Binswanger rejects the DIM hypothesis?
Ken Gardner
According to a commenter on Diana Hseih's blog, Harry Binswanger said
this as part of commenting about the upcoming election:
"Are you arguing here that religion is more destructive to the mind
than is the Comprachico educational system? I think history shows the
opposite: dogma can be opposed; disintegrated non-content prevents the
formation of a mind and is even more deadly. Actually, I don't believe
one can objectively support either as being worse than the other
(mysticism or skepticism)."
I fully agree with the second sentence. A dogmatist assumes the
responsibility of judging true or false (or right and wrong), but his
dogma causes him to make mistakes. If his primary loyalty is to the
truth (or what is right), you can reason with him. By contrast, the
skeptic denies that we even have the capacity to distinguish true from
false, or right from wrong. Attempting to reason with these people is
utterly pointless and even hopeless.
Accordingly, I regard the skeptic as the much worse of the two. So
did Ayn Rand. "The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor
disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that
he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood
that is now spilled in the world...there are two sides to every issue:
one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always
evil. The man who is wrong [our dogmatist above] still retains some
respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice.
But the man in the middle is the knave [the skeptic] who blanks out
the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist,..."
In any event, I have heard or read that Peikoff's endorsement of Kerry
in 2004 resulted from his DIM hypothesis. The initials represent how
people deal with their mental content. Do they work to integrate
their mental content without contradiction into a total sum of
knowledge? Or does he actively disintegrate or "compartmentalize" his
mental contents? As I understand it, the D stands for disintegrator,
the I stands for integrator, and the M stands for mis-integrator.
Peikoff apparently believes that a D is less dangerous than an M.
Thus, he supported the D (Kerry) over the M (Bush). I disagree. I
agree with Rand and Binswanger that the D is the most dangerous person
of all. Unlike Binswanger, I further conclude that an M is generally
better than a D -- as long as the M is willing to correct his errors.
Even a person who strives to be an I sometimes makes mistakes. Even
among religious people, it makes a huge difference whether you are
conversing with a Thomist or an Islamofascist. You can reason with
one but not the other.
I further submit that the DIM hypothesis (as I understand it) is
irreconcilably inconsistent with Objectivism. The passage from Galt's
speech above pretty much explains my reasons.
Ken
Starbla...@excite.com
If something is disintegrated, isn't it easier to manipulate them into
becoming integrated? After all, once a misintegration occurs, one must
DIS-integrate before RE-integration. PRINCIPLED skepticism, IE
cynicism, on the other hand, is NOT disintegration. It's misintegration
disguised as disintigration. Furthermore, whereas disintegration causes
humility, which is related to depression, something we commonly treat,
misintegration causes arrogance, which is related to mania, something
we do not typically treat on its own. After all, when you have low self
esteem, you are likely to go to a psychologist because you believe you
cannot help yourself, and it's true, you can't. On the other hand, when
you have high self esteem, you are unlikely to go to a psychologist
because you believe that there isn't even a problem with you, even
though there is.
If there is any flaw in my reasoning, then please let me know.
Ken Gardner
[ROTL as I read down to this...]
>There is one thing that I will say for the seculars: they are all quite
>convinced that Hitler is very very bad. Unfortunately, on closer
>inspection, this appears to be an *analytic* proposition. They actually
>can't give any account of what it is that makes anything bad, but at
>least they're very concerned to distance themselves from Hitler. This
>makes them wonderfully easy to lead, ironically.
Ten years ago, when I was a rank amateur at this, I used the Hitler
example when responding to the "nothing is good or evil, morality is
totally subjective, it's all just your opinion" types. Even then,
this approach was devastatingly effective. It is a type of reductio
ad absurdum argument. It was a concrete, real life example of the
practical consequences of what was at root a flawed epistemology. I
knew it, and on some level so did they. This often made them very
angry at me. :)
Ken
Ken Gardner
>If something is disintegrated, isn't it easier to manipulate them into
>becoming integrated?
If something is not yet integrated, either you work to integrate it
(rightly (I) or wrongly (M)) or you keep it disintegrated (D).
>After all, once a misintegration occurs, one must
>DIS-integrate before RE-integration. PRINCIPLED skepticism, IE
>cynicism, on the other hand, is NOT disintegration. It's misintegration
>disguised as disintigration.
I disagree with this. The "we cannot be certain of anything" type of
skeptic achieves this state in his own mind by deliberately
disintegrating each item of knowledge from every other item of
knowledge.
The Is and Ms are system builders. The Is do it correctly, while the
Ms do it incorrectly. The Ds reject system building per se.
>Furthermore, whereas disintegration causes
>humility, which is related to depression, something we commonly treat,
>misintegration causes arrogance, which is related to mania, something
>we do not typically treat on its own.
Misintegration will occur for anyone who actively practices
integration. This is because we are not omniscient. But the I types
are constantly integrating, meaning that eventually they will catch
the mistakes and correct them. The "bad" M types deliberately evade
their errors, leaving them uncorrected. How you respond to mistakes
is an excellent indicator of moral character, for better or worse.
[...]
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
> On Oct 31, 11:08 pm, Ken Gardner <kesgard...@charter.net> wrote:
> > According to a commenter on Diana Hseih's blog, Harry Binswanger said
> > this as part of commenting about the upcoming election:
> >
> > "Are you arguing here that religion is more destructive to the mind
> > than is the Comprachico educational system? I think history shows the
> > opposite: dogma can be opposed; disintegrated non-content prevents the
> > formation of a mind and is even more deadly.
>
<snip>
Coop, can I ask that you not delete this comment - at least for a
while.
It is very insightful and I think is an important contribution to the
debate raging on this subject on various Objectivist forums.
With your permission, I also want to quote from it, including possibly
the whole thing - and also possibly linking to it (if you leave it on).
What kind of attribution do you prefer?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
> All I know is that all my cadets show up as if brain-damaged. The
> religious ones are willing to argue. The secular ones don't understand
> what "argue" means. After spending weeks on cognitive therapy, I still
I assume this means you have been discussing cognitive therapy in your
classes as opposed to undergoing cognitive therapy.
> got e-mails in response to an exam about Plato asking "do you want us
> to say [regurgitate] what Plato says, or to tell you how we feel about
> it?" They are reason-blind. They don't know what a reason is, or how it
> differs from an assertion or a preference. And this after spending
> weeks with a text in which literally nothing ever happens except the
> giving of reasons. The intellectual passivity is stupefying.
What can you do with Plato other than:
1. Report what he wrote (assuming the writings we have are authentic)
2. Infer the consequences of what he postulated.
3. Evaluate how his basic ideas (i.e. Ideas) hold up under consequential
and empirical judgements.
Where does Plato lead us? I have done this for -The Republic- and for
-The Timeaus-, which I consider his quintessential works. -The Republic-
leads us to Auschwitz and the Gulag with a short excursion through the
French Republic under Robespierre.* -The Timeaus- impressed me in a way.
Plato was espousing a view of the cosmos (in its natural and
supernatural aspects) strangely similar to that of the Jewish mystics
and the Kaballists. Who would have expected that of a Pagan pansy? My
reactions was "hmmm, maybe he was not just another idol worshipping
Greek Pagan" and it made me think that back in the shadows and darkness
of time the Greeks had been exposed to the idea of The One God, the same
God that inspired Abraham and Moses. Also -The Timeaus- proposed a
cosmogeny not unlike that of Tolkien in -The Silmarillion-, but based on
geometry instead of music.
-The Republic- was apalling. -The Timeaus- was interesting.
Bob Kolker
* Popper does the major deconstruction of -The Republic- in his book
-The Open Society and its Enemies-. Plato is number one on the Enemy List.
