trans-historically? And if it *is* *ought* that mean anything other than the
fact?
> It does not apply to Nature in general.
We can observe social behavior and say this *is* natural to humans. The
problem, however, we can't go from what *is* natural human behavior to how
humans *ought* to behave towards each other without committing a
Naturalistic Fallacy. (See J. L. Mackie's ought-is problem.). For
Naturalism, there are no truth-values in ethics.
Do animals have natural rights?
Do animals have animal rights?
Do humans have animal rights?
Do humans have human rights?
Do humans have natural rights?
No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds there
are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to anything) in
nature; If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical Rights,
Natualism is false. I've had people tell me "humans have human rights by
virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say tautology.
>
> A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
> intellectual discourse.
But that doesn't make the a priori true. We can imagine anything but
imagining won't make *it* real. The belief is real but the thing itself (the
assumption) isn't real. We imagine god is real and argue over his nature, we
imagine morality is realsim and argue over *is/ought* right and wrongs. We
imagine humans (and some of us, other animals) have some inherent dignity
leading to inalienable rights and argue over what those rights are or ought
to be. All of those are the stuff of invent myth - mythologies. Both
ethicists and theologians are in the business of inventing coherent myth. If
that isn't true Naturalism is false; Nature is both atheistic and amoral.
The Naturalistic Fallacy cuts both way: To say homosexuality is immoral
because sex is for procreation is fallacious. To say humans have inherent
rights and the bases for those rights is founded upon natural human empathy
is also fallacious.
>They are usually based on shared values.
Yes, I'll give that this *is* the bases of conractual civil rights but what
of people who (esp. those of other cultures/countries) don't share the same
values?
Scott
Zachriel
Note that it is often necessary for people and societies to
*dehumanize* the enemy in order to kill or subjugate it.
>
> > To say that people yearn to be free is a naturalistic (and true)
> > assertion.
>
>
> Yes it *is*. But *is* it universal to all humans trans-culturally, and
> trans-historically? And if it *is* *ought* that mean anything other than the
> fact?
Nope. Just an observation. People dislike being chained indefinitely in
cold, dank prisons.
>
>
> > It does not apply to Nature in general.
>
> We can observe social behavior and say this *is* natural to humans. The
> problem, however, we can't go from what *is* natural human behavior to how
> humans *ought* to behave towards each other without committing a
> Naturalistic Fallacy. (See J. L. Mackie's ought-is problem.). For
> Naturalism, there are no truth-values in ethics.
The way to transcend the problem is through simple agreement to basic
principles, as in "we hold these truths". If you don't share those
values, then the conclusions would be unsupported; but if you do share
those values, then there are inevitable consequences.
>
> Do animals have natural rights?
> Do animals have animal rights?
> Do humans have animal rights?
> Do humans have human rights?
> Do humans have natural rights?
>
> No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds there
> are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to anything) in
> nature; If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical Rights,
> Natualism is false. I've had people tell me "humans have human rights by
> virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say tautology.
A shared value among people. The notion of rights are defined by
people. It stems from their simian predilection for justice and
fairplay.
>
>
> >
> > A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
> > intellectual discourse.
>
> But that doesn't make the a priori true.
Axioms are agreed upon principles, not something proven. In the case of
human values, they are based upon shared experience. If you don't share
those values, then obviously you would reject any conclusions based on
their axiomatic assumption. Insect-creatures from Xortz would not
necessarily share those values. However, Xortzians value humans,
too--as food.
> We can imagine anything but
> imagining won't make *it* real.
What is real is that most humans share certain values. Those that do
can discuss those values and their implications. You can join the
discussion, if you want.
> The belief is real but the thing itself (the
> assumption) isn't real. We imagine god is real and argue over his nature, we
> imagine morality is realsim and argue over *is/ought* right and wrongs. We
> imagine humans (and some of us, other animals) have some inherent dignity
> leading to inalienable rights and argue over what those rights are or ought
> to be. All of those are the stuff of invent myth - mythologies. Both
> ethicists and theologians are in the business of inventing coherent myth. If
> that isn't true Naturalism is false; Nature is both atheistic and amoral.
>
> The Naturalistic Fallacy cuts both way: To say homosexuality is immoral
> because sex is for procreation is fallacious. To say humans have inherent
> rights and the bases for those rights is founded upon natural human empathy
> is also fallacious.
>
>
> >They are usually based on shared values.
>
> Yes, I'll give that this *is* the bases of conractual civil rights but what
> of people who (esp. those of other cultures/countries) don't share the same
> values?
The majority of people do share fundamental values, and the solution is
to find common ground where possible. If you reject that life has an
intrinsic value, then would be no convincing you by rational argument.
Do you reject this assertion? Of course you don't. Common ground. Life
is better than death. Freedom is better than slavery.
>
> Scott
Matthew Isleb
<snip>
> No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds
> there are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to
> anything) in nature;
Naturalism holds that if something exists, it must be natural. Or rather,
there must be some natural cause for it to exist. I've never seen a
definition of naturalism that even mentions "rights."
If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical
> Rights, Natualism is false.
No, it just means that rights have some natural cause or basis.
I've had people tell me "humans have human
> rights by virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say
> tautology.
How can naturalism be false? It is just a way of viewing the universe.
You are committing a category error by trying to fit an abstract concept
such as "rights" into the inherently concrete model of naturalism.
>> A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
>> intellectual discourse.
>
> But that doesn't make the a priori true. We can imagine anything but
> imagining won't make *it* real. The belief is real but the thing itself
> (the assumption) isn't real. We imagine god is real and argue over his
> nature, we imagine morality is realsim and argue over *is/ought* right
> and wrongs. We imagine humans (and some of us, other animals) have some
> inherent dignity leading to inalienable rights and argue over what those
> rights are or ought to be. All of those are the stuff of invent myth -
> mythologies.
You have a pretty poor understanding of what mythology is, I'm afraid.
> Both ethicists and theologians are in the business of
> inventing coherent myth.
What about mathematicians? By your reasoning, mathematicians are just
inventing coherent myth.
Theologians are in the business of deciphering myth. Ethicists are in the
business of resolving conflicts within human nature... nothing to do with
mythology.
> If that isn't true Naturalism is false; Nature
> is both atheistic and amoral.
Category error.
I am getting the impression that you have difficulty with abstract ideas
in general.
> The Naturalistic Fallacy cuts both way: To say homosexuality is immoral
> because sex is for procreation is fallacious.
It is only fallacious because it implies that there can only be one
function/purpose for sexuality.
> To say humans have
> inherent rights and the bases for those rights is founded upon natural
> human empathy is also fallacious.
Why?
>>They are usually based on shared values.
>
> Yes, I'll give that this *is* the bases of conractual civil rights but
> what of people who (esp. those of other cultures/countries) don't share
> the same values?
Many things can happen in this case including going to war, diplomacy,
avoid interaction, accept the differences, and so on.
-matthew
Scott
Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or
extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
What actually happens is the society de-empathizes with its enemy.
>
>
>>
>> > To say that people yearn to be free is a naturalistic (and true)
>> > assertion.
>>
>>
>> Yes it *is*. But *is* it universal to all humans trans-culturally, and
>> trans-historically? And if it *is* *ought* that mean anything other than
>> the
>> fact?
>
>
> Nope. Just an observation. People dislike being chained indefinitely in
> cold, dank prisons.
Two people spending much of their time sitting in a cold dark cell. One is a
prisoner the other a monk.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > It does not apply to Nature in general.
>>
>> We can observe social behavior and say this *is* natural to humans. The
>> problem, however, we can't go from what *is* natural human behavior to
>> how
>> humans *ought* to behave towards each other without committing a
>> Naturalistic Fallacy. (See J. L. Mackie's ought-is problem.). For
>> Naturalism, there are no truth-values in ethics.
>
> The way to transcend the problem is through simple agreement to basic
> principles, as in "we hold these truths". If you don't share those
> values, then the conclusions would be unsupported; but if you do share
> those values, then there are inevitable consequences.
There are no truth-values in Naturalism. "We hold these truths to be
self-evident (intuitionism)...endowed by their Creator..." Morality in this
view is objective having claims to truth-values. It is Jefferson profession
to a belief in Moral Truth.
>
>
>>
>> Do animals have natural rights?
>> Do animals have animal rights?
>> Do humans have animal rights?
>> Do humans have human rights?
>> Do humans have natural rights?
>>
>> No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds
>> there
>> are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to anything) in
>> nature; If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical Rights,
>> Natualism is false. I've had people tell me "humans have human rights by
>> virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say tautology.
>
>
> A shared value among people. The notion of rights are defined by
> people. It stems from their simian predilection for justice and
> fairplay.
Within contractualism. But it's a leap of faith to go from "rights defined
by people" within a culture to all people are endowed with such rights
universally.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
>> > intellectual discourse.
>>
>> But that doesn't make the a priori true.
>
>
> Axioms are agreed upon principles, not something proven. In the case of
> human values, they are based upon shared experience. If you don't share
> those values, then obviously you would reject any conclusions based on
> their axiomatic assumption. Insect-creatures from Xortz would not
> necessarily share those values. However, Xortzians value humans,
> too--as food.
Those axioms must fit within a global philosophy such as Naturalism. If
nature has no natural values, how can natural rights exist?
>
>
>> We can imagine anything but
>> imagining won't make *it* real.
>
>
> What is real is that most humans share certain values. Those that do
> can discuss those values and their implications. You can join the
> discussion, if you want.
We can argue which values ought to be the correct one. But since both our
values have no objective princple to guage them to, both or values are
correct...for us. For example: Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers argue over what
ought to be the values all the time. Both are simply right.
I wager there are a lot of people in TO who believe life has no intrinsic
value and that life just is.
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems
eaningless." - Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes.
>
> Do you reject this assertion? Of course you don't. Common ground. Life
> is better than death. Freedom is better than slavery.
I might agree with you but those aren't facts.
Scott
Smiler
<iksg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117033889.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>> Gantz wrote:
>> > It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
>> > nature, and other apes do the same.
>> >
>> > so what is your point?
>>
>> Rape is natural in some animals.
>
> Oh cut me a break. Human are animals. Biology 101.
>
>>
>> But we as people have our own system of ethics and morals that strongly
>> discourage such actions, so I don't see the problem.
>
> You blew it with "morals". I can understand ethics. Morals is a
> religious concept. And rape is ecouraged, have you ever seen a good
> porno flick?
> Rape is all about sex. Force violent rape is bad, however it is a
> stargety for population continuence by an individual and a collectice
> society. And that is history amigo.
Rape is not *all* about sex and reproduction.
Think of male on male rape.... Not much population continuence happening there,
is there?
Rape is primarily about power (the power of the rapist over the victim).
In history, rape and pillage were used to show the conquered that the
victors had the power to do as they liked and that the conquered were now
powerless.
Yes, there is a sexual element there, but it's minor compared to the power
element.
As for population continuance, most rapists couldn't care less if their victims
got pregnant.
All they want is the power and sexual release.
That their victims feel powerless and scared is an added bonus to them.
Smiler
John McKendry
>
>
> Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Would everyone watch the crossposts. No need to help jabby in his vendetta.
>
> Gantz is Jabby? That would explain the morosity, porosity, and
> stunning lack of sagacity as displayed by Gantz.
This is (part of) a header from one of Jabriol's early-May contributions.
Note the posting host IP address.
Date: 3 May 2005 08:40:19 -0700
From: Jab...@excite.com
Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=151.204.42.234;
posting-account=MFPSog0AAACQpCFon0pMSF4LMqvGN9Uv
Message-ID: <1115134819.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.free.newsservers,rec.ponds
Subject: Re: A pregnant girl asks a judge "why can't I make adecision?"
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.42.234
This from Gantz's post today:
From: "Gantz" <darth...@gmail.com>
Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=151.204.42.234;
posting-account=kRzm4w0AAACME1-3eVVnrDVvgiL8o-Mi
Message-ID: <1117028982....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,talk.rape,rec.ponds,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rape Is Natural?
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.42.234
And this is from one of iskgorgon's today:
From: iksg...@gmail.com
Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=151.204.42.234;
posting-account=ZtxJwg0AAACnfP5fGmOcBOtAapKa9MQT
Message-ID: <1117033889.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,talk.rape,rec.ponds,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rape Is Natural?
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.42.234
But my advice, for what it's worth, is don't even bother trying to
insult Jabriol, just stay away. We see some pretty nasty people now and
then in t.o., but Jabs is beyond nasty; Jabs is genuinely vile.
John
Smiler
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lv4le.2434$3D6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
<SNIP>
> I've had people tell me "humans have human rights by virtue of being human". A
> truism or a tautology? I'd say tautology.
>
If I said I was a dog, therefore I have doggy rights, can I shit in the street
without fear of being arrested?
It's the same as the religious argument that goes "God wrote the bible,
therefore the bible is true.
The bible says that God exists, therefore God does exist."
My answer to that one is "If I wrote a book that sold in it's millions, in which
I said that I was God, would that make *me* God".
Starting from the premise that I am an animal (of any kind, not neccessarily
human).
Do I have rights as an animal? I would say "No".
What makes me, a human, different from other animals? Sentience
Does sentience give me rights? I would say "No"
Does sentience give me resposibilities? I would say "Yes"
What are these responsibilities? The welfare of myself, my family and those
around me, including society as a whole. The welfare of society has a direct
bearing on the welfare of myself and my family.
For empathy read "I wouldn't want that to happen to me or my family, so I'll
(try to) stop it happening to him".
Rights are a set of "freedoms" agreed by society at a certain time and a certain
place.
That means that rights can be amended (by general agreement) at any time and by
changing location.
If they were God-given, why would they need to be amended (several times in the
USA)?
In the USA, citzens have the right to bear arms, in the UK they don't.
In the UK, you have the right to free medical treatment, in the USA you don't.
Crossing the Atlantic gives you a whole new set of rights/freedoms.
Calling them immutable, self-evident or God-given doesn't make them any less
changeable.
Smiler
Scott
"Matthew Isleb" <mis...@onshore.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.25....@onshore.com...
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:38:57 +0000, Scott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds
>> there are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to
>> anything) in nature;
>
> Naturalism holds that if something exists, it must be natural. Or rather,
> there must be some natural cause for it to exist. I've never seen a
> definition of naturalism that even mentions "rights."
>
> If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical
>> Rights, Natualism is false.
>
> No, it just means that rights have some natural cause or basis.
Then there must be, in theory, a way to discover those rights. Is there?
>
> I've had people tell me "humans have human
>> rights by virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say
>> tautology.
>
> How can naturalism be false?
Naturalism: monistic. Materialism. No immaterial beings, places, Moral
Truth. Is open to scientific method (SM)
Dualism: Both material (open to SM) and immaterial (not open to SM)
It is just a way of viewing the universe.
> You are committing a category error by trying to fit an abstract concept
> such as "rights" into the inherently concrete model of naturalism.
What gives an abstraction validity? Truth-value. Math has truth-value. The
problem is discovering if claimed moral abstractions also posses
truth-value. I think you are making the categorical error in equating
abstract maths to abstract morals.
>
>>> A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
>>> intellectual discourse.
>>
>> But that doesn't make the a priori true. We can imagine anything but
>> imagining won't make *it* real. The belief is real but the thing itself
>> (the assumption) isn't real. We imagine god is real and argue over his
>> nature, we imagine morality is realsim and argue over *is/ought* right
>> and wrongs. We imagine humans (and some of us, other animals) have some
>> inherent dignity leading to inalienable rights and argue over what those
>> rights are or ought to be. All of those are the stuff of invent myth -
>> mythologies.
>
> You have a pretty poor understanding of what mythology is, I'm afraid.
Mythology: the collection of beliefs a society has about reality.
Mythologies attempt to explain the universe (creation myths) and the *human*
situation within it (moral myths - Evil). Mythologies are social
rationalizations believed to be true but in fact have no *rational*
truth-value. Science seeks to do the same but all explanation must be have
truth-values. Science is cognitive. Science has discover no cognitive, moral
truth-values. Until then morality is non-cognitive. Morality is
anti-realism - Moral Relativism.
>
>> Both ethicists and theologians are in the business of
>> inventing coherent myth.
>
> What about mathematicians? By your reasoning, mathematicians are just
> inventing coherent myth.
<Gave my POV above.>
>
> Theologians are in the business of deciphering myth.
Theologians are in the business of studying the charactor of a god or gods.
Ethicists are in the
> business of resolving conflicts within human nature... nothing to do with
> mythology.
Ethicists attempt to rationalize why morals ought or ought not to be what
they are in given human *societies*. Nazis rationalized their ethics base
upon eugenics. We rationalize ours on a belief in individual rights and
codify them into Civil Rights. But without truth-values we cannot say one
society's ethic is more correct than another. To each his own opinion; we
can only perfer one to the other.
>
>> If that isn't true Naturalism is false; Nature
>> is both atheistic and amoral.
>
> Category error.
Nature is not amoral?
>
> I am getting the impression that you have difficulty with abstract ideas
> in general.
How is a god any less abstract than morals?
Societies invent gods and function as though those gods are based upon
truth-value.
Societies invent moral codes and function as though those codes are based
upon truth-value.
Do those claimed truths have validity? If they don't I'd say they are a part
of a society's mythology.
>> The Naturalistic Fallacy cuts both way: To say homosexuality is immoral
>> because sex is for procreation is fallacious.
>
> It is only fallacious because it implies that there can only be one
> function/purpose for sexuality.
>
>> To say humans have
>> inherent rights and the bases for those rights is founded upon natural
>> human empathy is also fallacious.
>
> Why?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html
"In the philosophical doctrine known as moral naturalism, moral systems are
explained in terms of the social or biological properties of humans. This is
often a Darwinian approach. The point I want to make is that not only
explaining but proposing a moral system in this way commits what GE Moore
famously called the "Naturalistic Fallacy". You can give a naturalistic
explanation of morals without either justifying or invalidating those moral
principles. Explanation and justification are two different activities. So,
too, with ontology. You can accept the methodological assumption of
naturalism in science without invalidating non-naturalistic ontologies. They
just aren't scientific. In my view, ontologies outside science are a matter
of personal choice. And as Cicero once said, in matters of taste there is no
dispute. In science, there is (legitimate) dispute. Therefore, science is
more than a matter of taste."
>
>>>They are usually based on shared values.
>>
>> Yes, I'll give that this *is* the bases of conractual civil rights but
>> what of people who (esp. those of other cultures/countries) don't share
>> the same values?
>
> Many things can happen in this case including going to war, diplomacy,
> avoid interaction, accept the differences, and so on.
That's fact. But for human rights violations to actually occure, those
rights must also be based in fact, not myth.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/hrnews/feb97/french.htm
Scott
Scott
"Smiler" <youm...@joking.com> wrote in message
news:xR8le.77$ny4...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:lv4le.2434$3D6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> <SNIP>
>> I've had people tell me "humans have human rights by virtue of being
>> human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say tautology.
>>
> I'd call it a circular argument.
Ok. "The bible is true because the bible says it's true" - same thing.
> If I said I was a dog, therefore I have doggy rights, can I shit in the
> street without fear of being arrested?
> It's the same as the religious argument that goes "God wrote the bible,
> therefore the bible is true.
> The bible says that God exists, therefore God does exist."
> My answer to that one is "If I wrote a book that sold in it's millions, in
> which I said that I was God, would that make *me* God".
>
> Starting from the premise that I am an animal (of any kind, not
> neccessarily human).
> Do I have rights as an animal? I would say "No".
> What makes me, a human, different from other animals? Sentience
> Does sentience give me rights? I would say "No"
> Does sentience give me resposibilities? I would say "Yes"
Begs the question: Why? ought-is problem.
> What are these responsibilities? The welfare of myself, my family and
> those around me, including society as a whole. The welfare of society has
> a direct bearing on the welfare of myself and my family.
May it does or maybe not. You jumped to the ought.
>
> For empathy read "I wouldn't want that to happen to me or my family, so
> I'll (try to) stop it happening to him".
>
> Rights are a set of "freedoms" agreed by society at a certain time and a
> certain place.
*Is* fact.
> That means that rights can be amended (by general agreement) at any time
> and by changing location.
Yes. But was the change made due to a change in preferences or due to an
error in moral reasoning?
> If they were God-given, why would they need to be amended (several times
> in the USA)?
a moral realist would say correct rghts/morals are discovered. If they are
discoverable, moral progress is possible. If there are no moral realism, no
moral progress is made, only moral change. That'd mean no real progress what
made by ending slavery.
> In the USA, citzens have the right to bear arms, in the UK they don't.
> In the UK, you have the right to free medical treatment, in the USA you
> don't.
> Crossing the Atlantic gives you a whole new set of rights/freedoms.
