Ethics in the Application of Science

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
<quote.

104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
of humanity to have it.

105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
“an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security,
usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into
the stream of culture”,[83] as if reality, goodness and truth
automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The
fact is that “contemporary man has not been trained to use power
well”,[84] because our immense technological development has not been
accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and
conscience. Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own
limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
challenges now before us. “The risk is growing day by day that man
will not use his power as he should”; in effect, “power is never
considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent
in freedom” since its “only norms are taken from alleged necessity,
from either utility or security”.[85] But human beings are not
completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the
blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest,
and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face
of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.
We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a
sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting
limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.

[83] ROMANO GUARDINI, Das Ende der Neuzeit, 9th ed., Würzburg, 1965,
87 (English: The End of the Modern World, Wilmington, 1998, 82).

[84] Ibid.

[85] Ibid., 87-88 (The End of the Modern World, 83).

</quote>

So, if organised religion is discarded as an authority, how should
ethical standards in the *application* of science and new knowledge
become established? Who for, example, should decide on whether or not
human cloning should be allowed?

[Jimbo]

Who should have decided whether or not it was morally acceptable to
torture and burn women alive who were accused of witchcraft?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

AlwaysAskingQuestions <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1khloahn1ajelm8ln...@4ax.com:

I'm afraid organized religion has already been discarded as an authority
where the application of science and new knowledge is concerned: in most
modern nations, it's the legislature that decides whether or not human
cloning (or stem cell research, or abortion, or birth control pills)
should be allowed.

Pope Francis is IMO right about our meager awareness of our own
limitations, but as he says, each age suffers from that problem. No, we
cannot claim to have a sound ethics, but no other age has ever been able
to make that claim, either: no religion has ever been able to save us
from ourselves.
--
S.O.P.

[Kalkidas]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1khloahn1ajelm8ln...@4ax.com...

> In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> <quote.
>
> 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
> wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
> We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
> twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
> and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
> people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
> available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
> or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
> of humanity to have it.
>
> 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
> "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,

> usefulness, welfare and vigour; .an assimilation of new values into

Hey, I've got an idea! Just retain the ethical standards of organized
religion but pretend they really come from atheism! Oh, wait....



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[chris thompson]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:41:50 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> AlwaysAskingQuestions <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1khloahn1ajelm8ln...@4ax.com:
>
> > In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> > <quote.
> >
> > 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> > biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> > other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> > power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> > especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> > over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> > had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
> > wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
> > We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
> > twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
> > and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
> > people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
> > available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
> > or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
> > of humanity to have it.
> >
> > 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
> > "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,

> > usefulness, welfare and vigour; ...an assimilation of new values into

While I am not aware of every potential flash point on the planet, ISTM that WMD are most likely to be used in the cause of religion, than for any other reason.

> Pope Francis is IMO right about our meager awareness of our own
> limitations, but as he says, each age suffers from that problem. No, we
> cannot claim to have a sound ethics, but no other age has ever been able
> to make that claim, either: no religion has ever been able to save us
> from ourselves.
> --
> S.O.P.

Didn't people think the crossbow was so horrific a weapon that its use signaled the end of the world?

Chris

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
news:f6kloa900d6j6p8ao...@4ax.com:

That's unfair. The question is whether or not it was *ethically*
acceptable: even AAQ knows better than to argue that organized religion
should be accepted as a *moral* authority.

Besides, it was women who were accused of *heresy* were burned alive: if
they were accused of witchcraft but not heresy, they were hanged. Same
with men, of course. Thousands of men and women were burned alive because
they expressed unorthodox views or failed to convince a panel of judges
that they had properly renounced their Judaism, but for some reason,
people never seem to get as worked up over that as they do about witch
trials.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e02d32f9-de08-44e9...@googlegroups.com:

It seems to me that every time such weapons have been used in the past,
they've been used in the cause of nationalism, e.g., the deployment of
poison gas during the First World War, the detonation of nuclear weapons
during the Second, the use of defoliants and napalm in Vietnam, and the
chemical warfare deployed by Saddam Hussein against his fellow Iraqis.

Such weapons may eventually be used in the cause of religion, but when it
comes to mass murder, the State has been outpacing the Church for
centuries.

>> Pope Francis is IMO right about our meager awareness of our own
>> limitations, but as he says, each age suffers from that problem. No,
>> we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, but no other age has ever
>> been able to make that claim, either: no religion has ever been able
>> to save us from ourselves.
>

> Didn't people think the crossbow was so horrific a weapon that its use
> signaled the end of the world?

Not as far as I know, though I suppose it's possible that somebody or
other thought that. Mind you, the End of the World is supposed to be a
*good* thing for Christians, so it's hardly surprising that some of them
go out of their way to anticipate it.
--
S.O.P.

[John Harshman]

Why, we should. Deciding if something should be allowed, in a democracy,
is up to the legislature and the courts, both of which represent the people.

Why should organized religion be regaded as an authority on ethical
standards? Whence derives that authority?

[John Harshman]

Where do ethical standards come from? Incidentally, are you familiar
with Plato's Euthyphro?

[Jimbo]

A sound ethics can't be based on barbaric superstitions. So how do we
transcend such superstitions? Science isn't the whole answer, and the
European Enlightenment didn't rid us of all superstition, but it did
cut away some of the ingorent superstition that had been seen as
wisdom by the Catholic church.