Mark N
> Ten years ago, when I was a rank amateur at this, I used the Hitler
> example when responding to the "nothing is good or evil, morality is
> totally subjective, it's all just your opinion" types. Even then,
> this approach was devastatingly effective.
Some of my recent efforts (here and in other newsgroups) at deploying
the "Hitler example" have been surprisingly *ineffective*. I must not be
doing it right.
> It is a type of reductio
> ad absurdum argument. It was a concrete, real life example of the
> practical consequences of what was at root a flawed epistemology.
The trouble is, some people will *embrace* the absurdity. Some people
are able to say, with no evident discomfort, that Hitler was evil only
because lots of people *say* that he was evil, or because the standards
of some "community" dictate that he should be considered evil. And I'm
not sure what to say in response to that. It renders me speechless.
> I
> knew it, and on some level so did they. This often made them very
> angry at me. :)
But this was ten years ago, right? Maybe the subjectivist-relativist
types have gotten worse in the past decade? :-\
Mark
TC
> I fully agree with the second sentence. A dogmatist assumes the
> responsibility of judging true or false (or right and wrong), but his
> dogma causes him to make mistakes.
This is precisely why one cannot reason with an Objectivist.
> If his primary loyalty is to the
> truth (or what is right), you can reason with him. By contrast, the
> skeptic denies that we even have the capacity to distinguish true from
> false, or right from wrong. Attempting to reason with these people is
> utterly pointless and even hopeless.
This is a false contrast.
Skepticism is the way to the truth.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> This is a false contrast.
> Skepticism is the way to the truth.
Skepticism (in its best form) is reason-based doubt and questioning. It
is not the denial of knowledge. It is more like --- how do you know that
(what is being asserted) is true?
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
>> Ten years ago, when I was a rank amateur at this, I used the Hitler
>> example when responding to the "nothing is good or evil, morality is
>> totally subjective, it's all just your opinion" types. Even then,
>> this approach was devastatingly effective.
>Some of my recent efforts (here and in other newsgroups) at deploying
>the "Hitler example" have been surprisingly *ineffective*. I must not be
>doing it right.
My early efforts were on a Prodigy bulletin board devoted to political
philosophy. That was back in 1994 and 1995. That board tended to
attract primarily the same people who post comments today on blogs and
news forum sites. They were interested primarily in politics, not
philosophy. The people here are much more steeped in philosophy. They
think they are being cool and philosophically hip when they admit that
they cannot say that Hitler was objectively evil.
>> It is a type of reductio
>> ad absurdum argument. It was a concrete, real life example of the
>> practical consequences of what was at root a flawed epistemology.
>The trouble is, some people will *embrace* the absurdity. Some people
>are able to say, with no evident discomfort, that Hitler was evil only
>because lots of people *say* that he was evil, or because the standards
>of some "community" dictate that he should be considered evil. And I'm
>not sure what to say in response to that. It renders me speechless.
As I just got done saying...:) The people who persist in this type of
crap are almost always being intellectually dishonest. Ask them if it
is a mere matter of opinion regarding whether we should be able to
throw them off a deep cliff. Or, to be slightly more formal, be
Rand's philosophical Hercule Poriot (see Philosophy: who needs it,
Chapter 2 for details). Ask yourself or them what practical
consequences would follow from denying the validity of concepts such
as good or evil. Or, looking at it positively, what facts of reality
give rise to these concepts? Why do we need them? And must your
opponents accept them -- beginning with the moral choice to live --
even to attempt to deny them?
>> I knew it, and on some level so did they. This often made them very
>> angry at me. :)
>But this was ten years ago, right? Maybe the subjectivist-relativist
>types have gotten worse in the past decade? :-\
This is a good question. Democrats and the L crowd (you know who I
mean) have been uniformly bad for as long as I can remember. I don't
think they are getting worse. They have always been very bad. The
major political issues have changed over the years, but not the fact
that they have been consistently wrong on every single one that
matters. I think that the problem here is ultimately epistemological
(it almost always is).
Ken
Ken Gardner
>It is very insightful and I think is an important contribution to the
>debate raging on this subject on various Objectivist forums.
>
>With your permission, I also want to quote from it, including possibly
>the whole thing - and also possibly linking to it (if you leave it on).
>What kind of attribution do you prefer?
Uh oh...Fred Weiss has entered the building. I am in big trouble. :)
Actually, I was fascinated by Coop's comments as well. And none of
them surprised me. When I re-read the parts of Galt's speech about
the middleman who refuses to take a side on any issue, it surprised me
even less.
Ken
Acar
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6ifgk2ppn7srvrl18...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Accordingly, I regard the skeptic as the much worse of the two. So
> did Ayn Rand. "The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor
> disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that
> he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood
> that is now spilled in the world...there are two sides to every issue:
> one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always
> evil. The man who is wrong [our dogmatist above] still retains some
> respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice.
> But the man in the middle is the knave [the skeptic] who blanks out
> the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist,..."
>
By her own standards Rand and the old country judge were tolerable. She and
him were not right but at least they were sure.
Better sure and wrong than in doubt! The virtues of an open mind have been
greatly exaggerated.
Did I "nail it"?
.
.
.
Ken Gardner
>This is not universally the
>case, but my impression is that the religious folks who don't sense the
>threat are not corrupted by bad philosophy, but are just not very
>bright and haven't given anything any serious thought yet. They believe
>what they believe out of trust, much the same way that I believe that
>there is a place called Afghanistan, though I've never seen it. I have
>no reason to think the people who tell me this would lie.
This pretty much sums up my experience as well. Granted, there are
exceptions. But they are just that -- exceptions, not the general
rule.
Ken
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> The secular ones don't understand
> what "argue" means. After spending weeks on cognitive therapy, I still
> got e-mails in response to an exam about Plato asking "do you want us
> to say [regurgitate] what Plato says, or to tell you how we feel about
> it?" They are reason-blind.
I don't know your students, but I doubt that this kind of question really
has much to do with their thinking abilities. I suspect that what the
question really means is, "What do I have to do to get a good grade?" And
their asking this question tells me that, rightly or wrongly, they suspect
that expressing a view contrary to yours (regardless of the arguments they
make for their views) will get them a bad grade.
--
Mark Sieving
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> ...there are two sides to every issue:
> one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always
> evil.
This is pretty silly, actually. There are not just two sides to every
issue; in most cases there are many sides: one is right and the rest are
wrong. That someone is not prepared to say which of the innumerable
possibilities is correct is hardly evil.
What Ken is really arguing is that it is better to be wrong than to admit
that you don't know.
--
Mark Sieving
Acar
"Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
news:eia71p$jkh$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
> But this was ten years ago, right? Maybe the subjectivist-relativist types
> have gotten worse in the past decade? :-\
Hitler was bad because he killed innocent people. The standards of value
that were set by the people who thought at the time that he was good have
been discredited by the consensual verdict of history. Respect for life has
been restored as a very high standard of morality by Western civilizations.
However nothing says that life is the standard other than the consensus of
the vast majority of individuals. Nearly everybody wants to live because it
is an inherited genetic trait so powerful that it takes an unusual pressure
on the choosing faculties to overcome it. However it is still a matter of
consensus, and a matter of choice which can be rational or irrational. The
same natural heritage that provides in humans and most animals the desire to
live also provides in man as well and in lower animals the possibility of
acting otherwise. In order to set up life as the standard of value it is not
sufficient to rely on inductive data from lower forms of life. Lower forms
of life do not have values if values are taken to imply choices. Only humans
can choose, and it is not a fact that all rational humans choose life above
all else. There is no logical (inductive or deductive) basis for affirming
that life is an absolute standard of value.