> Calling them immutable, self-evident or God-given doesn't make them any
> less changeable.
Are civil rights different from natural rights? Get into: What makes any law
unjust or just?
Scott
John Wilkins
> "Matthew Isleb" <mis...@onshore.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.05.25....@onshore.com...
>>>To say humans have
>>>inherent rights and the bases for those rights is founded upon natural
>>>human empathy is also fallacious.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html
> "In the philosophical doctrine known as moral naturalism, moral systems are
> explained in terms of the social or biological properties of humans. This is
> often a Darwinian approach. The point I want to make is that not only
> explaining but proposing a moral system in this way commits what GE Moore
> famously called the "Naturalistic Fallacy". You can give a naturalistic
> explanation of morals without either justifying or invalidating those moral
> principles. Explanation and justification are two different activities. So,
> too, with ontology. You can accept the methodological assumption of
> naturalism in science without invalidating non-naturalistic ontologies. They
> just aren't scientific. In my view, ontologies outside science are a matter
> of personal choice. And as Cicero once said, in matters of taste there is no
> dispute. In science, there is (legitimate) dispute. Therefore, science is
> more than a matter of taste."
As you are quoting me, may I add that there is another fallacy in play in this
debate? It is the Genetic Fallacy (which has to do with the genesis of things,
not the genes of things). According to this, some think that if we give an
evolutionary account of morality, we have debased it or somehow undercut it,
as if now that we know flowers are grown in cow manure they can no longer be
beautiful. Equally, the Genetic Fallacy is employed by those who think that
because we have given an evolutionary account of some behaviour, we have
thereby justified it. Both are mistakes. The moral worth of something is
*entirely* distinct from the origins or causes of those values, unless you add
the missing premise (which I think is indefensible) that things have/do not
have worth because they evolved.
...
Cheers
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
shane
Watch the cross posts to rec.ponds, by keeping them you are just helping
a loser deluge a forum he has a vendetta against. He trolls newsgroups
with controversial topics in order to generate a flood of responses.
--
shane
Zachriel
>
> "Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> news:1117053853.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1117042104....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > Love is natural in humans.
>>>
>>> yes it *is*.
>>>
>>> > So are feelings of compassion and justice.
>>>
>>> as are a lack of feelings of compassion and justice *is* also natural in
>>> humans. De-empathizing an enemy *is* natural to humans.
>>
>> Note that it is often necessary for people and societies to
>> *dehumanize* the enemy in order to kill or subjugate it.
>
> Main Entry: 2human
> Function: noun
> : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or
> extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
>
> What actually happens is the society de-empathizes with its enemy.
Semantics, but "dehumanize" is the correct word meaning to deprive of human
qualities, personality, or spirit.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > To say that people yearn to be free is a naturalistic (and true)
>>> > assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it *is*. But *is* it universal to all humans trans-culturally, and
>>> trans-historically? And if it *is* *ought* that mean anything other than
>>> the
>>> fact?
>>
>>
>> Nope. Just an observation. People dislike being chained indefinitely in
>> cold, dank prisons.
>
> Two people spending much of their time sitting in a cold dark cell. One is
> a prisoner the other a monk.
Monks voluntarily join orders. You forgot the chain symbolizing a lack of
choice. The vast majority of humans do not prefer a life in prison or
bondage. (Of course, there are exceptions, just as there are people who
can't see.)
>>>
>>> > It does not apply to Nature in general.
>>>
>>> We can observe social behavior and say this *is* natural to humans. The
>>> problem, however, we can't go from what *is* natural human behavior to
>>> how
>>> humans *ought* to behave towards each other without committing a
>>> Naturalistic Fallacy. (See J. L. Mackie's ought-is problem.). For
>>> Naturalism, there are no truth-values in ethics.
>>
>> The way to transcend the problem is through simple agreement to basic
>> principles, as in "we hold these truths". If you don't share those
>> values, then the conclusions would be unsupported; but if you do share
>> those values, then there are inevitable consequences.
>
> There are no truth-values in Naturalism. "We hold these truths to be
> self-evident (intuitionism)...
That is correct. The Declaration points to introspection.
> endowed by their Creator..." Morality in this view is objective having
> claims to truth-values.
You just said it was intuitive. Now you say it is claimed as objective
truth.
> It is Jefferson profession to a belief in Moral Truth.
Jefferson thought the vast majority of his audience would share his
axiomatic values; life, liberty and happiness. Do you reject these values?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Do animals have natural rights?
>>> Do animals have animal rights?
>>> Do humans have animal rights?
>>> Do humans have human rights?
>>> Do humans have natural rights?
>>>
>>> No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds
>>> there
>>> are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to anything)
>>> in
>>> nature; If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical Rights,
>>> Natualism is false. I've had people tell me "humans have human rights by
>>> virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say tautology.
>>
>>
>> A shared value among people. The notion of rights are defined by
>> people. It stems from their simian predilection for justice and
>> fairplay.
>
> Within contractualism. But it's a leap of faith to go from "rights defined
> by people" within a culture to all people are endowed with such rights
> universally.
I'm not sure what the distinction you are making other than that there are
different cultures. However, all human cultures share values. Even slave
societies value freedom, and slaves are the lowest of the low, a condition
to avoid. In all societies, life is a value. Happiness is a value. However,
different values can compete so that love might trump happiness, or duty
might trump liberty.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
>>> > intellectual discourse.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't make the a priori true.
>>
>>
>> Axioms are agreed upon principles, not something proven. In the case of
>> human values, they are based upon shared experience. If you don't share
>> those values, then obviously you would reject any conclusions based on
>> their axiomatic assumption. Insect-creatures from Xortz would not
>> necessarily share those values. However, Xortzians value humans,
>> too--as food.
>
> Those axioms must fit within a global philosophy such as Naturalism. If
> nature has no natural values, how can natural rights exist?
As in mathematics, axioms can be arbitrary. Once stated, axioms can be used
to derive new results. For practical reasons, people choose axioms that
relate to the problems of the real world. Hence, basic arithmetic. Hence,
ethical frameworks built on fundamental values shared by the majority of
humankind.
Do you reject the positive value of life, liberty and happiness?
>
>>
>>
>>> We can imagine anything but
>>> imagining won't make *it* real.
>>
>>
>> What is real is that most humans share certain values. Those that do
>> can discuss those values and their implications. You can join the
>> discussion, if you want.
>
>
> We can argue which values ought to be the correct one. But since both our
> values have no objective princple to guage them to, both or values are
> correct...for us. For example: Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers argue over what
> ought to be the values all the time. Both are simply right.
Rather, they share many values and argue over which has precedence. Both
sides value life, but argue over when it begins. Both sides value liberty,
but argue over its limits.
Please, tell us what you think. Does life have value to you, Scott? Do the
lives of your children mean anything?
> "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems
> eaningless." - Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes.
>
>>
>> Do you reject this assertion? Of course you don't. Common ground. Life
>> is better than death. Freedom is better than slavery.
>
> I might agree with you but those aren't facts.
Value judgments aren't facts. If you don't agree that life is better than
death, there is no way to convince you with rational argument. Values must
be found elsewhere. If this was your point, you certainly have no argument
here.
>
> Scott
>
Zachriel
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:d73726$2lhd$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
That is correct. We may note that our moral sense has a natural origin, but
that does not justify it.
We could say that we think life and liberty and justice are good; and that's
just the way we think. But then we discover that these values are shared by
the vast majority (though perhaps not all) of humankind, that we find these
truths to be self-evident (intuitive).
Agreeing to these precepts, as a community we can then devise codes of
conduct that resolve the conflicts that occur between individuals as they
give expression to these values in their lives and liberty and sense of
justice.
Zachriel
Lt. Kizhe Catson
Are they so shared? (Don't forget to include societies of the past in
your survey space). It seems to me that *I* "naturally" am attached to
my life, and like being free of constraints, and being treated fairly, I
also don't have too much trouble extending this to those close to me in
some way (with whom, after all, I am likely share genes and/or to have
opportunities for reciprocity). But I suspect the generalization that
we *ought* to extend it to all of humanity -- even those far away, and
quite different from oneself -- is a relatively recent development.
Even traditional statements like "Do unto others..." have been honored
more in the breach than the keeping.
> Agreeing to these precepts, as a community we can then devise codes of
> conduct that resolve the conflicts that occur between individuals as they
> give expression to these values in their lives and liberty and sense of
> justice.
>
> Zachriel
-- Kizhe
Zachriel
"Lt. Kizhe Catson" <lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42952E29...@gmail.com...
Good point.
The "family" included in this reciprocity has grown from tribe to town to
nation to world. The natural desire to have these relationships are probably
innate, but we only extend them to those in the "group". Spiritual leaders
in ancient times often advocated universal rights, but survival of the local
group and suspicion of possibly dangerous rival groups always took
precedence in the past, and still does in many instances.
John Wilkins
In fact, what seems to me to be shared is the claim that if I am my group are
able to enforce our views and values upon another group, we are right to do so
(and this has *nothing* to do with evolutionary ideas - it's the default view
as far back and as wide as I can see).
Moral progress has, however, been made, and we are trying to export it from
the societies where it evolved for reasons of intellectual and cultural change
and conditions to other societies. The sole justification for this remains
John Stuart Mill's: that diversity of error leads better to truth than a
restrictive and enforced set of "true" views can. The reason why non-liberal
societies might adopt this is because they see the end-result; a stable
society, with technological advance, and peace and freedom. But we aren't
doing a very good job of exemplifying these virtues (which *are* shared, if
usually restricted to the ingroup). In part I think this is because we failed
to adopt properly liberal values long enough. The reactionaries got hold of
the reins of power again, since the end of WW2, IMO.
So, where do human rights come from? Basically all rights are socially
assigned. You have right X because it is the consensus of those in a position
to grant it that you have right X. For a right to be species-wide, there needs
to be a species-wide community that grants them. There is, in fact. It's the
UN, the Hague court, and the various conventions.
So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure. They
are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour ourselves if we
can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The biggest and noisiest tribal
society right now, is the United States and its allies. Welcome to the New
Dark Ages.
>
>>Agreeing to these precepts, as a community we can then devise codes of
>>conduct that resolve the conflicts that occur between individuals as they
>>give expression to these values in their lives and liberty and sense of
>>justice.
>>
>>Zachriel
>
>
> -- Kizhe
>
Matthew Isleb
>>> No to all of those questions. Humans are animal. And Natualism holds
>>> there are no natural rights of any kind inherent to any animal (to
>>> anything) in nature;
>>
>> Naturalism holds that if something exists, it must be natural. Or rather,
>> there must be some natural cause for it to exist. I've never seen a
>> definition of naturalism that even mentions "rights."
>>
>> If humans do in fact have trans-cultural/historical
>>> Rights, Natualism is false.
>>
>> No, it just means that rights have some natural cause or basis.
>
> Then there must be, in theory, a way to discover those rights. Is there?
I assume you mean in some empirical, materialistic fashion. I don't know
how meaningful it would be to make such a discovery. Ultimately some
value judgement would need to be made about the significance of what was
found. And we'd just end up with the same discussion we are have now.
>> I've had people tell me "humans have human
>>> rights by virtue of being human". A truism or a tautology? I'd say
>>> tautology.
>>
>> How can naturalism be false?
>
> Naturalism: monistic. Materialism. No immaterial beings, places, Moral
> Truth. Is open to scientific method (SM) Dualism: Both material (open to
> SM) and immaterial (not open to SM)
And these are mutually exclusive perspectives to you?
> It is just a way of viewing the universe.
>> You are committing a category error by trying to fit an abstract concept
>> such as "rights" into the inherently concrete model of naturalism.
>
> What gives an abstraction validity?
Consistency with a set of common assumptions or axioms.
> Truth-value. Math has truth-value. The
> problem is discovering if claimed moral abstractions also posses
> truth-value. I think you are making the categorical error in equating
> abstract maths to abstract morals.
I made no such equation. It was your reasoning, as I understood it,
that I was using.
>>>> A priori assumptions are those that people agree to for the purpose of
>>>> intellectual discourse.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't make the a priori true. We can imagine anything but
>>> imagining won't make *it* real. The belief is real but the thing itself
>>> (the assumption) isn't real. We imagine god is real and argue over his
>>> nature, we imagine morality is realsim and argue over *is/ought* right
>>> and wrongs. We imagine humans (and some of us, other animals) have some
>>> inherent dignity leading to inalienable rights and argue over what those
>>> rights are or ought to be. All of those are the stuff of invent myth -
>>> mythologies.
>>
>> You have a pretty poor understanding of what mythology is, I'm afraid.
>
> Mythology: the collection of beliefs a society has about reality.
> Mythologies attempt to explain the universe (creation myths) and the *human*
> situation within it (moral myths - Evil). Mythologies are social
> rationalizations believed to be true but in fact have no *rational*
> truth-value. Science seeks to do the same but all explanation must be have
> truth-values. Science is cognitive. Science has discover no cognitive, moral
> truth-values. Until then morality is non-cognitive. Morality is
> anti-realism - Moral Relativism.
Sounds more like a value judgement than a definition.
>>> Both ethicists and theologians are in the business of
>>> inventing coherent myth.
>>
>> What about mathematicians? By your reasoning, mathematicians are just
>> inventing coherent myth.
>
> <Gave my POV above.>
You gave a value judgement about what you feel is rational and real.
>> Theologians are in the business of deciphering myth.
>
> Theologians are in the business of studying the charactor of a god or gods.
Through myths and philosophy.
> Ethicists are in the
>> business of resolving conflicts within human nature... nothing to do with
>> mythology.
>
> Ethicists attempt to rationalize why morals ought or ought not to be what
> they are in given human *societies*.
Ethicists establish a common set of values and find ethics that are
consistent with them.
> Nazis rationalized their ethics base
> upon eugenics. We rationalize ours on a belief in individual rights and
> codify them into Civil Rights. But without truth-values we cannot say one
> society's ethic is more correct than another. To each his own opinion; we
> can only perfer one to the other.
We prefer one scientific theory over another... whatever works.
>>> If that isn't true Naturalism is false; Nature
>>> is both atheistic and amoral.
>>
>> Category error.
>
> Nature is not amoral?
Calling nature moral or amoral is not meaningful to me.
>> I am getting the impression that you have difficulty with abstract ideas
>> in general.
>
> How is a god any less abstract than morals?
> Societies invent gods and function as though those gods are based upon
> truth-value.
> Societies invent moral codes and function as though those codes are based
> upon truth-value.
>
> Do those claimed truths have validity?
If they are consistent with their premises, yes. A lot of religious claims
are not consistent with their stated premises.
> If they don't I'd say they are a part
> of a society's mythology.
You could do that, but I think you would be mistaken. They're just invalid
claims.
>>> The Naturalistic Fallacy cuts both way: To say homosexuality is immoral
>>> because sex is for procreation is fallacious.
>>
>> It is only fallacious because it implies that there can only be one
>> function/purpose for sexuality.
>>
>>> To say humans have
>>> inherent rights and the bases for those rights is founded upon natural
>>> human empathy is also fallacious.
>>
>> Why?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html
> "In the philosophical doctrine known as moral naturalism, moral systems are
> explained in terms of the social or biological properties of humans. This is
> often a Darwinian approach. The point I want to make is that not only
> explaining but proposing a moral system in this way commits what GE Moore
> famously called the "Naturalistic Fallacy". You can give a naturalistic
> explanation of morals without either justifying or invalidating those moral
> principles. Explanation and justification are two different activities. So,
> too, with ontology. You can accept the methodological assumption of
> naturalism in science without invalidating non-naturalistic ontologies. They
> just aren't scientific. In my view, ontologies outside science are a matter
> of personal choice. And as Cicero once said, in matters of taste there is no
> dispute. In science, there is (legitimate) dispute. Therefore, science is
> more than a matter of taste."
Certainly one would need more than just a naturalistic explanation for
any kind of moral or ethical argument, but this does not mean someone
can't reference the naural social or biological properties of humans in
explaining it.
>>>>They are usually based on shared values.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'll give that this *is* the bases of conractual civil rights but
>>> what of people who (esp. those of other cultures/countries) don't share
>>> the same values?
>>
>> Many things can happen in this case including going to war, diplomacy,
>> avoid interaction, accept the differences, and so on.
>
> That's fact. But for human rights violations to actually occure, those
> rights must also be based in fact, not myth.
> http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/hrnews/feb97/french.htm
I'm actually of the opinion that it is one's natural human right to do
whatever one pleases. What we do is define a subset of those rights
and protect them at the expense of the others. For example, I would
happily waive my right to murder people in order to protect my right
to life.
-matthew
Pax Cosmos
> From: Jabriol (Jab...@Netizen.org)
> Subject: Re: We are Primates and behave like primates.. free all
> rapist today!
Yes, rape is natural. So are laws punishing rape, moral values
condemning rape, and prisons that incarcerate rapists.
War is natural. Peace is natural. Hate is natural. Love is natural.
Life is natural. Death is natural.
Everything that exists in the physical universe is natural.
Even Jabriol. Even Jabriol's ideas about evolution. And about rape.
Pax
iksg...@gmail.com
rapists.
EKur...@aol.com wrote:
>
> "In the real world, people differ genetically in their selfish
> tendencies. And in models of the evolution of altruism, actors may
> evolve differences in their selfish tendencies. It could be a
> coincidence, but it probably is not. Several biologists have adduced
> evidence that psychopathy is a cheating strategy that evolved by
> frequency-dependent selection. Statistical analyses show that a
> psychopath, rather than merely falling at the end of a continuum for
> one or two traits, has a distinct cluster of traits (superficial charm,
> impulsivity, irresponsibility, callousness, guiltlessness, mendacity,
> and exploitiveness) that sets him off from the rest of the population.
> And many psychopaths show none of the subtle physical abnormalities
> produced by biological noise, suggesting that psychopathy is not always
> a biological mistake. The psychologist Linda Mealey has argued that
> frequency-dependent selection has produced at least two kinds of
> psychopaths. One kind consists of people who are genetically
> predisposed to psychopathy regardless of how they grow up. The other
> kind is made up of people who are predisposed to psychopathy only in
> certain circumstances, namely when they perceive themselves to be
> competitively disadvantaged in society and find themselves at home in a
> group of other antisocial peers."
Zachriel
> Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
>> [rape and pond groups trimmed]
>>
>> Zachriel wrote:
>>
And yet within that group, those positive values are often expressed. People
have a propensity to love their children, to value the affection and
admiration of their comrades. The "other" groups is often defined as lesser
in order to justify oppression; indeed, self-justification is nearly
universal. It isn't enough to kill and take, it often requires an excuse.
Helen of Troy justifies the destruction of an entire civilization. God said
to kill everything, including, gasp, the cattle.
Though human behavior varies widely, that is not to say that there are not
commonalities. You point to group-think, which balances what people consider
of those within the group and those without. The Montagues may be dirt, but
your friends among the Capulets, you will trust and love and defend all the
values of life and happiness.
There are other such commonalities.
I would agree with that, but point out that humans share basic values and we
derive our notions of rights from those values. An insect society would have
completely different values: free expression would be incomprehensible. The
difference is "natural".
>
> So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
> Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure.
> They
> are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour ourselves if
> we
> can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The biggest and noisiest
> tribal
> society right now, is the United States and its allies. Welcome to the New
> Dark Ages.
Note that they have all sorts of self-justifying behavior.
iksg...@gmail.com
Some are stuck on the issue of "Morals".
TomS
<d73726$2lhd$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
It seems to me that there is a similarity between the justification
of morality and the justification of knowledge.
There are people who make the claim that evolutionary biology cannot
be compatible with knowledge, for -- what strikes me -- the same
fallacy: If we know that our knowledge is based upon biology, then we
cannot know that we know. (Of course, where I say "biology", they
say "evolutionary biology", but I won't ride that hobbyhorse of mine
right now.)
But, if a person insists upon a genetic basis for morality (or
knowledge), then how does an Intelligent Designer provide such a
basis? If the human body plan was designed by an ID, and the ID
decided to put a moral sense in the body plan, then how does that
serve as a justification of morality (knowledge)? (I'm insisting,
for the moment, on an ID rather than God in phrasing this, because
I think that it makes the point even more evident.)
Is this just another case of "the god of the gaps"? Even if I
cannot give an argument justifying morality (knowledge), how does
"goddidit" fill the gap?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
John Wilkins
Sure. Any normative claim has the same issues. Prescriptive epistemology is in
the exact same situation.
>
> There are people who make the claim that evolutionary biology cannot
> be compatible with knowledge, for -- what strikes me -- the same
> fallacy: If we know that our knowledge is based upon biology, then we
> cannot know that we know. (Of course, where I say "biology", they
> say "evolutionary biology", but I won't ride that hobbyhorse of mine
> right now.)