From the above we conclude that our conviction that Hitler was evil has its
root on a consensual view of respect for life as very high standard of
morality.
Conviction? We believe that our views have greater practical value than
other views that we have also explored, so we commit to them with passion.
Ken Gardner
>What Ken is really arguing is that it is better to be wrong than to admit
>that you don't know.
Nope. I'm saying that it's better to be wrong while trying to be
right than to refuse even to try on the ground that knowledge of the
right answer is impossible.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Hitler was bad because he killed innocent people. The standards of value
> that were set by the people who thought at the time that he was good have
> been discredited by the consensual verdict of history. Respect for life has
The Allies also killed innocent people. Many German babies were
destroyed during the air raids or fell to starvation when supplies
became short in Germany. Likewise Japanese babies some of who were
turned into carbonized lumps, like charcoal briquettes. All told, the
Allies killed over 700,000 civillians in Europe and the Pacific.
Now explain why the Allies were NOT bad. The killing of innocents is not
sufficient to explain why one is Bad and the other is not Bad.
> of life do not have values if values are taken to imply choices. Only humans
> can choose, and it is not a fact that all rational humans choose life above
> all else. There is no logical (inductive or deductive) basis for affirming
> that life is an absolute standard of value.
That is dead wrong. The higher primates show (through their behaviour)
volition and choice. There is also some evidence that elephants show not
only volition but compassion. You are repeating Rand's nonsense that
only homo sapien is devoid of instinct. That is also not true. Homo
sapien has wired in behaviour and inclinations. However we can overide
our inclinations (most of them) through learning and experience.
Primates like chimps and bonobos show some of this flexibility, but not
to the same extent as homo sapien. And why not? The chimps and bonbos
share over 95 genetic makeup with homo sapien.
Bob Kolker
Acar
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eib5hm$f5b$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Acar wrote:
>
> The Allies also killed innocent people. Many German babies were destroyed
> during the air raids or fell to starvation when supplies became short in
> Germany. Likewise Japanese babies some of who were turned into carbonized
> lumps, like charcoal briquettes. All told, the Allies killed over 700,000
> civillians in Europe and the Pacific.
>
> Now explain why the Allies were NOT bad. The killing of innocents is not
> sufficient to explain why one is Bad and the other is not Bad.
The allies were our guys. They killed according to the rules. The Nazis
violated the rules. It's a matter of consensus and you seem to agree.
>> of life do not have values if values are taken to imply choices. Only
>> humans can choose, and it is not a fact that all rational humans choose
>> life above all else. There is no logical (inductive or deductive) basis
>> for affirming that life is an absolute standard of value.
>
> That is dead wrong. The higher primates show (through their behaviour)
> volition and choice. There is also some evidence that elephants show not
> only volition but compassion. You are repeating Rand's nonsense that only
> homo sapien is devoid of instinct. That is also not true. Homo sapien has
> wired in behaviour and inclinations. However we can overide our
> inclinations (most of them) through learning and experience.
>
> Primates like chimps and bonobos show some of this flexibility, but not to
> the same extent as homo sapien. And why not? The chimps and bonbos share
> over 95 genetic makeup with homo sapien.
I've heard 99%. In recent messages I have made reference to the limited
choosing faculties of lower animals. For the purpose of this argument those
are insignificant. You are waving your arms to no significant effect on the
conclusion.
.
.
.
.
Atlas Bugged
> "Hitler example" have been surprisingly *ineffective*. I must not be doing
> it right.
It's part Godwin, and the general misinterpretation of Godwin, which is
fueled and likely caused by the sheer degree to which Hitler has become a
cliche.
That said, with Mein Kampf *seriously* being a best-seller among Islamics,
what the fuck can you do? If you are going to, ahhh, comment on that little
fact, it isn't going to be easy without invoking the infamous paper-hanger.
J
Coincidentally, _Mindwalk_ (1990: Sam Waterston etc) was on FLIX today.
"An Introduction to Systems Theory" it was called. A bit annoying as it
comes off as an infomercial. I keep waiting for Sam Waterston to say "How
do I order?"
I found a screenplay...90-some page pdf but it's kinda screwed up. Sonja is
the wise European Mother Teacher figure and the other two listen like school
boys.
Jack sets up the Straw Men, Sonja knocks them down.
"The obsession with growth has to stop". Kinda says it all.
Link to poop: http://www.perspectivism.com/mindwalk.pdf
JB
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
There may be a few confused philosophy students who argue that one shouldn't
try to find the truth, but they don't really live that way. Anyone who
actually did wouldn't survive for long. Hume made that point. What you are
arguing against is a phantasm, mostly of your own creation.
--
Mark Sieving
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> Another hypothesis: some cogsci research has been done that suggests
> that sophisticated patterns of reasoning abilities are topic specific,
> as if one could do brilliantly with statistics as long as they are
> *baseball* statistics, but as soon as the reference to baseball is
> removed or replaced with something else, it is as if the previously
> manifested skill vanishes.
That's possible. Another possibility is that your students just don't care
about Plato, and aren't willing to invest the time and effort to think
deeply about philosophy. My experience is that most college students should
really be in some sort of trade school. They're looking for a degree that
will get them a good paying job, and they have little interest in a "well
rounded" education. They take the general education courses because they
have to, and all they want out of them is something that isn't going to hurt
their GPA and isn't going to cut into their social schedule. Maybe your
experience would be different if you had them argue about something that
mattered to them.
Now, if your students are philosophy majors, there's a bigger problem. I
don't deny that there are a lot of people who are totally unprepared when
they enter college. In the mid 1980s, I was a graduate teaching assistant
for an introductory accounting class, and I had students (accounting and
business majors) who couldn't understand that if equity = assets -
liabilities, then assets = liability + equity. And I had one poor girl who
didn't understand decimal fractions. But these were a minority of the class.
> I don't know what goes on in high school yet--my insight into the
> horrors is due to following my kids through each stage. All I can tell
> you is that grammar school for them was unspeakably awful. They
> acquired (1) the appropriate math skills, (2) lots of formal knowledge
> about illegal drugs and the harms they cause [mostly exaggerated], (3)
> some normative stuff of a multicultural nature and associated factual
> information.
I don't have kids, so I'm not familiar with what grammar schools are
teaching these days. Thinking back to my own experience, which was a long
time ago, it's hard to remember anything specifically that I learned in
school. But except for the drug propaganda, I don't think my grammar school
education, during the 1960s, was much different from what you describe. The
math education then was probably inferior to current teaching.
The "normative stuff" was more "America is perfect" than multicultural.
(Unfortunately, there wasn't much of anything multicultural when I was
growing up, but then I was in a small town in central Illinois. I never met
a black person, or a Jew, until I was in college.)
Most of what I learned, I learned on my own. But I was hardly a typical
kid. Among my earliest memories is my older sisters taking me to the public
library. My idea of fun as a child was to pull out a random volume of the
encyclopedia and sit in a corner reading.
> And though I hate to score points by anecdota, so take this with a
> grain of salt, my son's science teacher is a Sasquatch researcher.
My sister had a grammar school teacher who insisted that Maine was one of
the original 13 colonies. That would have been around 1960. My high school
history teacher told my mom that I knew more about history than he did
(which was true, but nothing for me to brag about). Inadequate teachers are
nothing new.
> In short, it's down to math. That's about all as far as I can see. If
> your children are girls, you can expect some support vis a vis reading
> (women teachers tend to value books that speak to girls, push them on
> boys and thus persuade boys that literature is boring).
I don't think that was ever a problem for me. As a kid, I liked Nancy Drew
as much as the Hardy Boys or Tom Swift. A good book is a good book. But
like I said, I wasn't a typical kid.