There's a reverse case for this, too - evolutionary epistemology. Something is
knowledge because our evolutionary adaptations (for example with sight)
justifies our knowledge claims based upon it.
>
> But, if a person insists upon a genetic basis for morality (or
> knowledge), then how does an Intelligent Designer provide such a
> basis? If the human body plan was designed by an ID, and the ID
> decided to put a moral sense in the body plan, then how does that
> serve as a justification of morality (knowledge)? (I'm insisting,
> for the moment, on an ID rather than God in phrasing this, because
> I think that it makes the point even more evident.)
>
> Is this just another case of "the god of the gaps"? Even if I
> cannot give an argument justifying morality (knowledge), how does
> "goddidit" fill the gap?
It'd be like Berkeley's justification of empirical knowledge - God can be
relied upon to do the "right" things. God wouldn't be a deceiver, see?
[How do we know that, though?]
John Wilkins
effectively played on that - "I hope the Russians love their children too". Of
course they do, so as long as it is mutually in each others' interests that is
enough to drive a shared moral value system.
But what happens when it is not? What happens when the Americans (or the
Russians) will benefit by invasion or dominance of, say, a smaller nation?
Answer: such shared aspects of human nature will lead to parochialism,
jingoism, and moral hegemony. Such is the nature of the world...
--
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
> It'd be like Berkeley's justification of empirical knowledge - God can be
> relied upon to do the "right" things. God wouldn't be a deceiver, see?
>
>
> [How do we know that, though?]
It says so in the manual.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Walter Bushell
> effectively played on that - "I hope the Russians love their children too".
> Of
> course they do, so as long as it is mutually in each others' interests that
> is
> enough to drive a shared moral value system.
>
> But what happens when it is not? What happens when the Americans (or the
> Russians) will benefit by invasion or dominance of, say, a smaller nation?
> Answer: such shared aspects of human nature will lead to parochialism,
> jingoism, and moral hegemony. Such is the nature of the world...
It's only necessary for the leaders to benefit. If your government is
run by oil companies, for example.
Scott
I am an evolutionist. Human behaviorism just is. Claims of what HB ought to
be are indefensible. And so we have endless debates over what the moral
codes should be. For example: Pro-choicers and pro-lifers can rationalize
their positions (moral relative them) to till the cows come home. But since
neither argument is truth-value based both are mistaken in thinking their
postion is rationally *grounded*. If claims to universal moral truths (e.g.
human/natural rights) are *real*, they are something other than natural.
Scott
Scott
"Matthew Isleb" <mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.26....@lNO.SPAMonshore.com...
I think I'm pretty close
http://inst.santafe.cc.fl.us/~jbieber/HS/def-myth.htm
The function of myth
Myth has many functions. To quote Joseph Campbell from the Historical Atlas
of World Mythology, pp. 8-9:
"The first function of mythology is to waken and maintain in the individual
a sense of wonder and participation in the mystery of this finally
inscrutable universe..." The second function....is to fill every particle
and quarter of the current cosmological image with its measure of this
mystical import... a third function, no less important, is the sociological
one of validating and maintaining whatever moral system and manner of
life-customs may be peculiar to the local culture.... A fourth, and final
essential function of mythologies is the pedagogical one of conducting
individuals in harmony through the passages of human life...".
In other words, myth is mystical, cosmological, social and educational. And
in that sense, science which is the far-flung descendent of that mythic
world still attempts to understand the nature of the cosmos, and the
implications of that knowledge to society and to the individual.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mythology.html
Definitions of Myth
Before defining the term "mythology" one needs to define the meaning of the
word "myth". The word itself comes from the Greek "mythos" which originally
meant "speech" or "discourse" but which later came to mean "fable" or
"legend". In this document the word "myth" will be defined as a story of
forgotten or vague origin, basically religious or supernatural in nature,
which seeks to explain or rationalize one or more aspects of the world or a
society.
Furthermore, in the context of this document, all myths are, at some stage,
actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or
originated the myth. Our definition is thus clearly distinguished from the
use of the word myth in everyday speech which basically refers to any unreal
or imaginary story.
Zachriel
Hard to argue with that statement.
> Claims of what HB ought to
> be are indefensible.
Sure they are defensible if there are shared values. So, for instance,
if you and I agree that human life is a positive value, then we might
reach an agreement, a promise if you will, to not murder one another.
Of course, you are not under any objective demand to agree to this
shared value, but if you do so accept this value, then the bahavioral
implication can be derived.
Do you reject that human life is a positive value?
> And so we have endless debates over what the moral
> codes should be. For example: Pro-choicers and pro-lifers can rationalize
> their positions (moral relative them) to till the cows come home. But since
> neither argument is truth-value based both are mistaken in thinking their
> postion is rationally *grounded*. If claims to universal moral truths (e.g.
> human/natural rights) are *real*, they are something other than natural.
You are right that if someone believes that the zygote is a sacred
human being, then there is no direct argument to dissuade them.
However, you can point out the implications of this viewpoint, such as
the Pill being redefined as a method of murder. There are values that
are held in common. Finding those commonalities are a first step in the
resolution of these types of conflicts.
>
> Scott
Cracklin'
"Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117084659....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It makes one wonder why he's so OBSESSED with the subject of rape.....
?!?!?!! He keeps bringing it up over and over and over again ad nauseam.
--
Finzeo....
"True, there have been those in times past who
predicted an 'end of the world,' even announcing a specific date...The 'end'
did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was
missing?...Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that
he was guiding and using them." Awake October 8, 1968, p. 23
NOTE: But when THEY predicted the end and it never came - that was
different?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott
"Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
wrote in message news:bZmdnTBrYZD...@adelphia.com...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/
"Very roughly, non-naturalism in meta-ethics is the idea that moral
philosophy is fundamentally autonomous from the natural sciences. More
accurately, a family of related but distinct doctrines has gone under the
heading 'non-naturalism'. In some contexts, 'non-naturalism' denotes the
semantic thesis that moral predicates cannot be analyzed in non-normative
terms (see Shaver 2000 and Gibbard 2002: 153). In other contexts,
'non-naturalism' denotes the epistemological thesis that knowledge of basic
moral principles and value judgements are in some sense self-evident (see
Frankena 1963: 85-86). However, this view is more often referred to as
'intuitionism' and I shall henceforth also refer to it as intuitionism. Most
often, 'non-naturalism' denotes the metaphysical thesis that moral
properties exist and are not identical with or reducible to any natural
property or properties in some interesting sense of 'natural'. However, just
which sense of 'natural' is most apt in this context is highly controversial
and I shall return to this point shortly. Understood in this way,
non-naturalism is a form of moral realism..."
My short response: Intutionism equates to revelations about non-natural
moral realisms - aka moral objectivism, situational ethics. It takes a leap
of faith.
>
>
>> It is Jefferson profession to a belief in Moral Truth.
>
> Jefferson thought the vast majority of his audience would share his
> axiomatic values; life, liberty and happiness. Do you reject these values?
No, but that's beside the point.
How do you know they are positive? Your question is set up as though
positive value were concrete.
Do *I* value life, liberty and happiness? Sure. But that doesn't get to a
rational ought application to everyone else. We have to introduce a
non-natural term - Good. It's a good idea.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We can imagine anything but
>>>> imagining won't make *it* real.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is real is that most humans share certain values. Those that do
>>> can discuss those values and their implications. You can join the
>>> discussion, if you want.
>>
>>
>> We can argue which values ought to be the correct one. But since both our
>> values have no objective princple to guage them to, both or values are
>> correct...for us. For example: Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers argue over
>> what ought to be the values all the time. Both are simply right.
>
> Rather, they share many values and argue over which has precedence. Both
> sides value life, but argue over when it begins. Both sides value liberty,
> but argue over its limits.
That debate cannot rationally be resolved. Each side will continue to push
its moral value onto their shared society based upon whatever
rationalizations they can conjure up.
Of course. But note, those same values apply to terrorists too, however.
That most people posses these valuse I'd say is a fact, is true. But that
won't get us to any truth that those same values ought to be applicable to
towards everyone else.
>
>> "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems
>> eaningless." - Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes.
>>
>>>
>>> Do you reject this assertion? Of course you don't. Common ground. Life
>>> is better than death. Freedom is better than slavery.
>>
>> I might agree with you but those aren't facts.
>
> Value judgments aren't facts. If you don't agree that life is better than
> death, there is no way to convince you with rational argument. Values must
> be found elsewhere. If this was your point, you certainly have no argument
> here.
The problem is: Are there universal values and/or what ought those
universals be? I think its impossible to answer this in any rational way.
Intuitionism won't get us there.
Scott
Matthew Isleb
>>> Mythology: the collection of beliefs a society has about reality.
>>> Mythologies attempt to explain the universe (creation myths) and the
>>> *human*
>>> situation within it (moral myths - Evil). Mythologies are social
>>> rationalizations believed to be true but in fact have no *rational*
>>> truth-value. Science seeks to do the same but all explanation must be
>>> have
>>> truth-values. Science is cognitive. Science has discover no cognitive,
>>> moral
>>> truth-values. Until then morality is non-cognitive. Morality is
>>> anti-realism - Moral Relativism.
>>
>> Sounds more like a value judgement than a definition.
>
> I think I'm pretty close
You'd be closer if you dropped all the loaded terms such as "anti-realism"
and "non-cognitive." You are clearly biased against anything you perceive
as "myth." You've essentially said that if there is any truth-value in so
called "myths," naturalism must be false, and that seems to bother you.
<snip>
> Furthermore, in the context of this document, all myths are, at some stage,
> actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or
> originated the myth. Our definition is thus clearly distinguished from the
> use of the word myth in everyday speech which basically refers to any unreal
> or imaginary story.
You are using this latter, common idea of myth which makes an implicit
value judgment of its relative worth. I tend to agree with the more
formal definition that your quoted authors propose. It is much more useful
in intellectual discourse. I mean, there is no point in talking about myth
at all if you are just going to write it off as "anti-realism."
-matthew
Zachriel
Scott wrote:
> "Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
> wrote in message news:bZmdnTBrYZD...@adelphia.com...
> >
> > "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:dYmdnVShtaL...@wcc.net...
> >>
> >> "Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1117053853.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> >>>
> >>> The way to transcend the problem is through simple agreement to basic
> >>> principles, as in "we hold these truths". If you don't share those
> >>> values, then the conclusions would be unsupported; but if you do share
> >>> those values, then there are inevitable consequences.
> >>
> >> There are no truth-values in Naturalism. "We hold these truths to be
> >> self-evident (intuitionism)...
> >
> > That is correct. The Declaration points to introspection.
> >
> >
> >> endowed by their Creator..." Morality in this view is objective having
> >> claims to truth-values.
> >
> > You just said it was intuitive. Now you say it is claimed as objective
> > truth.
>
<snip long response>
>
> My short response: Intutionism equates to revelations about non-natural
> moral realisms - aka moral objectivism, situational ethics. It takes a leap
> of faith.
The writers of the Declaration were quite clear, "We hold...." I note
you will use the same construction later in this post.
> >
> >> It is Jefferson profession to a belief in Moral Truth.
> >
> > Jefferson thought the vast majority of his audience would share his
> > axiomatic values; life, liberty and happiness. Do you reject these values?
>
>
> No, but that's beside the point.
<big snip>
It's precisely the point. Of course, there is no rational argument that
can convince someone to hold a certain set of values. Values are
determined by the individual. And yet, we know that humans nearly all
share certain values. That is the fact, and from this fact
generalizations can be drawn.
I'm not sure we disagree, except that you discouraged in the
possibility that people can find such common ground. Yet already, we
agree that life, liberty and happiness are positive values.
Scott
> Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
>> [rape and pond groups trimmed]
>>
>> Zachriel wrote:
>>
snipping
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/hrlc/hrnews/feb97/french.htm
"The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this declaration was the
product of a political myth. The aim of this myth was to replace religion.
It therefore has a transcendental aspect and was subjected to messianism by
the revolutionaries. However, the myth also aimed at creating a social
cement for the new society coming out of the ruins of the Ancien Regime. The
Declaration bears traces of this myth - its mainly philosophical nature, the
tensions between recognised rights, the concurring juris naturalist and
contractualist influence and the conflict between individual and state
contained within it."
"The human in the 1789 Declaration is abstract, timeless and placeless. The
Golden Age's promise is given to him. This Golden Age is situated out of
history. This is why the political myth of human rights, deriving from the
1789 Declaration, is an eschatological myth borrowing messianic feeling.
From the proclamation that human rights are universal comes the duty to
export those rights. In the minds of the revolutionaries this justified a
resort to violence, against both external and internal foes. Playing with a
paradox, Saint-Just proclaimed : "No freedom for the enemies of freedom".
Even if this double fight aimed not to enslave but to free, the belief in
the myth induced the revolutionaries to betray the principles they had set
down."
>
> Moral progress has, however, been made, and we are trying to export it
> from
> the societies where it evolved for reasons of intellectual and cultural
> change
> and conditions to other societies. The sole justification for this remains
> John Stuart Mill's: that diversity of error leads better to truth than a
> restrictive and enforced set of "true" views can.
So moral progress has been made based upon error in the claimed knowledge of
moral truth? Doesn't that presuppose there *is* a moral truth to
*theoretically* strive towards - in moral theory discoverable? Everyone else
maybe in error except one person (a Gandhi, a Jesus, etc.) who come along
with a clearer opinion (as Einstein did in Physics)? Are you a moral
realist?
The reason why non-liberal
> societies might adopt this is because they see the end-result; a stable
> society, with technological advance, and peace and freedom. But we aren't
> doing a very good job of exemplifying these virtues (which *are* shared,
> if
> usually restricted to the ingroup). In part I think this is because we
> failed
> to adopt properly liberal values long enough. The reactionaries got hold
> of
> the reins of power again, since the end of WW2, IMO.
An environmentalists might look at the end results believing they have
worked to destroy the ecosystem and concluded immoral progress.
>
> So, where do human rights come from? Basically all rights are socially
> assigned. You have right X because it is the consensus of those in a
> position
> to grant it that you have right X. For a right to be species-wide, there
> needs
> to be a species-wide community that grants them. There is, in fact. It's
> the
> UN, the Hague court, and the various conventions.
ah but *what* should those right be and who should have them. There are
those who say a fetus has them.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+universalism
"There, is however, some form of universal absolutism as a moral stance, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10 1948), outlining basic human rights. John
Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter."
>
> So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
> Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure.
<you suprise me> Those societies have their own socially assigned rights
coming from its members. Societies believe their rights are the correct ones
and many work to export them. But are there any moral truth-values being
exported? Are rights real?
They
> are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour ourselves if
> we
> can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The biggest and noisiest
> tribal
> society right now, is the United States and its allies. Welcome to the New
> Dark Ages.
It is human nature. Maybe it ought not be that way.
Scott
Scott
It's just a value. "Positive" like "good" is indefinable. They are both
non-natural terms.
>
>
>> And so we have endless debates over what the moral
>> codes should be. For example: Pro-choicers and pro-lifers can rationalize
>> their positions (moral relative them) to till the cows come home. But
>> since
>> neither argument is truth-value based both are mistaken in thinking their
>> postion is rationally *grounded*. If claims to universal moral truths
>> (e.g.
>> human/natural rights) are *real*, they are something other than natural.
>
> You are right that if someone believes that the zygote is a sacred
> human being, then there is no direct argument to dissuade them.
<you're word *loading* your arugment> Sacred or not, it's in how one defines
human being. Science offers no help since the definition preceed the
discription. Definition: Huamn being begins at concept, science then used to
discribe. Human being begins at birth, science is then used to discribe.
> However, you can point out the implications of this viewpoint, such as
> the Pill being redefined as a method of murder.
Sure....if that person has a 'postive' value about human being beginning at
conception and is therefore *rightfully* intitled to that life.
There are values that
> are held in common. Finding those commonalities are a first step in the
> resolution of these types of conflicts.
This looks like a vailed agrument for moral objecitivism IMO.
Scott
Zachriel
Scott wrote:
> "Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> news:1117120963....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Scott wrote:
<snip>
> >>
> >> I am an evolutionist. Human behaviorism just is.
> >
> > Hard to argue with that statement.
> >
> >
> >> Claims of what HB ought to
> >> be are indefensible.
> >
> >
> > Sure they are defensible if there are shared values. So, for instance,
> > if you and I agree that human life is a positive value, then we might
> > reach an agreement, a promise if you will, to not murder one another.
> > Of course, you are not under any objective demand to agree to this
> > shared value, but if you do so accept this value, then the bahavioral
> > implication can be derived.
> >
> > Do you reject that human life is a positive value?
>
>
> It's just a value. "Positive" like "good" is indefinable. They are both
> non-natural terms.
Good and positive are defined. They're in the dictionary. You probably
mean they can't be defined objectively without reference to people.
Besides, you already indicated "Do *I* value life, liberty and
happiness? Sure."
>
>
> >
> >
> >> And so we have endless debates over what the moral
> >> codes should be. For example: Pro-choicers and pro-lifers can rationalize
> >> their positions (moral relative them) to till the cows come home. But
> >> since
> >> neither argument is truth-value based both are mistaken in thinking their
> >> postion is rationally *grounded*. If claims to universal moral truths
> >> (e.g.
> >> human/natural rights) are *real*, they are something other than natural.
> >
> > You are right that if someone believes that the zygote is a sacred
> > human being, then there is no direct argument to dissuade them.
>
> <you're word *loading* your arugment> Sacred or not, it's in how one defines
> human being. Science offers no help since the definition preceed the
> discription. Definition: Huamn being begins at concept, science then used to
> discribe. Human being begins at birth, science is then used to discribe.
Sacred wasn't meant to be a "loading". By defining the zygote as
sacred, I chose a common position that is not normally subject to
compromise. You are correct that science is not the proper tool to
determine value. So why do I feel you are arguing.
>
>
> > However, you can point out the implications of this viewpoint, such as
> > the Pill being redefined as a method of murder.
>
> Sure....if that person has a 'postive' value about human being beginning at
> conception and is therefore *rightfully* intitled to that life.
And there would be no direct (objective or scientific) argument
available to dissuade someone from their position. But there are
implications of such positions. By pointing out these unintended
consequences, it is possible to help someone refine their position.
Though most would treat a fetus as a good thing, there are other
considerations such as the right of a woman to control her destiny,
tyranny of the government involving itself in private issue, poverty,
etc.
>
>
> There are values that
> > are held in common. Finding those commonalities are a first step in the
> > resolution of these types of conflicts.
>
> This looks like a vailed agrument for moral objecitivism IMO.
There is no objectively demonstrable morality, nor have I claimed such.
However, people can agree to hold certain tenets (and because of their
biological nature they tend to have much in common). People can hold
these values as postulates and use them for philosophical discussions.
So there are two point I would make:
Humans have much in common due to their shared biological heritage.
Useful ethical systems can be built on the axioms of these shared
values.
>
> Scott
Zachriel
Zachory
duping
crossposting flametroll like J@briol/GANTZ/iksgorkon/geister,
trim as many groups as possible from
the NG line to target your audiance. Folks in s.a.p.,r.p,a.r.j-
w,a.f.n already
know *not* to followup the J@bster/GANTZ, they, one and all,
think
J@bby is a first class freaked out religious megakook.
My feed does not carry alt.talk.creationism so this has been
also removed. J@BR10L is utterly untouchable except for
certain criminal actions he has propogated on the UseNet which
has caused him to resort to anonymous remailers. He was
responsible in encouraging one member of another group to
commit suicide. He was also blocked from posting to a rape
support group as he advocated that women who were raped and
had subsequently abortions should be reraped because they
interferred with the will of god. He is a genuinely vicious,
coldhearted and deamonic spirit on the UseNet, he cares
nothing about any group, not even ARJW, as posters to the
group claim that he single handedly destroyed the group making
it a breeding ground of forgers and other malicious posters.
He will use any group that serves his goals of creating flame
wars into groups he has a bone to pick, s.a.p. is one because
it discusses the evolution of humans.
General Rule number #2- be wary of following up or attacking
people who post from anonymous remailers, this is an
incredibly difficult way of posting, and therefore they must
have a good reason, like they don't have anyother choice.
Regular posters of groups who are engaged in topical
discussions should use proper 'given' names as there is a
certain malice associated with anonymous posting in most folks
experiences.
IOW get smart fast and J@BR!0L will leave your group.
Ignore him, reduce the number of groups in followup. I can
assure that he will move to more fertile ground quickly.