> If you have
> boys, expect only support on math. You'll have to do everything else
> yourself. If I had the money, they'd be in religious schools in a
> heartbeat. *Any* religion.
Some friends and I were comparing educations once. I went to a small town
public school. One friend went to an all girls Catholic school in Chicago,
another went to a large city public school, and another went to a coed
Catholic school in a small town. We pretty much decided that the large
public school probably provided the most educational opportunities, with the
Catholic girls school coming in second. The Catholic girls school was very
good for literature, and exposure to controversial views (my friend was
always kind of amused that many of the books that various groups have tried
to have banned from public schools were required reading at her school), but
was very limited in science and math. That may have been more a function of
being a girls school than being a Catholic school, the thinking then being
that girls wouldn't have much use for science and math.
--
Mark Sieving
Ken Gardner
>> Nope. I'm saying that it's better to be wrong while trying to be
>> right than to refuse even to try on the ground that knowledge of the
>> right answer is impossible.
>There may be a few confused philosophy students who argue that one shouldn't
>try to find the truth, but they don't really live that way. Anyone who
>actually did wouldn't survive for long. Hume made that point. What you are
>arguing against is a phantasm, mostly of your own creation.
Not quite. You are, of course, right, and so was Hume. But this
radical, self-defeating brand of skepticism actually has a different
purpose. For the full story, see Chapter 2 (Philosophical Detection)
in Philosophy: Who Needs It? The explanation is too involved to
summarize here.
Ken
Mark N
> Hitler was bad because he killed innocent people.
Very good! I think there may be hope for you yet! :-)
> The standards of value
> that were set by the people who thought at the time that he was good have
> been discredited by the consensual verdict of history.
Oops! I spoke too soon. It didn't take you long to work "consensus" into
the discussion, did it? :-(
Why do you insist on reducing any question of ethics to a question about
what views have been held by various "communities" at various times? Do
you *really* think that that's what ethics is all about?
Screw the "consensus"! Hitler's actions have been discredited by *me*.
*I* say that what he did was evil, without reference to any "consensual
verdict of history." What do *you* say? Do you have the ability to make
an ethical judgment on your own?
> Respect for life has
> been restored as a very high standard of morality by Western civilization
> s. [...]
That's nice. But it's beside the point.
Mark
Acar
>
> Why do you insist on reducing any question of ethics to a question about
> what views have been held by various "communities" at various times? Do
> you *really* think that that's what ethics is all about?
I do. (intimidation notwithstanding.)
> Screw the "consensus"! Hitler's actions have been discredited by *me*.
And many others. A consensus.
> *I* say that what he did was evil, without reference to any "consensual
> verdict of history."
A lot of people feel that way, independently from how anyone else feels. A
consensus.
> What do *you* say? Do you have the ability to make an ethical judgment on
> your own?
Yes. I am fortunate that so many others, each thinking on their own, happen
to agree. Let me explain with an analogy. When you vote you are alone in a
little booth. This is to make sure that you vote "on your own". AFTER you go
home, the votes are counted to find out how many people, each thinking on
their own, agree with you. When you voted, you did not vote because of the
consensus. However the final count reflects the political consensus of the
community. That is why people talk about "red" states and "blue" states. The
fact that there is a consensus does not mean that individual persons voted
according to the consensus. Each was guided by his conscience, all by
himself in the little booth.
>> Respect for life has been restored as a very high standard of morality by
>> Western civilization
>> s. [...]
>
> That's nice. But it's beside the point.
Now you lost me. What was the question?
Mark N
> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
> news:eiel6p$eea$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
>>Why do you insist on reducing any question of ethics to a question about
>>what views have been held by various "communities" at various times? Do
>>you *really* think that that's what ethics is all about?
>
> I do. (intimidation notwithstanding.)
Intimidation? Don't be silly. It was an expression of incredulity, and a
request for you to confirm that you really meant what you seemed to be
saying. Thanks for confirming it. (But you seem to deny it below!)
>
>>Screw the "consensus"! Hitler's actions have been discredited by *me*.
>
> And many others. A consensus.
That's nice, but my judgment is independent of the consensus. (Below,
you seem to agree that this is appropriate.)
>
>>*I* say that what he did was evil, without reference to any "consensual
>>verdict of history."
>
> A lot of people feel that way, independently from how anyone else feels. A
> consensus.
That's nice, but I don't care about the consensus. In my view, the
consensus is *irrelevant* to the ethical question at hand. And you
haven't given me any reason to reconsider this view.
>
>>What do *you* say? Do you have the ability to make an ethical judgment on
>>your own?
>
> Yes.
Good for you! :-)
Now let's see how you reconcile this with your claim that questions
about the views of various "communities" are *what ethics is all about*.
This should be interesting.
> I am fortunate that so many others, each thinking on their own, happen
> to agree. Let me explain with an analogy. When you vote you are alone in a
> little booth. This is to make sure that you vote "on your own". AFTER you go
> home, the votes are counted to find out how many people, each thinking on
> their own, agree with you. When you voted, you did not vote because of the
> consensus. However the final count reflects the political consensus of the
> community. That is why people talk about "red" states and "blue" states. The
> fact that there is a consensus does not mean that individual persons voted
> according to the consensus. Each was guided by his conscience, all by
> himself in the little booth.
Suppose that someone asks you which candidate you voted for, and why.
Would you be able to give an answer that doesn't make any reference to
"consensus"?
Now let's come back to the question about Hitler. Why are you unable (or
unwilling) to discuss the question of whether or not Hitler was evil,
without bringing in the idea of "consensus"? The question was not about
consensus, yet you *insist* on introducing that idea, and couching your
answer in terms of it. Why do you do that? It seems quite perverse to me.
>>>Respect for life has been restored as a very high standard of morality by
>>>Western civilization
>>>s. [...]
>>
>>That's nice. But it's beside the point.
>
> Now you lost me. What was the question?
The primary question was whether or not Hitler was evil. The related
"meta-question" is, what is the appropriate basis for answering the
question about Hitler.
I claim that the question about Hitler can, and *should*, be addressed
without any reference to a consensus of some "community." You seem to
disagree, for reasons that are best known to you. :-\
Mark
Mark N
> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eib5hm$f5b$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
>>The Allies also killed innocent people. Many German babies were destroyed
>>during the air raids or fell to starvation when supplies became short in
>>Germany. Likewise Japanese babies some of who were turned into carbonized
>>lumps, like charcoal briquettes. All told, the Allies killed over 700,000
>>civillians in Europe and the Pacific.
>>
>>Now explain why the Allies were NOT bad. The killing of innocents is not
>>sufficient to explain why one is Bad and the other is not Bad.
>
> The allies were our guys. They killed according to the rules. The Nazis
> violated the rules. It's a matter of consensus and you seem to agree.
Exactly! It's all a matter of consensus! The Nazis were bad because the
Allies *said* that they were bad! They were bad because they violated
the "rules" that the Allies believed in! *That's* why they were bad!
What the heck were you thinking before, when you said that the reason
the Nazis were bad had something to do with "killing innocent people" or
some such sentimental nonsense? You must have been confused! I'm glad to
see that Bob brought you back to the light of reason! ;-)
Mark
Mark N
> ACAR thimks that
> Aggregate Concurrences Are Righteous but
> Mark's Approach of Requiring Knowledge Nets: [...]
I must say that your implication of moral equivalency between my view
and that of my opponent is completely unacceptable to me. After all, my
opponent thinks
That Ugly Sinister Communists Or Nazis
are only evil because lots of people *say* that they are evil! Needless
to say, all decent people recognize that this view is
Just Ethically Reckless and Reprehensible, Y'know?