He has not interest in rec.ponds except to dupe in niave
UseNet participants into a flame war. ~Roy~ is exactly doing
as Jabriol wants, willing or unwilling, he is now a
participant in the J@BS attempt at paralyzing groups with
floods of offtopic messages. He may even be one of Jabriols
sockpuppets.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Robert
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Geister
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not iksgorkon
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Gantz
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not judgedred
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Usenet Hegemon
Ignore the nym shifting king of killfiles pro rape pervert. He's
not worth replying to. Regards
Pax Cosmos
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117084659....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Watchtower~Weekly wrote:
> > > From: Jabriol (Jab...@Netizen.org)
> > > Subject: Re: We are Primates and behave like primates.. free all
> > > rapist today!
> >
> > Yes, rape is natural. So are laws punishing rape, moral values
> > condemning rape, and prisons that incarcerate rapists.
> >
> > War is natural. Peace is natural. Hate is natural. Love is natural.
> > Life is natural. Death is natural.
> >
> > Everything that exists in the physical universe is natural.
> >
> > Even Jabriol. Even Jabriol's ideas about evolution. And about rape.
> >
> > Pax
> =========================
> It makes one wonder why he's so OBSESSED with the subject of rape.....
> ?!?!?!! He keeps bringing it up over and over and over again ad nauseam.
Maybe because he thinks it discredits evolution. If so, then the more
he brings it up, the more damage he thinks he does to the theory of
evolution.
Maybe because he can't imagine that people who see morality as a
manifestation of natural processes can also have moral values of their
own. If so, then the more he brings it up, the more he thinks he is
stigmatizing those who accept evolution, as being amoral people.
Maybe because he thinks for people to be moral, there must be some
transcendent supernaturalistic grounding for morality. If so, the more
he brings it up, the more he thinks he demonstrates that people who
accept evolution can't possibly be moral.
So maybe he's obsessed with the subject of rape because of the ideas
about morality and evolution that he holds in his mind. Makes sense to
me as a possible hypothesis.
Why rape and not murder or slavery? Perhaps for the shock value. Or
perhaps because the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition itself has
justified mass murder and slavery (of the Canaanites and the
descendents of Ham, among others), and maybe those subjects hit too
close to home. Using them as examples of moral evils that a belief in
evolution entails might open up the Bible itself, and the idea of
divine, transcendent morals, to scrutiny and attack. And it might also
put Jabriol on the defensive about his own moral values. For how could
there be such a divine, transcendent set of moral values when the very
source that he cites is full of such seemingly immoral values?
Maybe he doesn't want to go there. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't.
Pax
Ian H Spedding
[...]
> Bearing in mind the Genetic Fallacy, I do not think they are generally shared.
> In fact, what seems to me to be shared is the claim that if I am my group are
> able to enforce our views and values upon another group, we are right to do so
> (and this has *nothing* to do with evolutionary ideas - it's the default view
> as far back and as wide as I can see).
>
> Moral progress has, however, been made, and we are trying to export it from
> the societies where it evolved for reasons of intellectual and cultural change
> and conditions to other societies. The sole justification for this remains
> John Stuart Mill's: that diversity of error leads better to truth than a
> restrictive and enforced set of "true" views can. The reason why non-liberal
> societies might adopt this is because they see the end-result; a stable
> society, with technological advance, and peace and freedom. But we aren't
> doing a very good job of exemplifying these virtues (which *are* shared, if
> usually restricted to the ingroup). In part I think this is because we failed
> to adopt properly liberal values long enough. The reactionaries got hold of
> the reins of power again, since the end of WW2, IMO.
>
> So, where do human rights come from? Basically all rights are socially
> assigned. You have right X because it is the consensus of those in a position
> to grant it that you have right X. For a right to be species-wide, there needs
> to be a species-wide community that grants them.
I'm right with you up to here...
> There is, in fact. It's the
> UN, the Hague court, and the various conventions.
The UN is hardly a community in the sense I think you mean. The
General Assembly is just a talking shop where all the tribes get
together to posture and shout at each other and the Security Council is
a club where the most powerful tribes can do some of their
horse-trading. Neither has the legitimacy of a democratically-elected
legislature. Would you want North Korea or Zimbabwe or Iran to have a
say in what rights you have? As for the Hague court, like the
Nuremberg tribunal on which it is based, it's a creature of the victors
and is effectively legitimizing the principle of 'might makes right'.
> So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
> Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure. They
> are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour ourselves if we
> can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The biggest and noisiest tribal
> society right now, is the United States and its allies. Welcome to the New
> Dark Ages.
No, they are simply recognizing the practical reality that, like it or
not, the world is still largely "tribal". The UN is a step in the
right direction if only because it is valuable as a forum where the
tribes can get together and talk, but it's a long way short of the sort
of the sort of world government that sounds like your ultimate goal.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Smiler
<SNIP>
>> Starting from the premise that I am an animal (of any kind, not neccessarily
>> human).
>> Do I have rights as an animal? I would say "No".
>> What makes me, a human, different from other animals? Sentience
>> Does sentience give me rights? I would say "No"
>> Does sentience give me resposibilities? I would say "Yes"
>
> Begs the question: Why? ought-is problem.
Until the time comes when we can talk to another breed of sentiant beings, I
don't think that we can get an answer to this.
>>
>> Rights are a set of "freedoms" agreed by society at a certain time and a
>> certain place.
>
> *Is* fact.
>
>> That means that rights can be amended (by general agreement) at any time and
>> by changing location.
>
> Yes. But was the change made due to a change in preferences or due to an error
> in moral reasoning?
The change due to location is due to (local) preferences.
That doesn't *necessarily* make the rights in one location any better or worse
than the rights in another, just different.
The change made by general agreement could be due to either.
There is also a third possibility. That there was no error (I.E. It was correct
at the time),
but changes in society have (now) made the right(s) redundant.
>
>> If they were God-given, why would they need to be amended (several times in
>> the USA)?
>
> a moral realist would say correct rghts/morals are discovered. If they are
> discoverable, moral progress is possible. If there are no moral realism, no
> moral progress is made, only moral change. That'd mean no real progress what
> made by ending slavery.
You're confusing rights with morals.
Rights are what society allows (or doesn't allow) you to do. *Fact*
Morals are what you (and/or others) think is the correct way to lead your life.
*Subjective*
An immoral person is not necessarily a law-breaker.
In a religious society, an atheist may be considered immoral, but if there is
freedom of worship, he has broken no laws.
The change (by definition) could be for the worse, have no effect or could be
for the better.
If the change is for the better, you have progress!
> Are civil rights different from natural rights? Get into: What makes any law
> unjust or just?
As above, sentience alone gives me no more (natural) rights than any other
creature and they have no (natural) rights.
Rights are only given (or taken away) by the society in which we live.
>
> Scott
Smiler
John Wilkins
I said it was the default view - but I also said there had been moral progress
(see below). I count the Enlightenment as a case of that, resulting in what I
consider the zenith of universal humanism - Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.
As a matter of historical fact, this arose in a Christian social context,
sure. So did science, engineering, superconductors and relativity theory. But
that does not make it Christian any more than the fact that paper was invented
by the Chinese makes it Confucian.
But as a relativist of sorts (a descriptive relativist), I have a problem - if
I think we have made moral progress, but I think rights and values are
contextually assigned, how can I count it progress? Why, because *I* hold to
the view that a universal humanism is a good. While I give a genetic account
of morality (that is, I know it evolved in a cultural and social context)
nevertheless *I* hold my values (whose else would I hold) and so I think that
the nearer we are to my values, the better the world is.
>
>
>
>> Moral progress has, however, been made, and we are trying to export it
>> from the societies where it evolved for reasons of intellectual and
>> cultural change and conditions to other societies. The sole justification
>> for this remains John Stuart Mill's: that diversity of error leads better
>> to truth than a restrictive and enforced set of "true" views can.
>
>
> So moral progress has been made based upon error in the claimed knowledge of
> moral truth? Doesn't that presuppose there *is* a moral truth to
> *theoretically* strive towards - in moral theory discoverable? Everyone else
> maybe in error except one person (a Gandhi, a Jesus, etc.) who come along
> with a clearer opinion (as Einstein did in Physics)? Are you a moral
> realist?
I am a descriptive relativist but a prescriptive deontologist - that is, I
think moral values are self-justifying and are by definition binding on moral
agents.
>
>
>> The reason why non-liberal societies might adopt this is because they see
>> the end-result; a stable society, with technological advance, and peace
>> and freedom. But we aren't doing a very good job of exemplifying these
>> virtues (which *are* shared, if usually restricted to the ingroup). In
>> part I think this is because we failed to adopt properly liberal values
>> long enough. The reactionaries got hold of the reins of power again,
>> since the end of WW2, IMO.
>
> An environmentalists might look at the end results believing they have
> worked to destroy the ecosystem and concluded immoral progress.
Sure. And I think that this is partially true - we have made technological
progress at the expense of our long term good. I certainly don't think *all*
moral change has been for the better, nor do I think that moral values evolve
in the same manner and rate. [In fact, that's rather the point of this
interjection.]
>
>> So, where do human rights come from? Basically all rights are socially
>> assigned. You have right X because it is the consensus of those in a
>> position to grant it that you have right X. For a right to be
>> species-wide, there needs to be a species-wide community that grants
>> them. There is, in fact. It's the UN, the Hague court, and the various
>> conventions.
>
>
> ah but *what* should those right be and who should have them. There are
> those who say a fetus has them.
Yes there are. And there are those (I'm one of them) who think a chimp should
have them. The argument is not decided by facts, but by the evolution of the
moral "ecology" as it were. I would think that the loss of rights involved in
erring on the side of the fetus, at least early in the pregnancy, is too great
to make the analogical argument on which grounds fetuses are granted rights
carry much weight. You lose *actual* rights to favour the *possible* rights
that *might* be had by a fetus.
The argument here is one of tradeoff, as all public polity arguments are,
based on shared values. We all think that adult females have rights of some
sort - why should they be restricted when the *only* argument for fetal rights
lies in a religious theology? In a pluralist society, that would also mean
religious hegemony, and the loss of freedom of religion rights, a which is a
greater evil.
But granting rights to chimps, on the grounds that they are cognitively
equivalent to a human child with rights, is no denial of existing rights, and
so it can be extended without harm to others' rights.
>
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+universalism
> "There, is however, some form of universal absolutism as a moral stance, the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General
> Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10 1948), outlining basic human rights. John
> Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter."
>
Again, 'ware the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter *now* what the
(historical) reasons were for the adoption of universal human rights by the
UN. What matters is why we want it to be employed now.
>
>>So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
>>Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure.
>
> <you suprise me> Those societies have their own socially assigned rights
> coming from its members. Societies believe their rights are the correct ones
> and many work to export them. But are there any moral truth-values being
> exported? Are rights real?
I do not think, as a nonrealist about morals, that there are truth-vaules in
moral statements other than the usual factual ones. But I do think, as an
agent in a moral context, that the rights that are valued by me and those of
my milieu, should be heeded. It gets back to that deontic moral philosophy I
have again.
Duties are assigned by societies, along with rights. But if you are within
that context, you are bound to obey the duties and protect the rights (of
yourself and others), even though you realise they are socially assigned.
My comment that surprises you, though, is just that the socieities that reject
the universal declaration are not human rights driven, which is something of a
tautology.
>
>
>> They are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour
>> ourselves if we can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The
>> biggest and noisiest tribal society right now, is the United States and
>> its allies. Welcome to the New Dark Ages.
>
>
> It is human nature. Maybe it ought not be that way.
Of course it should not. We can overcome our "biology" without too much
trouble - we've been monkeying with our propensities since we first started
living in sedentary conditions. Moral progress means, to a large extent,
overcoming our evolved natures. But knowing they *are* our natures is a
salutary warning - when we see this happening it should send up alarm signals
that we are sliding back.
John Wilkins
Well to an extent all such universal legal impositions are founded on greater
strength. The Constantian and Justinian codes, Hammurabi, Napoleon, all relied
on establishing universal systems by force.
But are the systems so imposed good or bad? I think, for example, that Europe
benefited from the imposition of the Justinian codex on the diverse legal
systems in play when it was rediscovered in the late middle ages. The end
result was a wider trade and communication, and relative stability (compared
to the warlord-style government of the prior five centuries).
>
>
>>So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
>>Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure. They
>>are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour ourselves if we
>>can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The biggest and noisiest tribal
>>society right now, is the United States and its allies. Welcome to the New
>>Dark Ages.
>
>
> No, they are simply recognizing the practical reality that, like it or
> not, the world is still largely "tribal". The UN is a step in the
> right direction if only because it is valuable as a forum where the
> tribes can get together and talk, but it's a long way short of the sort
> of the sort of world government that sounds like your ultimate goal.
Good grief, no - I don't want a world government - in fact I'd like to see
nations devolve into smaller regions, but all under a rule of law. That way,
government interests would be less distant from the interests of communities,
and the law could evolve to meet those needs.
And yes, the world is largely still tribal. This is a Bad Thing.
Cracklin'
> Cracklin' wrote:
> > It makes one wonder why he's so OBSESSED with the subject of rape.....
> > ?!?!?!! He keeps bringing it up over and over and over again ad
nauseam.
> Maybe because he thinks it discredits evolution. If so, then the more
> he brings it up, the more damage he thinks he does to the theory of
> evolution.
## Surely he realizes after all these years that that's not happening.
> Maybe because he can't imagine that people who see morality as a
> manifestation of natural processes can also have moral values of their
> own. If so, then the more he brings it up, the more he thinks he is
> stigmatizing those who accept evolution, as being amoral people.
> Maybe because he thinks for people to be moral, there must be some
> transcendent supernaturalistic grounding for morality. If so, the more
> he brings it up, the more he thinks he demonstrates that people who
> accept evolution can't possibly be moral.
## Oh, he's pretty much made that claim before. He can't see how agnostics
and atheists can have morals, or why they should have them. It's the true
view of a religious fanatic who's gone over the edge.
> So maybe he's obsessed with the subject of rape because of the ideas
> about morality and evolution that he holds in his mind. Makes sense to
> me as a possible hypothesis.
## It's a possibility but he gets shot down every time.
> Why rape and not murder or slavery? Perhaps for the shock value. Or
> perhaps because the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition itself has
> justified mass murder and slavery (of the Canaanites and the
> descendents of Ham, among others), and maybe those subjects hit too
> close to home.
## BINGO!!!! I think you have it! And rape will get more attention of
net-newbies....
Using them as examples of moral evils that a belief in
> evolution entails might open up the Bible itself, and the idea of
> divine, transcendent morals, to scrutiny and attack. And it might also
> put Jabriol on the defensive about his own moral values.
## After reading his rape, coat-hanger abortion, no charity, anti obese
people, anti post menopausal women and other posts these past 9 years I
seriously doubt he has any. I mean that in all sincerity.
For how could
> there be such a divine, transcendent set of moral values when the very
> source that he cites is full of such seemingly immoral values?
## Example = read the OT where god allowed them, told them to slaughter
whole cities and capture the young virgins - for their "own use." Why?
because the people believed differently than the Hebrews (think genocide).
These girls, some as young as 11 and 12, were sexually abused and raped in
forced marriages and concubinage - both a form of sexual slavery in those
days. Maybe he never read the OT, or he sees forced marriage/concubinage as
a moral thing.
> Maybe he doesn't want to go there. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't.
>
> Pax
CR.........
How did we get here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
=================================
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as
erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
[Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo]
================================
iksg...@gmail.com
Cracklin' wrote:
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117140095....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Cracklin' wrote:
> > > It makes one wonder why he's so OBSESSED with the subject of rape.....
> > > ?!?!?!! He keeps bringing it up over and over and over again ad
> nauseam.
> =============
> > Maybe because he thinks it discredits evolution. If so, then the more
> > he brings it up, the more damage he thinks he does to the theory of
> > evolution.
>
> ## Surely he realizes after all these years that that's not happening.
>
> > Maybe because he can't imagine that people who see morality as a
> > manifestation of natural processes can also have moral values of their
> > own. If so, then the more he brings it up, the more he thinks he is
> > stigmatizing those who accept evolution, as being amoral people.
> > Maybe because he thinks for people to be moral, there must be some
> > transcendent supernaturalistic grounding for morality. If so, the more
> > he brings it up, the more he thinks he demonstrates that people who
> > accept evolution can't possibly be moral.
>
> ## Oh, he's pretty much made that claim before. He can't see how agnostics
> and atheists can have morals, or why they should have them. It's the true
> view of a religious fanatic who's gone over the edge.
Agnostics are phony atheist. A true atheist does not concern himself
with morals. since morals are a religious concept.
>
> > So maybe he's obsessed with the subject of rape because of the ideas
> > about morality and evolution that he holds in his mind. Makes sense to
> > me as a possible hypothesis.
>
> ## It's a possibility but he gets shot down every time.
I gather you been missing the thread on the subject. But ARJW is under
the Jabfilter. In any case, the T.O crowd has admitted that Rape is
natural to human as swiming is to penguins.
>
> > Why rape and not murder or slavery? Perhaps for the shock value. Or
> > perhaps because the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition itself has
> > justified mass murder and slavery (of the Canaanites and the
> > descendents of Ham, among others), and maybe those subjects hit too
> > close to home.
>
> ## BINGO!!!! I think you have it! And rape will get more attention of
> net-newbies....
>
reproduction is involved in rape.
> Using them as examples of moral evils that a belief in
> > evolution entails might open up the Bible itself, and the idea of
> > divine, transcendent morals, to scrutiny and attack. And it might also
> > put Jabriol on the defensive about his own moral values.
>
> ## After reading his rape, coat-hanger abortion, no charity, anti obese
> people, anti post menopausal women and other posts these past 9 years I
> seriously doubt he has any. I mean that in all sincerity.
ahhhhh an athiest after my very soul; But I have no soul.
Scott
We both know that "good" is indefinable, an irreducable non-natrual term.
And if a universal humanism is contexually assigned where *should* that
context come from and based upon what in its description? Suppose: In trying
to bring cultures together for a shared universal humanism, is there room
for compromise? IOW would you be willing to give up any of *your* precieved
rights if it would bring mankind to a more universal description of human
rights? Look at the diversity: Communists believe they are/were bring about
a farer humanism. Americans have there concepts. And the Netherlands have
theirs. Individually, NAMLBA, fore example, believe their rights are being
violated. In America, the gay communit doesn't want to be associated with a
NAMBLA type organization. However, in the Neterlands the gay community is
associated with such organizations. In america, a priest having sex with a
12 to 18 year-olds is a crime, consentual or not, but not so in the
Netherlands. It may be between 12 to15 but that's conditional. The following
link gives examples of claimes (or lack of) to homosexual rights from around
the world. I think most people in America and Austrailia feel allowing
government approval of sex between adults and 12 year-olds adhorent. If
there is one, where is the descriptive human rights compromise? And that
doesn't even get into how those rights are to enforced. See #2, #4, and #7
"Court: 1" below: In the USA #2 and #4 are are violations of
human/constitutional rights to free speech.
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/world.htm
NETHERLANDS
LAWS: 1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex
between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16
is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may
only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young
person's parents. The question remains whether the public
prosecutions department would proceed to prosecute if the young
person themself had consented and their parents filed the
complaint.
2. Has a national gay rights law that bans some anti-gay
discrimination
, including labour, housing, medical care and access to goods and
services.
3. Allows homosexuals in its military. Dutch laws permit members of
the
armed services to engage in consensual homosexual relationships
when
off duty and away for military premises, be it with a civilian or a
member of the armed services of the same or another rank.
4. The Royal Dutch Air Force requires everyone entering the force to
undergo an innovative training program to increase sensitivity to
Gays in the Air Force. The Dutch armed forces appear to be the most
sensitive to gays in the world, although the Army and Navy do not
have similar training programs.
5. Allows foreign partners of its homosexual citizenry to receive
residency permits.
6. Allows homosexuals to adopt children.
7. Allows same-sex couples to marry, granting gay couples complete
parity with married heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples can
marry at city hall and adopt Dutch children. They will be able to
divorce through the court system, like heterosexual couples.
COURT:1. The courts have interpreted the constitution to prohibit anti-gay
discrimination.
Another example: Would you be willing to assign personhood to pre-birth as
many want? You have a fellow countryman philosopher who doesn't want
personhood assigned until 28 days post-birth. There is no scientific
description for personhood entitlement to these rights. Assigning personhood
entitlement to what will be the universal humanism is ultimately arbitrary
coming about through subjective arbitration.
While I give a genetic account
> of morality (that is, I know it evolved in a cultural and social context)
> nevertheless *I* hold my values (whose else would I hold) and so I think
> that
> the nearer we are to my values, the better the world is.
Osama, Hitler, Gandhi, M. L. King, Bush, think and thought that too about
their values. Problem is, who's right? You all are.....by your own values.
>
>>
>>
>>> Moral progress has, however, been made, and we are trying to export it
>>> from the societies where it evolved for reasons of intellectual and
>>> cultural change and conditions to other societies. The sole
>>> justification
>>> for this remains John Stuart Mill's: that diversity of error leads
>>> better
>>> to truth than a restrictive and enforced set of "true" views can.
>>
>>
>> So moral progress has been made based upon error in the claimed knowledge
>> of
>> moral truth? Doesn't that presuppose there *is* a moral truth to
>> *theoretically* strive towards - in moral theory discoverable? Everyone
>> else
>> maybe in error except one person (a Gandhi, a Jesus, etc.) who come along
>> with a clearer opinion (as Einstein did in Physics)? Are you a moral
>> realist?
>
> I am a descriptive relativist but a prescriptive deontologist - that is, I
> think moral values are self-justifying and are by definition binding on
> moral
> agents.
....and so Schindler acted unethically as prescribed by Nazi societal
values.
>>
>>
>>> The reason why non-liberal societies might adopt this is because they
>>> see
>>> the end-result; a stable society, with technological advance, and peace
>>> and freedom. But we aren't doing a very good job of exemplifying these
>>> virtues (which *are* shared, if usually restricted to the ingroup). In
>>> part I think this is because we failed to adopt properly liberal values
>>> long enough. The reactionaries got hold of the reins of power again,
>>> since the end of WW2, IMO.
>>
>> An environmentalists might look at the end results believing they have
>> worked to destroy the ecosystem and concluded immoral progress.
>
> Sure. And I think that this is partially true - we have made technological
> progress at the expense of our long term good. I certainly don't think
> *all*
> moral change has been for the better, nor do I think that moral values
> evolve
> in the same manner and rate. [In fact, that's rather the point of this
> interjection.]
If there is no meta-ethical realism, no moral realism, no moral truth
(however one terms it), I don't know what "partially true" and "long term
good" mean other than whatever anyone wants it to mean - you me,..., or
Osama. An environmentalist might look as a logging company and determine it
to be a good thing to bomb it and blow it up. A number of pro-choicer
advocates have done just that to clinics. Are they wrong...by their values?
"Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is to the duty
of all men to disobey unjust laws." -- M. L. King Jr. Now we have to figure
out what a Just and Unjust law might be. The problem in doing so - now - is
that we no longer have a Natural Law Theory for basing positive law upon.
Natural Law is a Naturalistic Fallacy. Where does duty lay? In some
meta-ethical truth (as King believed) or in arbitrary contractualism
(whatever that contract may be)?
>>
>>> So, where do human rights come from? Basically all rights are socially
>>> assigned. You have right X because it is the consensus of those in a
>>> position to grant it that you have right X. For a right to be
>>> species-wide, there needs to be a species-wide community that grants
>>> them. There is, in fact. It's the UN, the Hague court, and the various
>>> conventions.
>>
>>
>> ah but *what* should those right be and who should have them. There are
>> those who say a fetus has them.
>
> Yes there are. And there are those (I'm one of them) who think a chimp
> should
> have them. The argument is not decided by facts, but by the evolution of
> the
> moral "ecology" as it were. I would think that the loss of rights involved
> in
> erring on the side of the fetus, at least early in the pregnancy, is too
> great
> to make the analogical argument on which grounds fetuses are granted
> rights
> carry much weight. You lose *actual* rights to favour the *possible*
> rights
> that *might* be had by a fetus.
All of which is merely your opinion. Since there is no moral truth-values to
base that opinion upon, yours (even with your vast amount of philosophical
background) is still no better than grandma-Catholic's who values all
fetuses as persons. She'd likely believe that responsibilities are incumbent
upon certain action taken, "You had sex, you knew the potential
consequences, you created a new person, and now a responsibility is
incumbent upon you." Would she be wrong? No, not by her values.
Comparitively: Since there is no moral truth-values, how is it any different
from a government banning abortions then it is from a government banning
*free* speech in anti-gay discriminations? Where are the rights, who is it
that has them, and how are they to be enforced? There is no right answer,
non that have any truth-values grounding them.
>
> The argument here is one of tradeoff, as all public polity arguments are,
> based on shared values. We all think that adult females have rights of
> some
> sort - why should they be restricted when the *only* argument for fetal
> rights
> lies in a religious theology?
Why should they not? Since there is no Moral Realism, it makes no *real*
difference what any normative moral code is based upon. They just are. It's
*all* the stuff of the cultural mythology in play, whether that comes from
some described theism or humanism. Those religious humans value their
religious beliefs....and dang well believe they have a right to them.
I'm not whating to dabate abortion but to show where the majority's value
stands at present in America:
<quote>
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
a.. According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of
Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during
pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save
the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
b.. According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered
themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and
people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%
http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm
New Polling Data Shows Support for Pro-Life Position
A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows what Gallup polls have been showing
since 1975: Most Americans take a pro-life position even if they do not call
themselves "pro-life."
The poll reveals that only one in four Americans, 27%, say abortions should
be legal under any circumstances. The rest all take one of two pro-life
positions: 16% say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and 55%
say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as
rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
Overall, 71% of Americans oppose 97% or more of all abortions in the United
States. However, that opposition doesn't transcend into whether people
consider themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
The poll shows that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are no
longer a majority. The figure is 48%, down from a high of 56% three years
ago. There is no real gender difference: 49% of women are "pro-choice," 47%
of men.
The number identifying themselves as "pro-life" has risen from 36% three
years ago to 42% -- men 43%, women 42%.
Analysts attribute much of the "pro-life" gains to the massive educational
campaign the pro-life community has conducted over the last several years
regarding partial-birth abortion.
More than six in 10, 61%, say they favor making partial-birth abortions
illegal, up from 55% two years ago. Support for keeping partial-birth
abortions legal has dropped from 40% to 34% in the same period. Other polls
have shown as many as 80% support making partial-birth abortions illegal.
Looking to the next elections: Fewer than one in five, 19%, say a
candidate's views on abortion must match theirs to get their vote; 51% say
abortion is just one of many important issues they consider; 27% say it is
not an important factor in their vote at all.
The poll of 1,014 adults was taken Friday through Sunday. The error margin
is +/- 3 percentage points.
Source: Pro-Life Infonet
<end quote>
Those are the stats. They just are. Are those holding to pro-choice values
and attempting to change the law to reflect those values wrong to do so? No,
not in any *real* sense. There are no just nor unjust laws. There is only
(contractual) law. We killed off just and unjust laws when we discovered
(declared?) Natural Law theory to a be fallacy.
In a pluralist society, that would also mean
> religious hegemony, and the loss of freedom of religion rights, a which is
> a
> greater evil.
>
> But granting rights to chimps, on the grounds that they are cognitively
> equivalent to a human child with rights, is no denial of existing rights,
> and
> so it can be extended without harm to others' rights.
What about lobsters? In American we have people (PETA) who value the life
of lobsters and free them from resturants. Many of these same people don't
value the life of fetuses claiming pro-choice. I don't get it but, hey, its
their values. When does a fetus's brain power surpass that of a lobster's?
>>
>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+universalism
>> "There, is however, some form of universal absolutism as a moral stance,
>> the
>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human
>> Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General
>> Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10 1948), outlining basic human rights.
>> John
>> Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter."
>>
> Again, 'ware the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter *now* what the
> (historical) reasons were for the adoption of universal human rights by
> the
> UN. What matters is why we want it to be employed now.
I don't know who the "we" are anymore. Looking at the UN they can't even
seem to agree on rights when putting the declaration into practice.
>>
>>>So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
>>>Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure.
>>
>> <you suprise me> Those societies have their own socially assigned rights
>> coming from its members. Societies believe their rights are the correct
>> ones
>> and many work to export them. But are there any moral truth-values being
>> exported? Are rights real?
>
> I do not think, as a nonrealist about morals, that there are truth-vaules
> in
> moral statements other than the usual factual ones. But I do think, as an
> agent in a moral context, that the rights that are valued by me and those
> of
> my milieu, should be heeded. It gets back to that deontic moral philosophy
> I
> have again.
>
> Duties are assigned by societies, along with rights. But if you are within
> that context, you are bound to obey the duties and protect the rights (of
> yourself and others), even though you realise they are socially assigned.
Schindler was unethical then?
>
> My comment that surprises you, though, is just that the socieities that
> reject
> the universal declaration are not human rights driven, which is something
> of a
> tautology.
That's what suprised me. I wasn't sure how you got from one point to the
other.
>>
>>
>>> They are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour
>>> ourselves if we can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The
>>> biggest and noisiest tribal society right now, is the United States and
>>> its allies. Welcome to the New Dark Ages.
>>
>>
>> It is human nature. Maybe it ought not be that way.
>
> Of course it should not. We can overcome our "biology" without too much
> trouble - we've been monkeying with our propensities since we first
> started
> living in sedentary conditions. Moral progress means, to a large extent,
> overcoming our evolved natures. But knowing they *are* our natures is a
> salutary warning - when we see this happening it should send up alarm
> signals
> that we are sliding back.
Hypothetically:
Mission statement: Universal humanism's goal is to bring about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people.
Should the goals be short-term or long-term? Could there be conflicts
between the two goals? What enforcement, if any, may be necessary?
Possible ways of bring about this goal
1. Eugenics: Breed a healthier and smarter population.
Abnormalities and diseases caused by genetics have created a great deal of
unhappiness to a lot of people both with the problem and for those who see
themselves as burdened in taking care of them. They tax the healthcare
system and increase the cost of living for the general population. Aside
from the obvious how 'bout the not so obvious such as the mental: families
prone to depression, schizophrenia, sociopthy, etc. Like eliminate small pox
and polio, attempt to eliminate identified genes out of the general
population.
How would a program be enforced, or would any of it be? It's all in how the
majority values the goal and the programs to bring it about. Do we value the
goal long-term over any short-term negative means for bringing it about and
so use enforcement of some sort, genetic testing for marriage licenses to
use an example. Do we take a planned parenthood type of approach which
arguably would have limited success. As human behavior goes, people just
aren't *that* alturisic.
For example: China attempts to limit its population by burdoning those
parents who have more than one child. I'd wager few parents limit their
family size for social aluristic reasons.For them every child is a wanted
one is encumbant to the society, not by the parents.
Anyway...I think that get my point accross. Setting lofty goals is one thing
but the means of bringing them about can be quite another. The devil's in
the details as the saying goes.
I'll read any repy next week. We're having a holiday weekend.
Scott
Scott
"Smiler" <youm...@joking.com> wrote in message
news:3ztle.94$s25...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Laws are expessions of moral beliefs.
> Rights are what society allows (or doesn't allow) you to do. *Fact*
Merely, codified morals.
> Morals are what you (and/or others) think is the correct way to lead your
> life. *Subjective*
And laws/rights are based upon that.
> An immoral person is not necessarily a law-breaker.
that depends on whether the immorality is merely breaking mores only or
breaking mores as deemed illegal.
> In a religious society, an atheist may be considered immoral, but if there
> is freedom of worship, he has broken no laws.
that gets into sub-culture and subjectivism. Relativism.
>
> The change (by definition) could be for the worse, have no effect or could
> be for the better.
> If the change is for the better, you have progress!
there is no such thing as *real* moral progress without some independent
(trans-individual, trans-cultural) objective moral principle to measure that
progress to.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
Just like people believe in gods and structure their lives around that
belief, people believe in their morals and structure their life around those
and argue what the nature of these *truths* are and must be shared by
others. Neither gods nor morals are real; only the belief is real.
Mythology. If either are truth then something is amiss in Naturalism.
Pax Cosmos
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117140095....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Cracklin' wrote:
> > > It makes one wonder why he's so OBSESSED with the subject of rape.....
> > > ?!?!?!! He keeps bringing it up over and over and over again ad
> nauseam.
> =============
> > Maybe because he thinks it discredits evolution. If so, then the more
> > he brings it up, the more damage he thinks he does to the theory of
> > evolution.
>
> ## Surely he realizes after all these years that that's not happening.
The evidence would suggest otherwise. I don't think his actions are
those of someone who realizes this. (Hey, they've been waiting for the
return of Jesus for 2000 years; they're a group of slow learners!) ;)
Plus, since the ranks of anti-evolutionism have been growing steadily
over the years, and gaining more political influence, and since they've
been scoring some successes recently (Dover, Penn., Kansas School
Board, recent poll numbers showing larger numbers of people believe
that evolution is flawed and that its "problems" need to be taught in
science class, etc.), it's understandable that people who don't look
too deeply into the scientific evidence supporting evolution can get
the idea that they're winning the fight against it. The evidence that
they *are* looking at tells them that evolution's demise is just around
the corner.
Well, that and the fact that they can't be wrong, since God is on their
side, you know, and he'd never deceive them... ;)
> > Maybe because he can't imagine that people who see morality as a
> > manifestation of natural processes can also have moral values of their
> > own. If so, then the more he brings it up, the more he thinks he is
> > stigmatizing those who accept evolution, as being amoral people.
> > Maybe because he thinks for people to be moral, there must be some
> > transcendent supernaturalistic grounding for morality. If so, the more
> > he brings it up, the more he thinks he demonstrates that people who
> > accept evolution can't possibly be moral.
>
> ## Oh, he's pretty much made that claim before. He can't see how agnostics
> and atheists can have morals, or why they should have them. It's the true
> view of a religious fanatic who's gone over the edge.
>
> > So maybe he's obsessed with the subject of rape because of the ideas
> > about morality and evolution that he holds in his mind. Makes sense to
> > me as a possible hypothesis.
>
> ## It's a possibility but he gets shot down every time.
Not the way *he* sees it. In *his* mind, Satan has so warped the minds
of "evolutionists" with pride, it's the "evolutionists" who can't see
that *they* are the ones who get shot down every time.
When you're dealing with someone with a dogmatic mindset, you have to
take into account that *their* view of who is winning an argument will
often be different than *your* view. They can no more realize that
they get shot down every time than they can realize that their
religious beliefs are false.
> > Why rape and not murder or slavery? Perhaps for the shock value. Or
> > perhaps because the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition itself has
> > justified mass murder and slavery (of the Canaanites and the
> > descendents of Ham, among others), and maybe those subjects hit too
> > close to home.
>
> ## BINGO!!!! I think you have it! And rape will get more attention of
> net-newbies....
>
> Using them as examples of moral evils that a belief in
> > evolution entails might open up the Bible itself, and the idea of
> > divine, transcendent morals, to scrutiny and attack. And it might also
> > put Jabriol on the defensive about his own moral values.
>
> ## After reading his rape, coat-hanger abortion, no charity, anti obese
> people, anti post menopausal women and other posts these past 9 years I
> seriously doubt he has any. I mean that in all sincerity.
Oh, yes, he *has* moral values. It's just that they don't seem that
way to those outside his dogmatic mindset--those who hold to a
different set of moral values. Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolsheviks had
morals too, it's just that they were the morals associated with a
particular dogmatic mindset. What is good within one dogmatic mindset
is very often evil within another. And vice versa.
For example, since the Bolsheviks believed that a free press was a tool
of capitalist exploitation, it was a morally good thing to suppress it.
And since the Khmer Rouge believed that a Western educational
background was a morally evil thing, corrupting the body politic with
evil ideas, it was morally good to kill anyone who had one. For the
Nazis, anyone who believed in Marxism was evil, and so it was good to
kill them.
So you see? They *did* have moral values. They just called things
good that others would call evil. Don't fall into the same trap that
Jabriol has, by simply reversing the roles of who is good and who is
evil. Or who is moral and who is amoral. You're either going to
believe in "absolute, transcendent, universal" moral values or you're
not. You're either going to believe that moral value judgments are
manifestations of the processes of the mind, tied to particular
mindsets, or you're not.
We've seen the results throughout history of the holding to the view
that moral values are absolute, transcendent, and universal. Like in
the Judeo-Christian tradition (the genocide against Canaanites, the
Inquisition, etc.). We've also seen the results of particular moral
value systems being tied to particular dogmatic mindsets (Xian fundies,
Bolsheviks, Nazis, etc.).
So perhaps a better way would be to look at it from a naturalistic
perpective: that all values are created by the mind, and we choose
what is good and what is evil ourselves, and that we don't have to
follow some holy book or party doctrine in order to choose our moral
values.
> For how could
> > there be such a divine, transcendent set of moral values when the very
> > source that he cites is full of such seemingly immoral values?
>
> ## Example = read the OT where god allowed them, told them to slaughter
> whole cities and capture the young virgins - for their "own use." Why?
> because the people believed differently than the Hebrews (think genocide).
> These girls, some as young as 11 and 12, were sexually abused and raped in
> forced marriages and concubinage - both a form of sexual slavery in those
> days. Maybe he never read the OT, or he sees forced marriage/concubinage as
> a moral thing.
Yes--these are the moral values of that particular dogmatic mindset.
For the Aztecs (and a number of other cultures), ritualistic human
sacrifice was a good thing, because it placated the gods and brought
good fortune to their own group in their harvests and in warfare with
other groups.
The moral values of Xian fundies are, anthropologically speaking, tied
to their theology in the same way as those of the Aztecs were tied to
theirs.
Pax
Cracklin'
> The moral values of Xian fundies are, anthropologically speaking, tied
> to their theology in the same way as those of the Aztecs were tied to
> theirs.
Excellent - and I agree with everything you said. :-)
--
CR..........
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
========================================
Pax Cosmos
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117227303.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > The moral values of Xian fundies are, anthropologically speaking, tied
> > to their theology in the same way as those of the Aztecs were tied to
> > theirs.
> ================
> Excellent - and I agree with everything you said. :-)
> --
> CR..........
Thanks.
You agree with *everything* I said?
That fundies *do* have moral values? That all moral values are created
by the mind, and there are no transcendent universal moral values out
there in some supernatural "ether" realm? That moral value systems
tend to be natural outgrowths of larger ideological systems (Bolshevik
worldview ----> Bolshevik moral value system, etc.). That these same
ideological systems can influence the perception of the believers so
that relevant data is skewed in their minds, and that therefore, merely
"stating the facts" to them is often ineffective? That anthropology
(and social psychology, cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology,
etc.) are the appropriate fields through which to make sense of these
mindsets and of these behaviors?
If so, would you also agree with me that the pro-science, anti-fundie,
anti-creationist movement could benefit from devoting more attention to
the social and behavioral science aspects of the phenomenon they're
fighting (the actions motivated by these dogmatic anti-scientific
mindsets)?
That is, would you also agree with me that if more of us would study
these mindsets more deeply from a scientific perspective, that it's
likely that we'd be able improve our strategies and tactics to deal
with these people?
This is a hard message to get out. Most people I've talked to in the
anti-creationist movement don't think such study on their part would be
worth the effort. Or they give it lip service only. It's been my
impression that they either think they already understand these things
as well as they need to (or as well as is possible). Or that the
social and behavioral sciences are irrelevant to understanding these
things (or are generally useless for any purpose, so why bother?). Or
that these mindsets are so beneath contempt (according to their own
moral value system, that is) that they don't want to "dignify" them by
studying them. Or that they are just so intimidated by their
unfamiliarity with theological concepts and terminology, and by the
amount of study they'd have to do, that they pretend to take the
intellectual high ground by demeaning such studies--taking the easy way
out, that is.
To my way of thinking, such attitudes are not very scientific, and are
self-defeating, but perhaps my own perspective is skewed by my interest
in the social and behavioral sciences, and in the history of ideas.
But I haven't seen much evidence that *not* studying such mindsets very
deeply is leading to very effective countermeasures, so I'd say that
studying them more seriously would be worth a try. In the past,
greater scientific knowledge about the nature of some problem has
helped us to deal with it better. I'd assume that the same would be
true in this case as well.
Pax
Cracklin'
## Yep! :-)
> This is a hard message to get out. Most people I've talked to in the
> anti-creationist movement don't think such study on their part would be
> worth the effort. Or they give it lip service only. It's been my
> impression that they either think they already understand these things
> as well as they need to (or as well as is possible). Or that the
> social and behavioral sciences are irrelevant to understanding these
> things (or are generally useless for any purpose, so why bother?). Or
> that these mindsets are so beneath contempt (according to their own
> moral value system, that is) that they don't want to "dignify" them by
> studying them. Or that they are just so intimidated by their
> unfamiliarity with theological concepts and terminology, and by the
> amount of study they'd have to do, that they pretend to take the
> intellectual high ground by demeaning such studies--taking the easy way
> out, that is.
> To my way of thinking, such attitudes are not very scientific, and are
> self-defeating, but perhaps my own perspective is skewed by my interest
> in the social and behavioral sciences, and in the history of ideas.
> But I haven't seen much evidence that *not* studying such mindsets very
> deeply is leading to very effective countermeasures, so I'd say that
> studying them more seriously would be worth a try. In the past,
> greater scientific knowledge about the nature of some problem has
> helped us to deal with it better. I'd assume that the same would be
> true in this case as well.