Mark
Mark N
> That Ugly Sinister Communists Or Nazis
Wait, make that Ugly Communist Sinister... oh, never mind! :-)
Mark
Acar
> vonvegas wrote:
>
>> ACAR thimks that
>> Aggregate Concurrences Are Righteous but
>> Mark's Approach of Requiring Knowledge Nets: [...]
>
> I must say that your implication of moral equivalency between my view and
> that of my opponent is completely unacceptable to me. After all, my
> opponent thinks
I am not your opponent. I am your long suffering mentor, your guide through
the difficult, tricky and treacherous path of intellectual enlightment. You
exist in a fantastic reality in which you equate a feeling deep within your
gut with truth. It is only a whim, my good friend. Only religion and
Objectivism rely on something ouside of themselves to cling to as an
absolute, but alas the derivations of Objectivism(vehemently denied
existence by Ken) have tiny holes as filters through which only their brains
easily pass. :::---)))
Now that I got you really mad, calm down and I will repeat myself in the
hope that at some point you disagree with something that I actually said.
> That Ugly Sinister Communists Or Nazis
>
> are only evil because lots of people *say* that they are evil!
> Needless to say, all decent people recognize that this view is
Holders of that view would be indecent. Thank the Good Lord that you and I
are not two of those despicable and immoral people. You and I are exemplars
of the good. And what a relief it is!
> Just Ethically Reckless and Reprehensible, Y'know?
Those dummies who think that Hitler was evil because lots of people think so
should understand that Hitler was evil becuase he committed acts (such as
killing innocent people) which in their considered opinion were evil acts.
If no one agreed with us, we would still think that he was evil. It could be
a whim, as in your case, or it could be a combination of an assesment of
utility with the emotional affect that responds to the inherited trait of
empathy, as in my case, or it could be religion, but whatever the reason, if
noone agreed with us our beliefs would be contrary to the prevailing ethic,
which is determined by a consensus of all the people that independently feel
that way for various valid and invalid reasons. Yet they would still be our
firm beliefs.
What you should be asking, is - if I would be so sure of my ethics in the
absence of consensus, why is my position different from those that have an
external standard or if it's only a passionate commitment, why is it not a
whim? The answer is that I would have an external standard to validate my
whim, and that is utility. The standard of utility is in a way a
collectivist standard which asseses validity in terms of collective benefit,
in the belief that the individual and the collective are mutually enhancing.
And don't pay too much attention to the seemingly condescending paragraphs
above. I was just kidding.
Acar
>
> Suppose that someone asks you which candidate you voted for, and why.
> Would you be able to give an answer that doesn't make any reference to
> "consensus"?
My analogy went down the drain. Think of the booth. Why a booth, instead of
an open show of hands, where you can look around and check out the
consensus? In an election the consensus is not even known when you are
making the commitment in the booth. The fact that I can answer your question
without reference to the consensus does not keep my state from having a blue
or red consensus. The consensus determines the color of the state. I can say
that I live in a red state without you saying that I can not think for
myself and that I am indecent and politically reprehensible.
> (...)
> I claim that the question about Hitler can, and *should*, be addressed
> without any reference to a consensus of some "community." You seem to
> disagree, for reasons that are best known to you. :-\
I don't disagree, as I explained. The prevailing ethics of a community
reflects a consensus of the indiviual ethics of the members of the
community, which in turn have been greatly influenced by the communal
standards. (There is a self feeding cycle there). But when the individual
makes a personal commitment that differs from the consensus, (such as an
Objectivist) he must necessarily invoke an external standard in order to
keep it from being arbitrary (a whim). For some it is God, for Objectivists
it is Reality. I also respond to inherent imperatives of empathy, but the
external standard through which I validate my "whim" is utility. This is a
humanistic standard that fails to satisfy moral absolutists and individuals
who need to have their conduct dictated by other than a human standard. In
brief, if you reject communal ethics and claim your indvidual right to know
absolute right from wrong, you need to explain how you know this. You have
said that you know that Hitler was evil. That's the easy part. Now tell us
how you know that.
Mark N
> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
> news:eilgqr$937$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
>>I must say that your implication of moral equivalency between my view and
>>that of my opponent is completely unacceptable to me. After all, my
>>opponent thinks
>
> I am not your opponent. I am your long suffering mentor, your guide through
> the difficult, tricky and treacherous path of intellectual enlightment.
I thank you for your patience, Master. I hope that soon I shall be able
to snatch the pebble from your hand! ;-)
But seriously, I am always interested in intellectual enlightenment. And
I don't discount the possibility that I might be able to learn something
interesting from you.
> You
> exist in a fantastic reality in which you equate a feeling deep within your
> gut with truth. It is only a whim, my good friend. Only religion and
> Objectivism rely on something ouside of themselves to cling to as an
> absolute, but alas the derivations of Objectivism(vehemently denied
> existence by Ken) have tiny holes as filters through which only their brains
> easily pass. :::---)))
Could you elaborate on this? What is the "something outside of
themselves" that Objectivists "cling to as an absolute"? I mean, I know
that religionists have the Bible (or the Koran or whatever) and their
religious traditions. What is the analogous thing for Objectivists? The
Unabridged Works of Ayn Rand? The ARI's editorials?
> Now that I got you really mad, calm down and I will repeat myself in the
> hope that at some point you disagree with something that I actually said.
>
>>That Ugly Sinister Communists Or Nazis
>>
>>are only evil because lots of people *say* that they are evil!
>>
>>Needless to say, all decent people recognize that this view is
>
> Holders of that view would be indecent. Thank the Good Lord that you and I
> are not two of those despicable and immoral people. You and I are exemplars
> of the good. And what a relief it is!
But your comments sometimes suggest rather strongly that this "indecent"
view is your view. Here is an example:
<quote>
[Acar:] Evil is evil because the vast majority of sensitized observers
agree that it is evil. Consensus.
</quote>
That seems pretty unambiguous to me. It says that things that are evil,
are evil because people "agree" that they are evil. Doesn't it? Did you
misspeak there? Is that not really your view?
[...]
> [...] if
> noone agreed with us our beliefs would be contrary to the prevailing ethic,
> which is determined by a consensus of all the people that independently feel
> that way for various valid and invalid reasons. Yet they would still be our
> firm beliefs.
What is the difference between a valid reason and an invalid reason?
> What you should be asking, is - if I would be so sure of my ethics in the
> absence of consensus, why is my position different from those that have an
> external standard
What do you mean by an "external standard"? Could you give some examples
of external standards, to help me understand what you have in mind? And
am I right in thinking that you consider external standards to be bad?
> or if it's only a passionate commitment, why is it not a
> whim? The answer is that I would have an external standard to validate my
> whim, and that is utility.
Are you saying that most external standards are bad, but "utility" is an
exception?
> The standard of utility is in a way a
> collectivist standard which asseses validity in terms of collective benefit,
> in the belief that the individual and the collective are mutually enhancing.
When you say "assesses validity in terms of collective benefit," are you
making a claim about the ethical significance of the "judgment of the
collective," or are you just saying that "collective benefit" is your
standard of value? (Those are two separate issues, right?)
> And don't pay too much attention to the seemingly condescending paragraphs
> above. I was just kidding.
It's a good thing you told me that! I was about to complain bitterly
about your suggestion that I (of all people!) am some kind of miserable
whim-worshipper! ;-)
Mark
Acar
>
> Could you elaborate on this? What is the "something outside of themselves"
> that Objectivists "cling to as an absolute"? I mean, I know that
> religionists have the Bible (or the Koran or whatever) and their religious
> traditions. What is the analogous thing for Objectivists? The Unabridged
> Works of Ayn Rand? The ARI's editorials?
I already told you. It's Reality. Everything that actually exists
independently of the human mind. Review Galt's speech to see how he arrives
at rationality (the good) from "Existence exists".
>
> But your comments sometimes suggest rather strongly that this "indecent"
> view is your view. Here is an example:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y3u4se
>
> [Acar:] Evil is evil because the vast majority of sensitized observers
> agree that it is evil. Consensus.
>
> That seems pretty unambiguous to me. It says that things that are evil,
> are evil because people "agree" that they are evil. Doesn't it? Did you
> misspeak there? Is that not really your view?
I see. One hopes that from the context it would be quite clear that "evil is
evil because..." means to say "evil is considered evil (by a culture)
because..." It would take very many more words to spell out those qualifying
clauses. One believes (apprently mistakenly) that the context will make such
qualifying clauses implicit. However - you have a valid point - the wording
is misleading. It was my fault.
>
> What is the difference between a valid reason and an invalid reason?
Most people would agree that fantasies and floating whims are invalid
reasons, but I hate to tell you that that is a delicate area because so much
depends on ..... consensus.
>> What you should be asking, is - if I would be so sure of my ethics in the
>> absence of consensus, why is my position different from those that have
>> an external standard
>
> What do you mean by an "external standard"? Could you give some examples
> of external standards, to help me understand what you have in mind?
I already said what I mean - God, the Bible, Reality. Standards of
reference for good and evil that are not dependent on the human mind.
> And am I right in thinking that you consider external standards to be bad?
Did I imply that they are bad? I didn't mean to. I think that God
(perfection) is a superb standard. I think that Reality is a bad standard
when rationality is defined in terms of values that are presumably dictated
by Reality but they are not.
>> or if it's only a passionate commitment, why is it not a whim? The answer
>> is that I would have an external standard to validate my whim, and that
>> is utility.
>
> Are you saying that most external standards are bad, but "utility" is an
> exception?
I did not say (or didn't mean to say, I don't remember) that having an
external non-humanistic standard of morality is good or bad. I said that
cultural standards of morality are based on consensus. That is the case even
if the standard is external. People would find themselves in agreement about
the action (good or bad) even if they don't agree on the standard. For
example Evangelicals agree that stealing is bad because the Bible tells them
so. Objectivists agree that stealing is bad because Reality commands respect
for other people's rights in normal life situations, pragmatists agree that
stealing is bad because it de-stabilizes the community, a medium agrees that
stealing is bad because he had a revelation in a dream, etc. All those
people agreeing that stealing is bad creates a communal consensus that
stealing is bad.
If you had not pulled my ears for careless wording I would probably write
here: "So in that community stealing is bad because so many people agree
that it is bad." Now that you have called my attention to the ambiguity I
will word it this way: that in such a community stealing is considered to be
bad because so many people agree that it is bad. Each one of those groups
feel strongly about it and those that have an external standard feel that
they are absolutely right. God bless them. It is still consensus all the way
down.
>> The standard of utility is in a way a collectivist standard which asseses
>> validity in terms of collective benefit, in the belief that the
>> individual and the collective are mutually enhancing.
>
> When you say "assesses validity in terms of collective benefit," are you
> making a claim about the ethical significance of the "judgment of the
> collective," or are you just saying that "collective benefit" is your
> standard of value? (Those are two separate issues, right?)
Collective benefit and personal benefit are standards of value that are
inseparable because they mutually enhance. The individual fares better in a
prosperous community and the community fares better when individuals are
prosperous.
>> And don't pay too much attention to the seemingly condescending
>> paragraphs above. I was just kidding.
>
> It's a good thing you told me that! I was about to complain bitterly about
> your suggestion that I (of all people!) am some kind of miserable
> whim-worshipper! ;-)
You still didn't tell me how you know that Hitler was bad.
Mark N
> You still didn't tell me how you know that Hitler was bad.
Um, let's see... Hitler was bad because he committed acts of aggression
for no rational reason whatsoever, and in the process he brought
unimaginable suffering and premature death to millions of people. Is
this a trick question?
Mark
Acar
Regarding acts of aggression you imply that they are bad when they are
committed for no rational reason whatsoever. But Hitler had reasons and he
believed them to be rational. Using your standard one needs to show that his
reasons were not rational, because we commit acts of aggression and some of
our own people see no rational reason for those acts. Please note that I am
not suggesting moral equivalence. I am saying why your reply does not answer
the question. We have brought unimaginable suffering and premature death to
hundreds of thousands of people. Are we as bad as Hitler? How do we know? Do
we "just know"?
Mark N
> My analogy went down the drain. Think of the booth. Why a booth, instead of
> an open show of hands, where you can look around and check out the
> consensus? In an election the consensus is not even known when you are
> making the commitment in the booth. The fact that I can answer your question
> without reference to the consensus [...]
...means that *your ethical judgment* is made *independently* of the
consensus! Which, in turn, means that consensus -- the collective
judgment of a group -- is *not* "what ethics is all about," as you
claimed earlier.
Ethics is about your reasoning that leads you to the decision that you
make "in the booth," on your own, *before* you know about the consensus.
The consensus is a sociological phenomenon with no ethical significance
at all. Sorry I had to be the one to break the news to you!
>>I claim that the question about Hitler can, and *should*, be addressed
>>without any reference to a consensus of some "community." You seem to
>>disagree, for reasons that are best known to you. :-\
>
> I don't disagree, as I explained.
Yet you seem unable to discuss such questions without invoking
"consensus" at every turn. Again, for reasons best known to you.
> The prevailing ethics of a community
> reflects a consensus of the indiviual ethics of the members of the
> community, which in turn have been greatly influenced by the communal
> standards. (There is a self feeding cycle there).
Yes, and I'm sure that this cycle is of interest to psychologists and
sociologists. Perhaps it's of interest to historians as well.
> But when the individual
> makes a personal commitment that differs from the consensus, (such as an
> Objectivist) he must necessarily invoke an external standard in order to
> keep it from being arbitrary (a whim). [...]
And is it only those who disagree with the consensus who must invoke an
"external standard"? Is the consensus itself not an "external standard"?
> [...] In
> brief, if you reject communal ethics
Could you give a definition of "communal ethics"? (I'm guessing that I
will reject it. :-) )
> and claim your indvidual right to know
> absolute right from wrong,
Well, I wouldn't say that an individual has a "right to know" right from
wrong. (I'm not even sure what that would mean.) I would be more
inclined to say that an individual has a *need*, and a *responsibility*,
to determine for himself what is right and what is wrong, to the best of
his ability. Every individual has a sign on his desk that reads "The
buck stops here."
> you need to explain how you know this. [...]
Explain how I know what? That it's possible for an individual to
determine for himself what is right and what is wrong, without checking
to see what the consensus says? But you *agree* with me about that!
Think of the booth! ;-)
Mark
Mark N
> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
> news:eittri$9pu$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
>>But your comments sometimes suggest rather strongly that this "indecent"
>>view is your view. Here is an example:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/y3u4se
>>
>>[Acar:] Evil is evil because the vast majority of sensitized observers
>>agree that it is evil. Consensus.
>>
>>That seems pretty unambiguous to me. It says that things that are evil,
>>are evil because people "agree" that they are evil. Doesn't it? Did you
>>misspeak there? Is that not really your view?
>
> I see. One hopes that from the context it would be quite clear that "evil is
> evil because..." means to say "evil is considered evil (by a culture)
> because..." It would take very many more words to spell out those qualifying
> clauses. One believes (apprently mistakenly) that the context will make such
> qualifying clauses implicit. However - you have a valid point - the wording
> is misleading. It was my fault.
So what you really meant to say there was something like, "A thing is
considered evil by a culture when the vast majority of people (or
'sensitized observers') in that culture consider that thing to be evil"?