## Again I agree......
>
CR.......
The JWs keep saying it (Armageddon) is imminent, just a matter of time,
only a matter of weeks or months from the predicted date: 1874(+40),
1878(+40), 1910,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1975, 1999/2000...
LATEST DATE: 2034 Come get your predictions and palm read by the GB!
Just one WRONG date after another - they're truly inspired by *GASP* demons!
"If he is a false prophet (like the GB), his prophecy will fail to come to
pass."
(Watchtower, 5/15/30).
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
Ann
>It has been proven by science and bilogy that rape is part of human
>nature, and other apes do the same.
yawn!
shane
Watch the crossposts to talk.rape and rec.ponds. Don't support the loser
in his attempt to flood them with angry responses.
Pax Cosmos
Ok, then. :)
What can be done to help get the message out?
Pax
John Wilkins
>
...
>> But as a relativist of sorts (a descriptive relativist), I have a problem
>> - if I think we have made moral progress, but I think rights and values
>> are contextually assigned, how can I count it progress? Why, because *I*
>> hold to the view that a universal humanism is a good.
>
>
> We both know that "good" is indefinable, an irreducable non-natrual term.
> And if a universal humanism is contexually assigned where *should* that
> context come from and based upon what in its description? Suppose: In trying
> to bring cultures together for a shared universal humanism, is there room
> for compromise? IOW would you be willing to give up any of *your* precieved
> rights if it would bring mankind to a more universal description of human
> rights? Look at the diversity: Communists believe they are/were bring about
> a farer humanism. Americans have there concepts. And the Netherlands have
> theirs.
I think that there's a difference between asserting rights and reaching a
compromise position. For example, I fail to see how the moral values of, say,
Iran are somehow offended if Australia permits homosexuality. We can both
assert that an accused person has a right to due process of law, and not be
subject to arbitrary search and seizure, even if they outlaw homosexual
behavior and Australia doesn't.
I would not be willing to give up any rights from my social context, and I
would strive to extend them where I think rights are needed (for example,
privacy laws, freedom of expression, neither of which are enshrined in my
constitution or legislation). But I would think it progress is Iran bowed to
international pressure (and internal pressure) and instituted a legal right to
worship and express one's religion even if it is not Islamic.
<snip Dutch gay rights>
Likewise, on the general principle that no group should be especially favoured
or disfavoured in a morally progressive society, I think that it is progress
when the legal protection of marriage is extended to same-sex couples.
>
>
> Another example: Would you be willing to assign personhood to pre-birth as
> many want? You have a fellow countryman philosopher who doesn't want
> personhood assigned until 28 days post-birth. There is no scientific
> description for personhood entitlement to these rights. Assigning personhood
> entitlement to what will be the universal humanism is ultimately arbitrary
> coming about through subjective arbitration.
In cases where the *actual* rights of a moral agent are in conflict with the
*possible* rights of a *potential* moral agent, then I would expect that there
will be a point at which the two are in equilibrium. Where that is, as you
say, has no scientific boundary (for this is a moral issue, not a scientific
one). But a society has to deal with such tradeoffs all the time - the moral
rights of a criminal versus those of the victim, for instance. That there is
conflict is not a reason to think that the process is arbitrary.
In my view, rights are not inherent. They are ascribed and assigned by a
social context. Fetuses have no moral rights in se, nor do animals, nor
criminals nor good adult citizens. They get them from the social structure, to
which they are contributors. We are not, however, set at a single point (say,
1948 and the Universal Declaration) - but rights have to apply over
generational timescales, so a fetus has rights over the expected lifetime of
that organism. In effect, a fetus "borrows" rights against its future credit.
So the question really is whether or not the borrowing is in balance with the
credit likelihood. A blastocyst has a low probability of getting to maturation
- most are spontaneously resorbed. A late term fetus has a high probability
(in many societies, about 1 in 20, in ours, much higher), and so it has a
better "credit line", morally speaking. Somewhere in the middle there, is a
balance. When weighed against the rights of adult individuals, then I think
there will be a general line, which we will sum up in a rule or law.
>
>
>
>> While I give a genetic account of morality (that is, I know it evolved in
>> a cultural and social context) nevertheless *I* hold my values (whose
>> else would I hold) and so I think that the nearer we are to my values,
>> the better the world is.
>
>
> Osama, Hitler, Gandhi, M. L. King, Bush, think and thought that too about
> their values. Problem is, who's right? You all are.....by your own values.
Morality is not about who is "right". It is about who, in a social context, is
*given* the right. This is a rhetorical argument of no weight. If you had a
society of Hitlers, then they all would have the rights given them, of course.
But I think (and this is my evolutionary conjecture) that such a society would
not survive long - it would either have to evolve something more "normal" in
the general sense of a moral society, or it would go extinct. Basically our
evolved nature as social animals constrains the kinds of extreme moral
positions one can successfully carry out in practice.
And to muddy the waters further, I do not think moral principles are
"justified" by values. They simply *are* values. One does not justify a moral
system, one justifies moral claims within a moral system. The "rightness" of a
moral system is like the truth value of a modal logic.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> Moral progress has, however, been made, and we are trying to export
>>>> it from the societies where it evolved for reasons of intellectual
>>>> and cultural change and conditions to other societies. The sole
>>>> justification for this remains John Stuart Mill's: that diversity of
>>>> error leads better to truth than a restrictive and enforced set of
>>>> "true" views can.
>>>
>>>
>>> So moral progress has been made based upon error in the claimed
>>> knowledge of moral truth? Doesn't that presuppose there *is* a moral
>>> truth to *theoretically* strive towards - in moral theory discoverable?
>>> Everyone else maybe in error except one person (a Gandhi, a Jesus,
>>> etc.) who come along with a clearer opinion (as Einstein did in
>>> Physics)? Are you a moral realist?
>>
>> I am a descriptive relativist but a prescriptive deontologist - that is,
>> I think moral values are self-justifying and are by definition binding on
>> moral agents.
>
>
> ....and so Schindler acted unethically as prescribed by Nazi societal
> values.
But ethically in the wider context of European society. Nazism was a partisan
movement within a single society - but it did not, nor did Stalinism nor
McCarthyism, act as an entire cultural and social tradition.
And the Nazis knew this, or they would not have hidden their actions. They
knew most Germans, as anti-Semitic as they were then, would not have
countenanced mass extermination, and in order to do what they did they had to
at least allow individuals to think it was all right for them to collaborate
with Nazism.
As a deontist I just think that a recognised duty is a duty. The problem ere
is that we do not all recognise the same duties. I think that in periods when
the duties recognised are all pretty much shared, there is no problem, but we
live in a pluraist society, and moral realism is an attempt to force the
problem to go away. It won't - we just have to try to find a (contractarian if
you like - I think this is the wrong metaphor, but it doesn't matter here)
consensus that serves as many of the shared moral duties and values we do haev
in common.
>
>
>
>
>>>>So, where do human rights come from? Basically all rights are socially
>>>>assigned. You have right X because it is the consensus of those in a
>>>>position to grant it that you have right X. For a right to be
>>>>species-wide, there needs to be a species-wide community that grants
>>>>them. There is, in fact. It's the UN, the Hague court, and the various
>>>>conventions.
>>>
>>>
>>>ah but *what* should those right be and who should have them. There are
>>>those who say a fetus has them.
>>
>> Yes there are. And there are those (I'm one of them) who think a chimp
>> should have them. The argument is not decided by facts, but by the
>> evolution of the moral "ecology" as it were. I would think that the loss
>> of rights involved in erring on the side of the fetus, at least early in
>> the pregnancy, is too great to make the analogical argument on which
>> grounds fetuses are granted rights carry much weight. You lose *actual*
>> rights to favour the *possible* rights that *might* be had by a fetus.
>
>
> All of which is merely your opinion. Since there is no moral truth-values
> to base that opinion upon, yours (even with your vast amount of
> philosophical background) is still no better than grandma-Catholic's who
> values all fetuses as persons. She'd likely believe that responsibilities
> are incumbent upon certain action taken, "You had sex, you knew the
> potential consequences, you created a new person, and now a responsibility
> is incumbent upon you." Would she be wrong? No, not by her values.
Well of course it is merely my opinion, as is everyone else's moral view. And
what sort of a society that we all end up constructing out of the past and
present moral views will depend on who is in the majority and a host of other
things (like is the moral majority the most influential?). If we lived in a
Catholic society that was not a secular democracy, then that society would
impose moral duties on secularists that they personally had no foundation for.
Would that be a wrong thing? I think so.
>
> Comparitively: Since there is no moral truth-values, how is it any different
> from a government banning abortions then it is from a government banning
> *free* speech in anti-gay discriminations? Where are the rights, who is it
> that has them, and how are they to be enforced? There is no right answer,
> non that have any truth-values grounding them.
You want me to justify one or the other moral claim. I can't do that, because
so far as I am concerned, a moral claim is self-justifying, and the one I take
to be in play is that people must not be forced to adhere to moral rules they
think are immoral.
But I can understand how this might come about, historically.
>
>
>
>> The argument here is one of tradeoff, as all public polity arguments are,
>> based on shared values. We all think that adult females have rights of
>> some sort - why should they be restricted when the *only* argument for
>> fetal rights lies in a religious theology?
>
>
> Why should they not? Since there is no Moral Realism, it makes no *real*
> difference what any normative moral code is based upon. They just are. It's
> *all* the stuff of the cultural mythology in play, whether that comes from
> some described theism or humanism. Those religious humans value their
> religious beliefs....and dang well believe they have a right to them.
Sure they do. But as a moral nonrealist, I also think they have no right to
force those moral claims onto anyone else.
>
> I'm not whating to dabate abortion but to show where the majority's value
> stands at present in America:
<snip stats>
>
> Those are the stats. They just are. Are those holding to pro-choice values
> and attempting to change the law to reflect those values wrong to do so? No,
> not in any *real* sense. There are no just nor unjust laws. There is only
> (contractual) law. We killed off just and unjust laws when we discovered
> (declared?) Natural Law theory to a be fallacy.
"Just" is a relative term, yes, in my analysis. But that doesn't mean I have
no grounds for claiming something to be just. I have, if I am correct about
what morals are, *exactly the same grounds* for making a justice claim as
*anyone else* does, no matter what they *think* the basis for moral claims are.
Moral realists, Christians and "Natural Law" theorists have *just the same*
moral standing as I do. There are no "scientific methods" for discovering
moral truths, even if there are moral facts that are independent of a social
context. Suppose God does decree that it is wrong to kill, for all species for
all time and in all places. What difference would it make for moral evolution?
You can't find that out in a way independent of religious belief in
revelation, nor can I. So we are in the same boat even if we think there is a
different reason for the bouyancy of it.
>
>
>> In a pluralist society, that would also mean religious hegemony, and the
>> loss of freedom of religion rights, a which is a greater evil.
>>
>> But granting rights to chimps, on the grounds that they are cognitively
>> equivalent to a human child with rights, is no denial of existing rights,
>> and so it can be extended without harm to others' rights.
>
>
> What about lobsters? In American we have people (PETA) who value the life
> of lobsters and free them from resturants. Many of these same people don't
> value the life of fetuses claiming pro-choice. I don't get it but, hey, its
> their values. When does a fetus's brain power surpass that of a
> lobster's?
That depends on whether they are taking a utilitarian view, and if so what the
utility function in play is. As I understand their view, it relies not on
brainpower but pain, and the claim is that a fetus's pain capacity is not
privileged over a lobster's. It's a view I think is incoherent.
>
>
>
>
>>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+universalism "There, is
>>> however, some form of universal absolutism as a moral stance, the
>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of
>>> Human Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations
>>> General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10 1948), outlining basic human
>>> rights. John Peters Humphrey of Canada was its principal drafter."
>>>
>>
>> Again, 'ware the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter *now* what the
>> (historical) reasons were for the adoption of universal human rights by
>> the UN. What matters is why we want it to be employed now.
>
>
> I don't know who the "we" are anymore. Looking at the UN they can't even
> seem to agree on rights when putting the declaration into practice.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I am not holding them up as a great example of moral
consistency.
>
>
>
>>>>So what are we to say of societies that reject the UN, the Hague, and the
>>>>Geneva Conventions, etc.? They are not human rights-driven, to be sure.
>>>
>>> <you suprise me> Those societies have their own socially assigned
>>> rights coming from its members. Societies believe their rights are the
>>> correct ones and many work to export them. But are there any moral
>>> truth-values being exported? Are rights real?
>>
>> I do not think, as a nonrealist about morals, that there are truth-vaules
>> in moral statements other than the usual factual ones. But I do think,
>> as an agent in a moral context, that the rights that are valued by me and
>> those of my milieu, should be heeded. It gets back to that deontic moral
>> philosophy I have again.
>>
>>Duties are assigned by societies, along with rights. But if you are within
>>that context, you are bound to obey the duties and protect the rights (of
>>yourself and others), even though you realise they are socially assigned.
>
>
> Schindler was unethical then?
No. Hitler and crew were, and knew it to be so. They had an extraordinary
claim - that moral traditions and values were subordinated to the interests of
the Volk (interests only they had perceived). They did not rationally show
this, or rationally hold to it. Schindler was acting as a decent human being
in a tradition that knew this was wrong. Most Germans did not have to engage
this problem.
The other thing is that moral confusion was a necessary precondition for
Nazism. It enabled the Nazis to use the moral tradition that, for example, one
should follow orders in a command hierarchy, to get ordinary people to commit
horrid acts they knew to be wrong.
>
>
>
>> My comment that surprises you, though, is just that the socieities that
>> reject the universal declaration are not human rights driven, which is
>> something of a tautology.
>
>
> That's what suprised me. I wasn't sure how you got from one point to the
> other.
Since "human rights" historically are those rights that devolve from the
Universal Declaration, any nation that rejects this is not human rights
driven. I take a historical view of definitions here (and elsewhere).
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> They are back in the midst of that species-wide tendency to favour
>>>> ourselves if we can forcibly do so. They are tribal societies. The
>>>> biggest and noisiest tribal society right now, is the United States
>>>> and its allies. Welcome to the New Dark Ages.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is human nature. Maybe it ought not be that way.
>>
>> Of course it should not. We can overcome our "biology" without too much
>> trouble - we've been monkeying with our propensities since we first
>> started living in sedentary conditions. Moral progress means, to a large
>> extent, overcoming our evolved natures. But knowing they *are* our
>> natures is a salutary warning - when we see this happening it should send
>> up alarm signals that we are sliding back.
>
>
> Hypothetically:
> Mission statement: Universal humanism's goal is to bring about the greatest
> happiness for the greatest number of people.
I dispute this. Utility is not a moral decider, IMO.
> Should the goals be short-term or long-term? Could there be conflicts
> between the two goals? What enforcement, if any, may be necessary?
All moral principles generate conflicts over different scales.
>
> Possible ways of bring about this goal
> 1. Eugenics: Breed a healthier and smarter population.
> Abnormalities and diseases caused by genetics have created a great deal of
> unhappiness to a lot of people both with the problem and for those who see
> themselves as burdened in taking care of them. They tax the healthcare
> system and increase the cost of living for the general population. Aside
> from the obvious how 'bout the not so obvious such as the mental: families
> prone to depression, schizophrenia, sociopthy, etc. Like eliminate small pox
> and polio, attempt to eliminate identified genes out of the general
> population.
You conflate several meanings of "eugenics" here. The real problem with
eugenics is an attempt to naturalise goals and hence values. But given prior
goals and values, is it wrong to use techniques available to achieve them? For
example, if you could ensure that no child would ever have type I diabestes
again, by manipulating genetic material, would you? I would. But if you could
eliminate, say, dyslexia, would you do that? I am not sure. This has no sharp
boundary either.
Incidentally, eugenics is something that goes back to Plato's Republic and the
Spartans. Basically, it's a matter of applying animal husbandry to humans, and
as soon as the techniques became available, it seems that it was indeed
applied to humans. Eugenics didn't begin in the 1900s.
>
> How would a program be enforced, or would any of it be? It's all in how the
> majority values the goal and the programs to bring it about. Do we value the
> goal long-term over any short-term negative means for bringing it about and
> so use enforcement of some sort, genetic testing for marriage licenses to
> use an example. Do we take a planned parenthood type of approach which
> arguably would have limited success. As human behavior goes, people just
> aren't *that* alturisic.
>
> For example: China attempts to limit its population by burdoning those
> parents who have more than one child. I'd wager few parents limit their
> family size for social aluristic reasons.For them every child is a wanted
> one is encumbant to the society, not by the parents.
>
> Anyway...I think that get my point accross. Setting lofty goals is one thing
> but the means of bringing them about can be quite another. The devil's in
> the details as the saying goes.
>
> I'll read any repy next week. We're having a holiday weekend.
> Scott
I had my daughter in for the weekend, so I have only just been able to respond
myself.
Can we cut these down to smaller posts? I don't have the time to do a solid
and sustained response to a large post, and I doubt people read them much anyway.
Ta.
Cracklin'
Your guess is as good as mine. I don't believe anything will ever change
the beliefs of those with "closed" minds - and a need to believe in an
afterlife (inability to accept the inevitability and finality of their own
death). No one can convince them the gods and/or goddesses don't exist.
Just like no one can ever convince us that they do! All anyone can hope for
is to open the eyes of the few with open minds,... anything else is
expecting too much.
--
CR..........
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
Reel McKoi
worker into the world.
Now That is the way to fight illegal imigration!!!!
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
EVERYONE: "Please check people's headers for forgeries
before flushing." NAMES ARE BEING FORGED.
Do not feed the trolls.
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>
Watchtower~Weekly wrote:
> From: Jabriol (Jab...@Netizen.org)
> Subject: Re: We are Primates and behave like primates.. free all
> rapist today!
> View: Complete Thread (272 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,
> alt.support.depression.teens, alt.support.rape-survivors
> Date: 1999/08/06
>
> Well then you should protest to the american public school
> system, that
> teaches
> that man is a mere animal, and when his biological urge occur,
> he will act
> acordingly.
>
> Or does anyone denies That Humans are nothing more than evolved
> super ape..
>
> is Morals taught in school? in science?
>
> or are morals part of religion that is taught as myth...
>
> Rape is a very horrible thing,
>
> what is more horrible, is that the teaching of evolution teaches
> kids to
> take a chance..
>
> How many rape victims will ever be able to take thier victims to
> court?
>
> how many got away with it? and will never be caught, because
> they learn that
> human are here by mere chance,
> and you only got one life to live. Take that chance, teache
> evolution.. and
> hence rapist take the chance and get away with it.
>
> My wife was raped.. she could not ever Identify who did it..
>
> in new york my oldest "daughter" was raped at 13, her rapist got
> away with
> it.. the was mentally damage so bad, that I had to remove her
> from the
> household.. 38,000 dollar for just to weeks at a juvinile
> facilty for
> nothing..
>
> this is what evolution teaches...
>
> and people on TO, say that I force out the home, when they do
> not have all
> the facts..
> I would castrate the bastard who did it..
>
> but I wil lnot have that oportunity.. so you guys can forward
> this to my ISP
> as well..
>
>
> :RAPE OBSESSION?
>
>
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>
>
>
>
Pax Cosmos
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip>
You may be right about *them* (the dogmatic religious types). But the
people I was talking about getting the message out to are those people
who are already scientifically-minded, who are already
anti-creationist, but who just don't see the need for studying more
seriously dogmatic religious thinking in general, and creationism in
particular, from a social and behavioral science perspective.
I would hope that *these* people, who are already very pro-science when
it comes to such fields as biology and chemistry and physics, are not
so closed-minded that they would dismiss without serious thought the
possibilities of gaining insight into the dogmatic religious mindset
through more serious study of psychology, anthropology, and the history
of ideas, etc. But so far, this message seems to be falling on
(mostly) deaf ears within the pro-science, anti-creationism community.
And I don't know why this is. Can you figure it out?
So now that I've made myself a little more clear about what I was
asking (sorry if I phrased it wrong before): What do you think could
be done to get the message out to the pro-science, anti-creationist
people that we really need to study more seriously the psychology and
cultural anthropology, etc. of creationism and dogmatic religious
thinking?
Pax
Cracklin'
>
> You may be right about *them* (the dogmatic religious types). But the
> people I was talking about getting the message out to are those people
> who are already scientifically-minded, who are already
> anti-creationist, but who just don't see the need for studying more
> seriously dogmatic religious thinking in general, and creationism in
> particular, from a social and behavioral science perspective.