Is that it? I'm having a hard time seeing what the substantive meaning
of that might be. Maybe it was intended as a definition of some sort? In
any case, please believe me when I tell you that I was not being
intentionally obtuse in interpreting what you had written. I was just
going by (what seemed to me to be) the plain meaning of the words that
you had used.
[...]
>>>What you should be asking, is - if I would be so sure of my ethics in the
>>>absence of consensus, why is my position different from those that have
>>>an external standard
>>
>>What do you mean by an "external standard"? Could you give some examples
>>of external standards, to help me understand what you have in mind?
>
> I already said what I mean - God, the Bible, Reality.
What about "utility"? You said that that was an external standard too,
right? And what about consensus? Is that an external standard? If not,
why not?
> Standards of
> reference for good and evil that are not dependent on the human mind.
I'm afraid that this is obscure to me. I still don't have a clear
understanding of what you mean by "external standard." :-(
[...]
> If you had not pulled my ears for careless wording I would probably write
> here: "So in that community stealing is bad because so many people agree
> that it is bad." Now that you have called my attention to the ambiguity I
> will word it this way: that in such a community stealing is considered to be
> bad because so many people agree that it is bad. Each one of those groups
> feel strongly about it and those that have an external standard feel that
> they are absolutely right. [...]
What about you? You have the external standard of "utility." Do you feel
that you are "absolutely right"?
>>>The standard of utility is in a way a collectivist standard which asseses
>>>validity in terms of collective benefit, in the belief that the
>>>individual and the collective are mutually enhancing.
>>
>>When you say "assesses validity in terms of collective benefit," are you
>>making a claim about the ethical significance of the "judgment of the
>>collective," or are you just saying that "collective benefit" is your
>>standard of value? (Those are two separate issues, right?)
>
> Collective benefit and personal benefit are standards of value that are
> inseparable because they mutually enhance. The individual fares better in a
> prosperous community and the community fares better when individuals are
> prosperous.
But you appear to be claiming (or implicitly assuming) that "collective
benefit" as a standard of value goes hand-in-hand with "collective
judgment" about ethical questions. I dispute this. Those are two
separate issues. The fact that someone takes some notion of "collective
benefit" as his standard of value need not imply that he subordinates
his own ethical judgment to that of the "community."
Mark
Mark N
> Regarding acts of aggression you imply that they are bad when they are
> committed for no rational reason whatsoever. But Hitler had reasons and he
> believed them to be rational. Using your standard one needs to show that his
> reasons were not rational,
First someone would have to tell me what his reasons were. Maybe you
have some knowledge of Hitler's "rationale" for what he did, and you
would like to present it for discussion? (I have to admit that I have
never been able to get through more than a few paragraphs of _Mein
Kampf_. It gives me the creeps.)
> because we commit acts of aggression
What do you mean "we," Kemo Sabe? ;-)
> and some of
> our own people see no rational reason for those acts.
I'm afraid you're losing me here. Who are "we," and who are "our own
people"? And what is the relevance of all this group-speak?
> Please note that I am
> not suggesting moral equivalence. I am saying why your reply does not answer
> the question. We have brought unimaginable suffering and premature death to
> hundreds of thousands of people. Are we as bad as Hitler? How do we know? Do
> we "just know"?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking how, in general,
people determine the values that inform their ethical reasoning? Or how
people should determine those values? (I don't think that I have
anything very profound, or very original, to say about either of those
questions.)
Mark
Acar
> I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking how, in general,
> people determine the values that inform their ethical reasoning? Or how
> people should determine those values? (I don't think that I have anything
> very profound, or very original, to say about either of those questions.)
Which doesn't stop you from holding strong opinions on the subject.
.
.
.
Acar
>> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
>> news:eittri$9pu$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
> considered evil by a culture when the vast majority of people (or
> 'sensitized observers') in that culture consider that thing to be evil"?
That is correct word for word.
> Is that it? I'm having a hard time seeing what the substantive meaning of
> that might be.
It's the difference between absolutism and relativism in ethics.
> Maybe it was intended as a definition of some sort? In any case, please
> believe me when I tell you that I was not being intentionally obtuse in
> interpreting what you had written. I was just going by (what seemed to me
> to be) the plain meaning of the words that you had used.
I apologized for the ambiguity.
> What about "utility"? You said that that was an external standard too,
> right? And what about consensus? Is that an external standard? If not, why
> not?
]
Utility is an external standard. What is the question?
Consensus is a third party standard. You don't consciously use it to decide
your opinion but others may use it to describe you as being or not being
ethical.
>> Standards of reference for good and evil that are not dependent on the
>> human mind.
>
> I'm afraid that this is obscure to me. I still don't have a clear
> understanding of what you mean by "external standard." :-(
External means existing outside of. Existing independently of. Such as a
tree or a rock or a tsunami.
>> If you had not pulled my ears for careless wording I would probably write
>> here: "So in that community stealing is bad because so many people agree
>> that it is bad." Now that you have called my attention to the ambiguity I
>> will word it this way: that in such a community stealing is considered to
>> be bad because so many people agree that it is bad. Each one of those
>> groups feel strongly about it and those that have an external standard
>> feel that they are absolutely right. [...]
>
> What about you? You have the external standard of "utility." Do you feel
> that you are "absolutely right"?
Not absolutely in the technical sense of that word. That is important.
But confident to the best of a human being's ability to weigh utility of
options.
>> Collective benefit and personal benefit are standards of value that are
>> inseparable because they mutually enhance. The individual fares better in
>> a prosperous community and the community fares better when individuals
>> are prosperous.
>
> But you appear to be claiming (or implicitly assuming) that "collective
> benefit" as a standard of value goes hand-in-hand with "collective
> judgment" about ethical questions. I dispute this.
Collective benefit goes hand in hand with my individual judgment, as I
expalined. Collective judgment has been explained already. It usually goes
"hand in hand" with different standards.
> Those are two separate issues. The fact that someone takes some notion of
> "collective benefit" as his standard of value
It's a reasonable standard for judging what is ethical and what is
unethical.
> need not imply that he subordinates his own ethical judgment to that of
> the "community."
Well put. If I say that people consider frankness to be rude, it doesn't
mean that I refrain from speaking frankly. One is a description of a fact.
It describes a consensus opinion. Why would I advocate "subordinating" to
it? You are incorrect in imagining such an implication.
Acar
>
> ...means that *your ethical judgment* is made *independently* of the
> consensus! Which, in turn, means that consensus -- the collective judgment
> of a group -- is *not* "what ethics is all about," as you claimed earlier.
You mistake is failure to distinguish between community standards and
personal standards of ethics.
> Ethics is about your reasoning that leads you to the decision that you
> make "in the booth," on your own, *before* you know about the consensus.
> The consensus is a sociological phenomenon with no ethical significance at
> all. Sorry I had to be the one to break the news to you!
That is a startling news which almost made me choke on my Sprite. But
unfortunately it is only a claim. As I have been told by some hacks, with a
claim and a ticket one can enter the zoo. You need to develop that unique
argument.
>> But when the individual makes a personal commitment that differs from the
>> consensus, (such as an Objectivist) he must necessarily invoke an
>> external standard in order to keep it from being arbitrary (a whim).
>> [...]
>
> And is it only those who disagree with the consensus who must invoke an
> "external standard"? Is the consensus itself not an "external standard"?
It's a third party standard. A "community standard", the community passing
judgment as a third party.
>> [...] In brief, if you reject communal ethics
>
> Could you give a definition of "communal ethics"? (I'm guessing that I
> will reject it. :-) )
Community standards. Rejecting them may wind you up in jail.
>> and claim your indvidual right to know absolute right from wrong,
> I would be more inclined to say that an individual has a *need*,
I agree. But you are just saying that. How do you know that?
> and a *responsibility*,
> to determine for himself what is right and what is wrong, to the best of
> his ability.
I agree. Again, making assertions is not sufficient support of your
opinions.
> Every individual has a sign on his desk that reads "The buck stops here."
You keep repeating what I wrote.
>> you need to explain how you know this. [...]
>
> Explain how I know what? That it's possible for an individual to determine
> for himself what is right and what is wrong, without checking to see what
> the consensus says? But you *agree* with me about that! Think of the
> booth! ;-)
I do agree on that. But you have not explained how you know right from
wrong.
> Mark
Reggie Perrin
> Agent Cooper wrote:
>
> [ROTL as I read down to this...]
>
>> There is one thing that I will say for the seculars: they are all quite
>> convinced that Hitler is very very bad. Unfortunately, on closer
>> inspection, this appears to be an *analytic* proposition. They actually
>> can't give any account of what it is that makes anything bad, but at
>> least they're very concerned to distance themselves from Hitler. This
>> makes them wonderfully easy to lead, ironically.
>
> Ten years ago, when I was a rank amateur at this, I used the Hitler
> example when responding to the "nothing is good or evil, morality is
> totally subjective, it's all just your opinion" types. Even then,
> this approach was devastatingly effective. It is a type of reductio
> ad absurdum argument.
I believe the term is "argument ad hitlerum".
x
x
x
x
x
x
Reggie Perrin
> [...]
> -The Republic- was apalling. -The Timeaus- was interesting.
Gah. As a work of philosophy, _Timaeus_ has to be the least interesting
of Plato's dialogues. You should try _Laws_, as a counterpart to _Republic_.
Reggie Perrin
> Agent Cooper <agentc...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Another hypothesis: some cogsci research has been done that suggests
>> that sophisticated patterns of reasoning abilities are topic specific,
>> as if one could do brilliantly with statistics as long as they are
>> *baseball* statistics, but as soon as the reference to baseball is
>> removed or replaced with something else, it is as if the previously
>> manifested skill vanishes.
>
> That's possible. Another possibility is that your students just don't care
> about Plato, and aren't willing to invest the time and effort to think
> deeply about philosophy. My experience is that most college students should
> really be in some sort of trade school. They're looking for a degree that
> will get them a good paying job, and they have little interest in a "well
> rounded" education. They take the general education courses because they
> have to, and all they want out of them is something that isn't going to hurt
> their GPA and isn't going to cut into their social schedule. Maybe your
> experience would be different if you had them argue about something that
> mattered to them.
In my (much more limited) experience, that is not the case. Ask students
about ethics or politics, and you will frequently find students who
*feel* very strongly about the topic, but it is comparatively rare to
find people who are willing/able to apply *reason*.
Ken Gardner
>> Ten years ago, when I was a rank amateur at this, I used the Hitler
>> example when responding to the "nothing is good or evil, morality is
>> totally subjective, it's all just your opinion" types. Even then,
>> this approach was devastatingly effective. It is a type of reductio
>> ad absurdum argument.
>
>I believe the term is "argument ad hitlerum".
Good one. :) Nice to see you back, if in fact you have missed a few
days.
Ken
Mark N
> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
> news:ej56dt$9lt$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
>>...means that *your ethical judgment* is made *independently* of the
>>consensus! Which, in turn, means that consensus -- the collective judgment
>>of a group -- is *not* "what ethics is all about," as you claimed earlier.
>
> You mistake is failure to distinguish between community standards and
> personal standards of ethics.
No, I don't think that I have failed to distinguish between those
things. On the other hand, I freely admit that I have failed to
understand what you are talking about. As usual.
>
>>Ethics is about your reasoning that leads you to the decision that you
>>make "in the booth," on your own, *before* you know about the consensus.
>>The consensus is a sociological phenomenon with no ethical significance at
>>all. Sorry I had to be the one to break the news to you!
>
> That is a startling news which almost made me choke on my Sprite. But
> unfortunately it is only a claim. As I have been told by some hacks, with a
> claim and a ticket one can enter the zoo. You need to develop that unique
> argument.
What, you mean the unique argument that could penetrate your hard outer
shell? ;-)
[...]
>>And is it only those who disagree with the consensus who must invoke an
>>"external standard"? Is the consensus itself not an "external standard"?
>
> It's a third party standard. A "community standard", the community passing
> judgment as a third party.
FTR, this doesn't answer my question. But don't worry about it.
>>>[...] In brief, if you reject communal ethics
>>
>>Could you give a definition of "communal ethics"? (I'm guessing that I
>>will reject it. :-) )
>
> Community standards. Rejecting them may wind you up in jail.
I see. Well, not really. :-\
>>>and claim your indvidual right to know absolute right from wrong,
>>
>>I would be more inclined to say that an individual has a *need*,
>
> I agree. But you are just saying that. How do you know that?
Whatever that means. You really do like to speak in riddles, don't you?
It gets tiresome after a while.
[snip more of the same.]
Mark
Mark N
>>>"Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eittri$9pu$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>>
>>What about "utility"? You said that that was an external standard too,
>>right? And what about consensus? Is that an external standard? If not, why
>>not?
>
> Utility is an external standard. What is the question?
You just answered it! Thank you, Kind`Sir! :-)
> Consensus is a third party standard. You don't consciously use it to decide
> your opinion but others may use it to describe you as being or not being
> ethical.
FTR, this is the second non-responsive reply that you have given to that
question. But don't worry about it.
[...]
>>I'm afraid that this is obscure to me. I still don't have a clear
>>understanding of what you mean by "external standard." :-(
>
> External means existing outside of. Existing independently of. Such as a
> tree or a rock or a tsunami.
Well, I do have a dictionary. But thanks all the same.
[...]
>>What about you? You have the external standard of "utility." Do you feel
>>that you are "absolutely right"?
>
> Not absolutely in the technical sense of that word. That is important.
> But confident to the best of a human being's ability to weigh utility of
> options.
OK.
[...]
>>Those are two separate issues. The fact that someone takes some notion of
>>"collective benefit" as his standard of value
>
> It's a reasonable standard for judging what is ethical and what is
> unethical.
>
>>need not imply that he subordinates his own ethical judgment to that of
>>the "community."
>
> Well put.
What? You mean I got something right?! How the !@#$ did *that* happen?!
> If I say that people consider frankness to be rude, it doesn't
> mean that I refrain from speaking frankly. One is a description of a fact.
> It describes a consensus opinion. Why would I advocate "subordinating" to
> it?
Well, that's what *I* was wondering.
> You are incorrect in imagining such an implication.
Fair enough. My bad. At this point, I'm pretty much resigned to the
conclusion that I will *never* be able to figure out what you are
talking about. On any topic. You consistently baffle me. You have
successfully repelled all of my attempts to make sense of your statements.
The question that remains is whether you do it on purpose or not. I
guess I'll never know.
Mark
Mark N
And your point is...?
Mark
Acar
>
> The question that remains is whether you do it on purpose or not. I guess
> I'll never know.
Not on purpose, I can assure you. I have put substantial effort in trying to
be clear and precise. But it's quite obvious that we don't communicate well.
Mark N
> "Mark N" <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote in message
> news:ejh0gv$6jk$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
>>The question that remains is whether you do it on purpose or not. I guess
>>I'll never know.
>
> Not on purpose, I can assure you.
OK. Thanks for that. Seriously. I take you at your word.
> I have put substantial effort in trying to
> be clear and precise. But it's quite obvious that we don't communicate well.
Yes, it has become painfully obvious to me. We seem to speak different
languages. I have found our discussions extremely frustrating. Maybe
there is nothing that can be done about it. I don't know.
Mark