## Unless they're dedicated anti-cultists and deprogrammers who truly want
to free people from religious cults and groups - why would they? They
probably don't have the time (or interest) to get so deeply involved. I
did know a person who went into deprogramming after escaping from the
Watchtower society in the 1970s. She really got into the reasons people
join these harmful cults. But this she was already some type of
psychotherapist.
> I would hope that *these* people, who are already very pro-science when
> it comes to such fields as biology and chemistry and physics, are not
> so closed-minded that they would dismiss without serious thought the
> possibilities of gaining insight into the dogmatic religious mindset
> through more serious study of psychology, anthropology, and the history
> of ideas, etc. But so far, this message seems to be falling on
> (mostly) deaf ears within the pro-science, anti-creationism community.
> And I don't know why this is. Can you figure it out?
## I don't think it's a popular field to get into. Remember what Darwin had
to endure after writing his book..... most people would rather look the
other way and let the gullible and superstitious believe as they will.
> So now that I've made myself a little more clear about what I was
> asking (sorry if I phrased it wrong before): What do you think could
> be done to get the message out to the pro-science, anti-creationist
> people that we really need to study more seriously the psychology and
> cultural anthropology, etc. of creationism and dogmatic religious
> thinking?
## Good grief Pax.... I sure wish I had the answer to that one. Perhaps it
is being done, but quietly and under the radar. Or perhaps it has been done
but we haven't yet heard about it.
> Pax
CR..........
www.freeminds.org
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
Cracklin'
sock-puppet. Set your killfiles accordingly. :-) Jabriol is suffering a
complete breakdown.
CR.......
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.11
X-Complaints-To: news...@ikano.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Reel Mckoi
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Geister
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not iksgorkon
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Gantz
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not judgedred
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.154.80.80 = Jabriol - not Usenet Hegemon
=================================
"Reel McKoi" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:4aFme.26$2s3.9...@news.sisna.com...
Pax Cosmos
Well, I'm not actually talking so much about trying to deprogram the
dogmatic religious types as I am in countering their rhetoric among
those people in the middle, who are neither very scientifically
literate, nor hard-line fundamentalist. The polls I've seen have the
percentage of the general U.S. population falling for the "let's teach
the controversy," or "let's teach both evolution and creation in
science class" as above 50% now, and getting worse all the time. So
the rhetoric of the dogmatic religious types is having a much greater
impact outside their own ranks than one would expect, given all the
good scientific data in the libraries and in the university classrooms,
etc. And given all the experts out there available to them to set them
straight on the facts about evolution. But the general public, by and
large, isn't taking advantage of all these resources on their own, and
the academic biologists, the other physical scientists, science
teachers, and those laymen educated in these fields haven't been able
to reach out to them so far with rhetoric that will convince them.
So, the reason why I think that the scientifically-literate,
pro-evolution, anti-creationist camp could benefit from a better
understanding of dogmatic religious mindsets and cultural and social
factors is that it might give us a better chance of knowing how to
counter this fundie rhetoric aimed at the people in the middle, *not*
that it would necessarily allow us to "deprogram" the fundies
themselves. As you indicated, these people may be beyond the
persuasive means that we have at our disposal. But I think that their
influence among the general public could be greatly reduced if we
understood better the psychological dynamics of the rhetoric they use,
and the cultural and social factors involved. It's clear to me that
our ignorance of these matters isn't helping us at all right now.
But it appears (to me) that even the vast majority of those people who
are very actively engaged in trying to counter the ID/creationist
rhetoric "don't have the time (or interest)", as you put it, to study
more deeply the social and behavioral science aspects of creationism.
It was this particular message--about trying to find better ways of
countering their rhetoric by means of a better understanding of the
psychological and cultural factors at play--that I was talking about
trying to get out to the scientifically-literate part of society.
And like I said previously, it's a very hard sell. I wonder why this
is, since these people fighting creationism are very pro-science when
it comes to biology, geology, and chemistry, etc. They just don't seem
to have much curiosity when the subject is the thinking and behavioral
patterns, and social and cultural contexts, associated with the
ID/creationist movement. And this is quite puzzling and disheartening
to me. One would think that they'd have more interest in approaching
this subject scientifically. But from my observations, they don't.
Pax
Cracklin'
> And like I said previously, it's a very hard sell. I wonder why this
> is, since these people fighting creationism are very pro-science when
> it comes to biology, geology, and chemistry, etc. They just don't seem
> to have much curiosity when the subject is the thinking and behavioral
> patterns, and social and cultural contexts, associated with the
> ID/creationist movement.
$$ This is true. But as I said we don't know what's going on "behind closed
doors" so to speak. Since various religions/superstitions have been when
mankind since we came down out of the trees, perhaps they know it would be
useless to put a lot of time into studying the subject as deeply as you
mention. I believe, from what I read that religious people have a "need" to
believe in something after death - but that comes back to man's basic
refusal to accept the inevitability and finality of his own death. If that
means believing in a magical creation despite all the evidence against it -
these people will blindly believe! They will believe anything to think
there is something beyond the grave,....and lets not forget there are very
religious people out there who do not believe in creation as the bible
describes it. They believe a god was involved somehow, in the beginning -
but that things evolved on their own thereafter........
And this is quite puzzling and disheartening
> to me. One would think that they'd have more interest in approaching
> this subject scientifically. But from my observations, they don't.
$$ This is also true. Perhaps someone will find the answer before we're
stoning our children to death at the village gates, killing others for
having different gods again and the men start bringing home
concubines.......
--
CR in Watchtowerland....
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., p. 1061
"While malicious lying is definitely condemned in
the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under
obligation to divulge truthful information to people
who are not entitled to it." *WHO DECIDES?*
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
http://www.intrex.net/talley/list7_13.html
So many sheep, so much fleecing.
Brooklyn Bugle
Groups Jim Moyers, MA, MFT
(While this article was originally written for psychotherapists
working with ex-fundamentalists, it should be helpful for anyone
who
has been involved with a restrictive religious group.
Issues Of the Former Member in Psychotherapy
Ex-members of restrictive religious groups rarely come into
therapy
with their religious past as the presenting issue. They are of
course subject to the same pathogenic factors as everyone else:
such
a background is not an all-inclusive explanation for every
problem a
former member may present. But as the work of therapy proceeds,
unresolved conflicts involving past beliefs sometimes become
apparent.
Religious conflicts should always be approached from a carefully
neutral position. The therapist must walk a fine line between the
traditional psychoanalytic bias against religion as pathological
on
one hand and naivet about the potential of some religious systems
for undermining a healthy sense of self on the other. Even though
the client may claim to have rejected her or his former beliefs,
the
therapist should remain neutral. Emphasizing negative aspects of
a
once strongly held way of being in the world may trigger defense
of
something with which the client is still unconsciously
identified.
Criticism of past beliefs may be misconstrued as criticism of the
client for having believed them. There may be shame in having
once
accepted as true things that now seem untenable.
The former member should be encouraged to look at the positive as
well as negative aspects of having belonged to a restrictive
religious group. It is often helpful to approach the involvement
as
a developmental stage that was important, in ways both good and
bad,
in shaping the individual's life. As with any other developmental
stage, the restrictive belief system was eventually outgrown. But
unlike most other life stages, there is rarely a readily apparent
next stage for the former believer to move on to. This is
especially
true with groups that actively discourage awareness of other
systems
of thought and lifestyles. Group members may know nothing about
other religions, the humanities, or modern critical thought.
Education in schools operated by the group, where all ideas are
filtered through the shared belief system, tends to increase
social
and cultural isolation. Thus the former member may be unaware of
alternative approaches to spiritual and existential questions.
Support for spiritual and philosophical explorations, in
contrast to
the limits set by the former belief system, will help validate
the
client's capacity for independent thought.
Without the unequivocal pronouncements that once guided them,
former
members of restrictive groups are apt to feel lost and confused.
In
any transition, there is a naturally occuring period of time
between
the collapse of old beliefs and their replacement by a new set of
guiding principles. Kuhn's (1970) account of the disorientation
that
occurs when a scientific viewpoint once thought to be definitive
fails to fit emergent facts can be applied to the similar
confusion
that comes with shifts in religious belief. Bridge's (1980)
concept
of an "empty" middle phase in transitions is also helpful in
normalizing the ex-believer's sense of confusion and inner
emptiness
as a natural part of the process of moving beyond outmoded views
about self and the world.
The tenets of a restrictive religious group serve as the primary
source of meaning and self definition for its members. In
departing
from them, the former believer loses what may well have been the
central focus of her or his life. As with any loss, there is an
associated grief process which, however, often goes unrecognized.
Acknowledging losses as well as gains in leaving the group, and
normalizing the depression the ex-member may feel as a natural
response to the loss can go a long way towards helping him or her
move through the necessary grief process.
Brooklyn Bugle
Scott
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:d7dslq$12dh$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
> Scott wrote:
>> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:d75pu1$2kpo$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
>>
<Snipping>
I'll try to condense.
>
> I think that there's a difference between asserting rights and reaching a
> compromise position. For example, I fail to see how the moral values of,
> say,
> Iran are somehow offended if Australia permits homosexuality. We can both
> assert that an accused person has a right to due process of law, and not
> be
> subject to arbitrary search and seizure, even if they outlaw homosexual
> behavior and Australia doesn't.
The reason I asked about compromise was due to your goal of establishing a
trans-cultural moral code, stating what those Human rights are and are not.
>
>I would not be willing to give up any rights from my social context, and I
> would strive to extend them where I think rights are needed (for example,
> privacy laws, freedom of expression, neither of which are enshrined in my
> constitution or legislation). But I would think it progress is Iran bowed
> to
> international pressure (and internal pressure) and instituted a legal
> right to
> worship and express one's religion even if it is not Islamic.
(Beside the point but they can worship *if* the persons belongs to a
sanctioned religion such as Christian and Judaism. They're restricted from
political offices IIRC)
We both think that it would be progressive for Iran to *lighten* up on what
we value as religious freedoms. But we come at it from a different
perspective, yours from that of an anti-realist and mine from that of a
realist.
You see the progress based upon your (borrowing from business language)
'mission statement' for which Iran does not share with you.
Now I'm the first to admit that I have neither proof nor evidence for my
realism beliefs. I guess that were the <cough> value in faith, revelation,
and human intuition comes in. I cannot construct a rational argument for
moral realism. I can, however, present negating arguments to Relativism.
Going from the anti-real to the real takes a leap of faith. So to me
progress is *directional*. One moral system is further along in journey of
moral truth discovery. I think the vast majority of people (self-proclaimed
naturalists as well) think of morality and moral progress in this way. For
example, I've seen naturalistic atheists coming into religious ngs and say
"atheists are more moral than theists because.." or "I don't need any god to
*know* right from wrong." So I'll ask them what they base that right and
wrong upon. The answer that invariable (so far) has been based upon an
implied moral realism. Some have used the logical argument from evil as
bases for their not being a god. But that presupposes that evil actual does
exist as a realism and not some human subjective construct.
At some point we all must trust our intuitions, even physicists these use
*elegance* as an intuitive bases:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638?&print=yes
>
> Likewise, on the general principle that no group should be especially
> favoured
> or disfavoured in a morally progressive society, I think that it is
> progress
> when the legal protection of marriage is extended to same-sex couples.
How about in society were adult to child sexual relations are
*progressively* de-stigmatized as based upon rational argument?
http://216.220.97.17/benefit.htm#studies
Would de-stigmatization be moral progress? Can we trust our gut to say "no"?
A lot of people have taken aim on the Catholic Church's leaders with *good*
reason and I think *righteously* so. But what do I ground that on? That it's
caused harm to children? Yeah. But then again is the harm due to the contact
or is it due to social prejudices about the act itself?
Changing moral customs is one thing but I have a problem calling something
progressive without some truth grounding to do so. It's too euphemistic for
me since most people when speaking of moral progress use the term (if not
stated directly) in the sense of Moral Truth. Obviously, two moral codes are
different. But were one comparatively progressive over the other? I don't
now how to asses that unless they both share the same mission stated ethical
goals. We can state people share common values but that begs a question as
to what are positive and negative values underpinning codes. Who knows, it
might be good to genocide another society and take it's resources. Our
specie has certainly been doing that for quit a long time - it's doing so
today in fact. Values simply are what they are. Contrary to another poster,
prefixing 'positive' and 'negative' to values doesn't connote anything
rational to them.
<Snipping >
> In my view, rights are not inherent. They are ascribed and assigned by a
> social context. Fetuses have no moral rights in se, nor do animals, nor
> criminals nor good adult citizens. They get them from the social
> structure, to
> which they are contributors. We are not, however, set at a single point
> (say,
> 1948 and the Universal Declaration) - but rights have to apply over
> generational timescales, so a fetus has rights over the expected lifetime
> of
> that organism. In effect, a fetus "borrows" rights against its future
> credit.
>
> So the question really is whether or not the borrowing is in balance with
> the
> credit likelihood. A blastocyst has a low probability of getting to
> maturation
> - most are spontaneously resorbed. A late term fetus has a high
> probability
> (in many societies, about 1 in 20, in ours, much higher), and so it has a
> better "credit line", morally speaking. Somewhere in the middle there, is
> a
> balance. When weighed against the rights of adult individuals, then I
> think
> there will be a general line, which we will sum up in a rule or law.
That is the current rationalization. And many (more all the time) don't
agree with that rationalization. They would have more restrictions in place.
If they get those restrictions they'll also call them moral progress.
If we could only figure out what the best moral system *is*... or *ought* to
be. I'm a bit of a skeptic about my own views - that goes along with being a
realist.
snipped
>>>
>>> I am a descriptive relativist but a prescriptive deontologist - that is,
>>> I think moral values are self-justifying and are by definition binding
>>> on
>>> moral agents.
>>
>>
>> ....and so Schindler acted unethically as prescribed by Nazi societal
>> values.
>
> But ethically in the wider context of European society. Nazism was a
> partisan
> movement within a single society - but it did not, nor did Stalinism nor
> McCarthyism, act as an entire cultural and social tradition.
When does a sub-culture evolve into it own unique society?
Nazis and Stalin at the time certainly had control of their society's moral
structure. They were attempted moral reformers. Hitler, at least, made a lot
of public rationalizations for his reforms.
> And the Nazis knew this, or they would not have hidden their actions. They
> knew most Germans, as anti-Semitic as they were then, would not have
> countenanced mass extermination, and in order to do what they did they had
> to
> at least allow individuals to think it was all right for them to
> collaborate
> with Nazism.
Nazi values, though, are self validating without a *real* standard.
snipping
>
> As a deontist I just think that a recognised duty is a duty. The problem
> ere
> is that we do not all recognise the same duties. I think that in periods
> when
> the duties recognised are all pretty much shared, there is no problem, but
> we
> live in a pluraist society, and moral realism is an attempt to force the
> problem to go away. It won't - we just have to try to find a
> (contractarian if
> you like - I think this is the wrong metaphor, but it doesn't matter here)
> consensus that serves as many of the shared moral duties and values we do
> haev
> in common.
That's what it's all about isn't it? Everyone believes they have a duty and
that duty is/ought also imbued upon others. With opposing values, consensus
means a lot of people must divorce themselves of *their* recognized duties
and values to adopt some other (where would usenet be today if we only had
consensus? ;)).
Going back to my argument above where moral discourse is involved between
naturalists (those that should be anti-realists) and non-naturalists (those
that realists) both argue to their human rights values being imbued upon the
other. I don't see where the anti-realists can make such claims when they
also say they hold no such belief system to support the claim. Most people
IMO reject Absolutism, and Objectivism for Relativism thinking the later
equates to Situational Ethics instead of cultural mores.
To me it looks all the world equivalent as to someone saying: "You can't be
a true Texan if you don't like the Hill Country, Schiner Bock, brisket, and
Willie Nelson's music. It's a necessity of being a part of the Texas
mystic..ya'll." "You are either with us or you're against us."
I think when have a consensus of shared recognized, *rationalized*, duties
and values, it can be said we have a working mythology.
Snipped
>>
>>
>> All of which is merely your opinion. Since there is no moral truth-values
>> to base that opinion upon, yours (even with your vast amount of
>> philosophical background) is still no better than grandma-Catholic's who
>> values all fetuses as persons. She'd likely believe that responsibilities
>> are incumbent upon certain action taken, "You had sex, you knew the
>> potential consequences, you created a new person, and now a
>> responsibility
>> is incumbent upon you." Would she be wrong? No, not by her values.
>
> Well of course it is merely my opinion, as is everyone else's moral view.
> And
> what sort of a society that we all end up constructing out of the past and
> present moral views will depend on who is in the majority and a host of
> other
> things (like is the moral majority the most influential?). If we lived in
> a
> Catholic society that was not a secular democracy, then that society would
> impose moral duties on secularists that they personally had no foundation
> for.
> Would that be a wrong thing? I think so.
In today's American society, pedophilia is an imposed immorality. Is it
wrong for the society to impose upon those who personally have no foundation
to that imposition? We're back to truth-values again. Wrong and right is
whatever it's deemed to be. As you say the moral claim is self justifying.
It could be argued to come from Subjectivism or Cultural Relativism. How
many individuals does it take to make a morality? Some think only one.
<Enter NAMBLA through the left door> NAMBLA and its associates think the
same thing and have social research papers to rationalize their position.
They think the current culture has no right to restrict them from pursuing
sexual relations with consenting teens.
In a way I agree. Most of us (including so many naturalistic atheists
posting their moral arguments to religious ngs) think and argue as though
there is a moral *compass* leading their boat in right direction. As a
realist I believe there is a true north, but as a non-realist that compass
is useless. And values don't help since there are no true values either.
Snipped
> Can we cut these down to smaller posts? I don't have the time to do a
> solid
> and sustained response to a large post, and I doubt people read them much
> anyway.
>
> Ta.
I tried cutting back. As much as people argue over ethics, I am a little
curious that more don't engage in the nature of ethical theories. I went to
Catholic school were we had to discuss the issue of what is right and wrong.
Our public school counterparts never do for fear of government endorsement
of certain values. Public schools leave it up to Sunday schools to teach
ethics. And that's usually by volunteers with no formal ed on the subject.
Scott
Pax Cosmos
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117587996....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > And like I said previously, it's a very hard sell. I wonder why this
> > is, since these people fighting creationism are very pro-science when
> > it comes to biology, geology, and chemistry, etc. They just don't seem
> > to have much curiosity when the subject is the thinking and behavioral
> > patterns, and social and cultural contexts, associated with the
> > ID/creationist movement.
>
> $$ This is true. But as I said we don't know what's going on "behind closed
> doors" so to speak. Since various religions/superstitions have been when
> mankind since we came down out of the trees, perhaps they know it would be
> useless to put a lot of time into studying the subject as deeply as you
> mention. I believe, from what I read that religious people have a "need" to
> believe in something after death - but that comes back to man's basic
> refusal to accept the inevitability and finality of his own death. If that
> means believing in a magical creation despite all the evidence against it -
> these people will blindly believe! They will believe anything to think
> there is something beyond the grave,....and lets not forget there are very
> religious people out there who do not believe in creation as the bible
> describes it. They believe a god was involved somehow, in the beginning -
> but that things evolved on their own thereafter........
Yes it is quite possible that such studies *are* going on "behind
closed doors" and are just not being published. But if this is the
case, then they are doing the anti-creationist activist community no
good at all, since the rhetoric we are now using to try to counter
creationist rhetoric is largely ineffective on the general public. And
if such studies are *not* going on behind closed doors, we're even
worse off, because it would take us even longer to get this information
to where it could do some good, since it wouldn't even exist yet.
If you're right about people having such religious needs, and if
there's nothing we can do about it, then sooner or later science will
be supressed, and we'll all be back in the Dark Ages again. I would
prefer to think that there *is* something that we can do about it, and
that we just need to find out what that is. And for me, the best bet
in that department is more scientific knowledge about how dogmatic
religious types are able to brainwash other people into following their
lead. Think about this: If nobody could possibly resist their
rhetoric, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be
creationists like them. So not *everyone* has the "need" to deny
scientific reality in order to cope with the idea of death. If *we*
can do it, and if many others can do it, then it seems reasonable to
suppose that many of those now falling for creationists rhetoric could
do it too, given the right counter-rhetoric on our part.
Doesn't that seem reasonable to you? If not, why not?
> And this is quite puzzling and disheartening
> > to me. One would think that they'd have more interest in approaching
> > this subject scientifically. But from my observations, they don't.
>
> $$ This is also true. Perhaps someone will find the answer before we're
> stoning our children to death at the village gates, killing others for
> having different gods again and the men start bringing home
> concubines.......
> --
> CR in Watchtowerland....
Well, if we ourselves don't take the initiative and start pressing for
such studies to be made public (if they exist), or for the research to
be done (if they don't), then we'll only have ourselves to blame for
what happens next. If people had done more studying of National
Socialism before WWII, and more propagation of the knowledge they *did*
have, then perhaps it could have been avoided. But they didn't, and it
wasn't, and they suffered the consequences.
Perhaps we will learn the lessons from history this time. Or maybe
some future generation will learn from *our* mistake if we sit back and
let it happen, like we should have learned from the pre-WWII generation
that did just that.
Pax
Koi4Me
It seem to me that you are suffering from a break down.
go away!!!
Cracklin'
> Cracklin' wrote:
> > $$ This is true. But as I said we don't know what's going on "behind
closed
> > doors" so to speak. Since various religions/superstitions have been
when
> > mankind since we came down out of the trees, perhaps they know it would
be
> > useless to put a lot of time into studying the subject as deeply as you
> > mention. I believe, from what I read that religious people have a
"need" to
> > believe in something after death - but that comes back to man's basic
> > refusal to accept the inevitability and finality of his own death. If
that
> > means believing in a magical creation despite all the evidence against
it -
> > these people will blindly believe! They will believe anything to think
> > there is something beyond the grave,....and lets not forget there are
very
> > religious people out there who do not believe in creation as the bible
> > describes it. They believe a god was involved somehow, in the
beginning -
> > but that things evolved on their own thereafter........
> Yes it is quite possible that such studies *are* going on "behind
> closed doors" and are just not being published. But if this is the
> case, then they are doing the anti-creationist activist community no
> good at all,
# That's probably not being considered.
since the rhetoric we are now using to try to counter
> creationist rhetoric is largely ineffective on the general public.
# But we don't really know that. Church attendance has been dropping in the
USA for some time now. I personally know few people who believe in a
magical, fantastical creation and I live in the bible belt. I also know
most people keep their religious views rather private so as not to offend
the "true believers."
And
> if such studies are *not* going on behind closed doors, we're even
> worse off, because it would take us even longer to get this information
> to where it could do some good, since it wouldn't even exist yet.
>
> If you're right about people having such religious needs, and if
> there's nothing we can do about it, then sooner or later science will
> be supressed, and we'll all be back in the Dark Ages again.
# Lets hope that never happens but one can never know since the religious
people among us are not usually very rational. There is nothing more
dangerous than religious fanatics/creationists.
I would
> prefer to think that there *is* something that we can do about it, and
> that we just need to find out what that is. And for me, the best bet
> in that department is more scientific knowledge about how dogmatic
> religious types are able to brainwash other people into following their
> lead.
# I read about studies done on this subject back in the 1970s when the
off-beat cults were really out there looking for converts. Brain washing is
well understood these days. The subject came up again after the Waco
tragedy. Remember that most creationists/fanatics were indoctrinated as
children, by their parents and family church. It's hard for people to give
up long held beliefs. Then toss in the "need" to believe there is something
beyond death.... it's hard for any knowledge to get through such a dense
"wall."
Think about this: If nobody could possibly resist their
> rhetoric, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
# There are those who don't need this belief in life-after-death, those who
live in the real world - those who don't need an invisible "daddy" to lean
on, don't need the FEAR of punishment to be decent law abiding citizens,
etc. :-)
We'd be
> creationists like them. So not *everyone* has the "need" to deny
> scientific reality in order to cope with the idea of death. If *we*
> can do it, and if many others can do it, then it seems reasonable to
> suppose that many of those now falling for creationists rhetoric could
> do it too, given the right counter-rhetoric on our part.
> Doesn't that seem reasonable to you? If not, why not?
# Ahhh,... but that's the problem, finding that key to open their *closed*
minds! But now you're entering the realm of the deprogrammer as I learned
from my old friend in NY. Remember that a creationist was "programmed" to
believe as they do - usually as children, be they Jewish or Mormon.
Basically that's what it comes down to. The mainstream religions are only
slightly different than the "cults" out there. What works on a cult (Moonie
for example) member would also work on a devout Baptist or catholic. Have
you ever tried to discuss the absurdities in the bible with a Fundy?
Discuss the findings where evolution and the age of man is concerned? They
immediately go into "apologist" mode and you get nowhere...... only
deprogramming would work. I sure you can see the "problem."
> > $$ This is also true. Perhaps someone will find the answer before we're
> > stoning our children to death at the village gates, killing others for
> > having different gods again and the men start bringing home
> > concubines.......
> > --
> > CR in Watchtowerland....
> Well, if we ourselves don't take the initiative and start pressing for
> such studies to be made public (if they exist), or for the research to
> be done (if they don't), then we'll only have ourselves to blame for
> what happens next. If people had done more studying of National
> Socialism before WWII, and more propagation of the knowledge they *did*
> have, then perhaps it could have been avoided. But they didn't, and it
> wasn't, and they suffered the consequences.
## Yes, we reap what we sow..... sooner or later we pay the Piper.
> Perhaps we will learn the lessons from history this time. Or maybe
> some future generation will learn from *our* mistake if we sit back and
> let it happen, like we should have learned from the pre-WWII generation
> that did just that.
## From my point of view the creationists are mere specks on the horizon
when compared to the Moslems. Most of them are taught that non-Moslems have
no right to live.....
--
CR............
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:d7dslq$12dh$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>news:d75pu1$2kpo$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
>>>
> <Snipping>
>
> I'll try to condense.
>
>> I think that there's a difference between asserting rights and reaching a
>> compromise position. For example, I fail to see how the moral values of,
>> say, Iran are somehow offended if Australia permits homosexuality. We
>> can both assert that an accused person has a right to due process of law,
>> and not be subject to arbitrary search and seizure, even if they outlaw
>> homosexual behavior and Australia doesn't.
>
> The reason I asked about compromise was due to your goal of establishing a
> trans-cultural moral code, stating what those Human rights are and are not.
No, I have no such *goal*. I *hope* that it will occur, and when I can I act
such that it will occur, but I cannot rightly say I intend for it to be
imposed upon unwilling nations or cultures.
>
>> I would not be willing to give up any rights from my social context, and
>> I would strive to extend them where I think rights are needed (for
>> example, privacy laws, freedom of expression, neither of which are
>> enshrined in my constitution or legislation). But I would think it
>> progress is Iran bowed to international pressure (and internal pressure)
>> and instituted a legal right to worship and express one's religion even
>> if it is not Islamic.
>
> (Beside the point but they can worship *if* the persons belongs to a
> sanctioned religion such as Christian and Judaism. They're restricted from
> political offices IIRC)
>
> We both think that it would be progressive for Iran to *lighten* up on what
> we value as religious freedoms. But we come at it from a different
> perspective, yours from that of an anti-realist and mine from that of a
> realist.
Yes.
>
> You see the progress based upon your (borrowing from business language)
> 'mission statement' for which Iran does not share with you.
>
> Now I'm the first to admit that I have neither proof nor evidence for my
> realism beliefs. I guess that were the <cough> value in faith, revelation,
> and human intuition comes in. I cannot construct a rational argument for
> moral realism. I can, however, present negating arguments to Relativism.
> Going from the anti-real to the real takes a leap of faith. So to me
> progress is *directional*. One moral system is further along in journey of
> moral truth discovery. I think the vast majority of people (self-proclaimed
> naturalists as well) think of morality and moral progress in this way. For
> example, I've seen naturalistic atheists coming into religious ngs and say
> "atheists are more moral than theists because.." or "I don't need any god to
> *know* right from wrong." So I'll ask them what they base that right and
> wrong upon. The answer that invariable (so far) has been based upon an
> implied moral realism. Some have used the logical argument from evil as
> bases for their not being a god. But that presupposes that evil actual does
> exist as a realism and not some human subjective construct.
A side point - moral values can be real without requiring a god or divine
sanction. I can employ the argument from evil in one of two ways - as a tu
quoque (or a "by your lights" argument, the original meaning of ad hominem),
or I can say there is real evil, and a god is inconsistent with that.
But I do not need to be a moral realist to hope that other nations will end up
agreeing with me on moral values such as human rights. Indeed, that is exactly
what I, an antirealist (I have some issues about that term, but let it slide
for now) do hope. And I (and they, if they concur with me) will call it moral
progress.
>
> At some point we all must trust our intuitions, even physicists these use
> *elegance* as an intuitive bases:
> http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638
I think that you cannot move from a heuristic (which is successful sometimes,
and not others, although the failures don't get published) to a substantive
claim of metaphysics.
>
>> Likewise, on the general principle that no group should be especially
>> favoured or disfavoured in a morally progressive society, I think that it
>> is progress when the legal protection of marriage is extended to same-sex
>> couples.
>
> How about in society were adult to child sexual relations are
> *progressively* de-stigmatized as based upon rational argument?
> http://216.220.97.17/benefit.htm#studies
I won't go to that link, because I find rationalisations for child sex
repugnant. I have encountered at least one of that kind.
Post hoc or special pleading rationalisations are common. Why should I accept
these prima facie?
>
> Would de-stigmatization be moral progress? Can we trust our gut to say "no"?
> A lot of people have taken aim on the Catholic Church's leaders with *good*
> reason and I think *righteously* so. But what do I ground that on? That it's
> caused harm to children? Yeah. But then again is the harm due to the contact
> or is it due to social prejudices about the act itself?
Well, trusting our gut is what I say we *do* do in matters moral. So thanks
for the support for antirealism :-)
But the harm is both contextual and uncontextual - there is a harm from the
stigmatisation of pedophilia, homosexuality (most pedophiles appear to be
homosexual in their orientation, although not the reverse) and the
exploitation of those unable to act in their own behalf. But there is also
harm done by engaging in acts that require maturity with immature organisms.
>
> Changing moral customs is one thing but I have a problem calling something
> progressive without some truth grounding to do so. It's too euphemistic for
> me since most people when speaking of moral progress use the term (if not
> stated directly) in the sense of Moral Truth. Obviously, two moral codes are
> different. But were one comparatively progressive over the other? I don't
> now how to asses that unless they both share the same mission stated ethical
> goals. We can state people share common values but that begs a question as
> to what are positive and negative values underpinning codes. Who knows, it
> might be good to genocide another society and take it's resources. Our
> specie has certainly been doing that for quit a long time - it's doing so
> today in fact. Values simply are what they are. Contrary to another poster,
> prefixing 'positive' and 'negative' to values doesn't connote anything
> rational to them.
Perhaps not. If you don't like "progressive" in purely axiological matters,
use something like "nicer" or "better". That's fine by me. But whatever it is
when someone else's values get closer to those I think are better, that's what
I mean by moral progress. And it isn't just subjective, either, as I think my
values lead in practical terms to a healthier and more resilient society, one
which can adapt to crises more effectively.
> <Snipping >
>
>> In my view, rights are not inherent. They are ascribed and assigned by a
>> social context. Fetuses have no moral rights in se, nor do animals, nor
>> criminals nor good adult citizens. They get them from the social
>> structure, to which they are contributors. We are not, however, set at a
>> single point (say, 1948 and the Universal Declaration) - but rights have
>> to apply over generational timescales, so a fetus has rights over the
>> expected lifetime of that organism. In effect, a fetus "borrows" rights
>> against its future credit.
>>
>> So the question really is whether or not the borrowing is in balance with
>> the credit likelihood. A blastocyst has a low probability of getting to
>> maturation - most are spontaneously resorbed. A late term fetus has a
>> high probability (in many societies, about 1 in 20, in ours, much
>> higher), and so it has a better "credit line", morally speaking.
>> Somewhere in the middle there, is a balance. When weighed against the
>> rights of adult individuals, then I think there will be a general line,
>> which we will sum up in a rule or law.
>
> That is the current rationalization. And many (more all the time) don't
> agree with that rationalization. They would have more restrictions in place.
> If they get those restrictions they'll also call them moral progress.
So in the end the refutation of my view is an argumentum ad gentium? Sorry,
but fifty million Frenchmen *can* be wrong...
That's an interesting question for cultural evolution theory, akin to the
question when something is different enough to form a new species in
biological evolution. The answer in both domains is that there is no fixed or
absolute amount of difference that settles the matter. Both are based on post
hoc observations that the subculture/variety does not intermingle with the
broader population from which it evolved. You cannot say, for example (as some
biolgoists do) that a 70% difference is sufficient - that's arbitrary. But
worse, some divergent societies and species have almost no difference - al
that counts is that for whatever causal reason, they remain separate when in
the same locale.
>
> Nazis and Stalin at the time certainly had control of their society's moral
> structure. They were attempted moral reformers. Hitler, at least, made a lot
> of public rationalizations for his reforms.
Had they taken, then his actions would have been ocally justifiable. But his
society would remain, in my society's eyes, a moral pariah.
>
>> And the Nazis knew this, or they would not have hidden their actions.
>> They knew most Germans, as anti-Semitic as they were then, would not have
>> countenanced mass extermination, and in order to do what they did they
>> had to at least allow individuals to think it was all right for them to
>> collaborate with Nazism.
>
> Nazi values, though, are self validating without a *real* standard.
Why? In what way is the antirealist denotic account I am putting forward not
based on *real* standards? My standards are real enough to me and those who
share them. Claiming, as you appear to, that non-absolutist nonrealist values
aren't *real* standards is both insulting and question-begging.
>
> snipping
>
>> As a deontist I just think that a recognised duty is a duty. The problem
>> ere is that we do not all recognise the same duties. I think that in
>> periods when the duties recognised are all pretty much shared, there is
>> no problem, but we live in a pluraist society, and moral realism is an
>> attempt to force the problem to go away. It won't - we just have to try
>> to find a (contractarian if you like - I think this is the wrong
>> metaphor, but it doesn't matter here) consensus that serves as many of
>> the shared moral duties and values we do haev in common.
>
> That's what it's all about isn't it? Everyone believes they have a duty and
> that duty is/ought also imbued upon others. With opposing values, consensus
> means a lot of people must divorce themselves of *their* recognized duties
> and values to adopt some other (where would usenet be today if we only had
> consensus? ;)).
No, it merely means consensus is unattainable. I never expected that it would
always be attainable in every case. [In such cases, eventually you will evolve
divergent traditions. As Wittgestein noted in _On certainty_, at that point,
each calls the other a fool and a heretic.]
>
> Going back to my argument above where moral discourse is involved between
> naturalists (those that should be anti-realists) and non-naturalists (those
> that realists) both argue to their human rights values being imbued upon the
> other. I don't see where the anti-realists can make such claims when they
> also say they hold no such belief system to support the claim. Most people
> IMO reject Absolutism, and Objectivism for Relativism thinking the later
> equates to Situational Ethics instead of cultural mores.
I'm not sure what you are saying here (in part because there appear to be
missing words). Do you mean that relativism as a metaethical account involves
commitment to a merely phronetic ethics at the ethical level?
>
> To me it looks all the world equivalent as to someone saying: "You can't be
> a true Texan if you don't like the Hill Country, Schiner Bock, brisket, and
> Willie Nelson's music. It's a necessity of being a part of the Texas
> mystic..ya'll." "You are either with us or you're against us."
>
> I think when have a consensus of shared recognized, *rationalized*, duties
> and values, it can be said we have a working mythology.
Great. When we do, that is. The absolutist reaction to diversity, though, is
to force that consensus by imposition and the use of violence and social
control. I think that is bad. They don't. Where do you stand here?
>
> Snipped
>
>>> All of which is merely your opinion. Since there is no moral
>>> truth-values to base that opinion upon, yours (even with your vast
>>> amount of philosophical background) is still no better than
>>> grandma-Catholic's who values all fetuses as persons. She'd likely
>>> believe that responsibilities are incumbent upon certain action taken,
>>> "You had sex, you knew the potential consequences, you created a new
>>> person, and now a responsibility is incumbent upon you." Would she be
>>> wrong? No, not by her values.
>>
>> Well of course it is merely my opinion, as is everyone else's moral view.
>> And what sort of a society that we all end up constructing out of the
>> past and present moral views will depend on who is in the majority and a
>> host of other things (like is the moral majority the most influential?).
>> If we lived in a Catholic society that was not a secular democracy, then
>> that society would impose moral duties on secularists that they
>> personally had no foundation for. Would that be a wrong thing? I think
>> so.
>
> In today's American society, pedophilia is an imposed immorality. Is it
> wrong for the society to impose upon those who personally have no
> foundation to that imposition? We're back to truth-values again. Wrong and
> right is whatever it's deemed to be. As you say the moral claim is self
> justifying. It could be argued to come from Subjectivism or Cultural
> Relativism. How many individuals does it take to make a morality? Some
> think only one.
Pedophilia is a universally rejected practice - what is culturally relative is
where the lines are drawn. So far as I know, no culture on earth allows sex
below the age of 9, and they are the exceptions. Most set it at 13 or so as
the absolute minimum.
But I don't think the slippery slope you seem to fear is in play here. You
don't need to say a single individual can make a moral culture - that is
absurd. If that were so, then you could equally have a single individual with
alanguage, and I think this is absurd too (excepting cases where a single
remaining speaker of what was an evolved language is still alive). Morality
is, in its nature, a social phenomenon, just as language is. If you have a
single moral defaulter, then they are in a moral context and can be seen to
default. Likewise for a small number of, say, psychopaths. It isn't numebrs
that count - it's frequencies in social contexts.
I suspect you think this is an obvious moral monster. I partly don't. In my
society children *do* have sex as teenagers. As a parent I wish it were not so
for my daughter and son, but I have tried to teach them that they need to be
mature before they undertake a sexual life or they will suffer from it later.
But I cannot force them not to have sex - that fails, as a practical matter. I
trade off the harm from imposing my values with the harm they arelikely to
incur by being sexually active earlier than I'd like.
I can, however, reject adults, who are mature and able to take care of
themselves, from taking advantage of the immature. This is called the "duty of
care" and it is a basic principle of my society; and a good one - it allows us
to prevent assaults on children and the infirm, to protect the innocent from
force, and in all other ways is a guiding and leading principle of a liberal
society.
I don't need to allow NAMBLA to pervert children just because I am not a
realist about moral values. And if a pedophile accosted my child I'd have no
problems using my fists to prevent it.
Now, how's about those moral monsters that impose religious values on minds
that are as yet incapable of making an informed critical judgement? Shall we
deal with them the way we deal with NAMBLA? I think that when there is harm,
and religion almost always results in harm, we should. So let's start applying
the duty of care in that case, eh?
Of *course* values help. Without them we wouldn't be able to rouse ourselves
to row. You justify rowing the boat by the idea there is a true north. I'm
happy with a magnetic north - so long as my compass registers a direction I
can row too.
>
> Snipped
>
>> Can we cut these down to smaller posts? I don't have the time to do a
>> solid and sustained response to a large post, and I doubt people read
>> them much anyway.
>>
>>Ta.
>
> I tried cutting back. As much as people argue over ethics, I am a little
> curious that more don't engage in the nature of ethical theories. I went to
> Catholic school were we had to discuss the issue of what is right and
> wrong. Our public school counterparts never do for fear of government
> endorsement of certain values. Public schools leave it up to Sunday schools
> to teach ethics. And that's usually by volunteers with no formal ed on the
> subject.
Well, not at my school (a public school in Australia). We had rousing debates
about moral rights and wrongs. We dissected the op-ed pieces of the national
newspaper on Monday mornings, and I must say that the relativist who taught us
English (a catchall subject that included critical thinking) had no problems
telling us what *he* thought was right or wrong, and we had no trouble telling
him what we thought. But that was the 70s. Maybe it's changed (though not to
hear my daughter tell it - she's just as vocal as I was, and her teachers, the
good ones, are too).
You have the apparent impression one cannot have a moral opinion unless one
has an absolutist standard. But we do.
> Scott
>
BTW: your newsreader adds lines and rewraps things in a messy way. It took me
a long time to make this look OK.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
[snip]
Hitler + Christian in the snipped post brought me here.
Hitler opposed Christianity
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/47c284defb4765dd?
I once asked John whether engaging in rape could be [JW]"a social
evolutionary survival strategy."
Thornhill & Palmer, perhaps in their _A Natural History of Rape:
Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion_ (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001):
rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the
human evolutionary heritage," just as is "the leopard's spots and the
giraffe's elongated neck."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050523-094140-7161r.htm
LAKE WORTH, Fla. (AP) -- An 8-year-old girl
who was raped and buried alive under rocks and
concrete blocks inside a trash bin told a friend that
the last thing that she remembered before passing
out was her attacker towering over her. ....
Can engaging in attempted murder of an 8-year-old girl be [JW]"a social
evolutionary survival strategy"?
Can engaging in genocide be [JW]"a social evolutionary survival
strategy"?
Nat Hentoff: "A deal with the devil" on U.S.-Sudan cooperation in the
age of Darfur
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050522-110113-2073r.htm
Thornhill & Palmer cited in
Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith to
Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp., 191, who
cite an article by Pearcey.
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com