>Besides, it was women who were accused of *heresy* were burned alive: if
>they were accused of witchcraft but not heresy, they were hanged. Same
>with men, of course. Thousands of men and women were burned alive because
>they expressed unorthodox views or failed to convince a panel of judges
>that they had properly renounced their Judaism, but for some reason,
>people never seem to get as worked up over that as they do about witch
>trials.

It's my understanding that accused witches were usually burned in
Europe and hanged in the Americas, but either way it was barbaric
superstition.

AAQ was asking if there's any authoritative basis for ethics that's
not based on religion. In your response to the OP, you say " organized

religion has already been discarded as an authority where the
application of science and new knowledge is concerned: in most modern
nations, it's the legislature that decides whether or not human
cloning (or stem cell research, or abortion, or birth control pills)

should be allowed." But in the USA at least, congress often is more
swayed by religious than by scientific or humanistic considerations
when making decisions about such issues.

[John Harshman]

Aum Shinrikyo comes immediately to mind.

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1fGdnf1gpLE0dxfI...@giganews.com...

Ethical standards come from the nature of life itself. They are
self-evident.

Do the gods love it because it is good, or is it good because the gods
love it?

The former is the case.

[jillery]

Mostly just the knights whose armor was pierced by the bolts.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Burkhard]

That is a rather...troublesome example. Or a fortunate one, depending.
The overwhelming majority of witchcraft prosecutions were carried out by
the secular authorities. Not only that, they were carried out in
communities which were often "grassroot democratic" - think Salem. You
could even argue that the witchcraft trials came about as a result of
the destruction of religious authority in the aftermath of the 30 years
war - it is a bastard child of the enlightenment, so to speak. Which is
why the vast majority of trials were in protestant countries.

Despite that, I would argue that yes, the structures that also led to
the witchcraft trials are the best we have to regulate science - that is
a civic society in a deliberative, democratic process. Which, if the
structures are right, might ensure that we get it right more often than
wrong, and hopeful never catastrophically wrong.

But of course without being able to guarantee that (and if we try to
incorporate that uncertainty in the deliberative process, with things
like the precautionary principle, the same danger reappears just on the
next level of reflection). I have however no doubts that some of the
things we do will look pretty bad to our grandchildren, and would not
be surprised that even further down the line, some of our present
practices will be looked upon with the same disdain that we have towards
witchcraft trials.

[jillery]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:50:40 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, because there never were any witches. The others could
take comfort knowing the accusations might be technically correct.

[Robert Camp]

Good lord, if I squint and turn my head just right I could actually
somewhat agree with that.

> They are self-evident.

Okay, there's just not enough squinting and turning possible to make
that one work.

> Do the gods love it because it is good, or is it good because the gods
> love it?

In other words, there are moral constraints upon god/the gods?

[chris thompson]

Oh, absolutely. But I think that up until the mid-twentieth century, there were two reasons for that. First, and likely more important, was that there seemed to be a bit of a low point in religious fanaticism. The other issue was one of access. Things like gas and atomic weapons were only available to nation states, and large ones at that. That would seem to have changed.

Chris

[Robert Camp]

On 6/24/15 10:48 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

Good lord, if I squint and turn my head just right I could actually
somewhat agree with that.

> They are self-evident.

Okay, there's just not enough squinting and turning possible to make
that one work.

> Do the gods love it because it is good, or is it good because the gods
> love it?

> The former is the case.

In other words, there are moral constraints upon god/the gods?

(Missing context from previous reply restored.)

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mmf2e6$kv$2...@dont-email.me...

Sorry. Too may disclaimers for me to make much sense out of that.

>> They are self-evident.
>
> Okay, there's just not enough squinting and turning possible to make
> that one work.

Well, they're self-evident to one who is not mentally challenged,
irreversibly cynical, or just plain an evil psychopath.

>> Do the gods love it because it is good, or is it good because the
>> gods
>> love it?
>
> > The former is the case.
>
> In other words, there are moral constraints upon god/the gods?

I don't know if I'd call loving the good because it is good a
"constraint". I would call it "moral", though.

[dcl...@qis.net]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:51:49 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

>
> Hey, I've got an idea! Just retain the ethical standards of organized
> religion but pretend they really come from atheism! Oh, wait....

Or religions could invert the process you assert, adopting humanist ethics and then claim these to be religious.

Everyone who claims God to be Good has done this.

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:3a584a4e-b127-437e...@googlegroups.com...

You forgot to insult me.

[Jimbo]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:25:52 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I would argue that the root cause of the witchcraft trials was
ignorance, superstition and a value system based on concepts of
absolute good and absolute evil. Both the religious and secular arm
were made up of people who accepted the biblical injunction "Thou
shall not suffer a witch to live." In times of social disruption and
uncertainty it made scapegoating easy.

>Despite that, I would argue that yes, the structures that also led to
>the witchcraft trials are the best we have to regulate science - that is
>a civic society in a deliberative, democratic process. Which, if the
>structures are right, might ensure that we get it right more often than
>wrong, and hopeful never catastrophically wrong.
>
>But of course without being able to guarantee that (and if we try to
>incorporate that uncertainty in the deliberative process, with things
>like the precautionary principle, the same danger reappears just on the
>next level of reflection). I have however no doubts that some of the
>things we do will look pretty bad to our grandchildren, and would not
>be surprised that even further down the line, some of our present
>practices will be looked upon with the same disdain that we have towards
>witchcraft trials.

We're faced today with unprecedented change and science-related issues
that no one really understands fully and which, in the USA, often are
decided without much public discussion. Congress is influenced by
fundamentalists who believe, for example, that an egg-cell becomes at
conception a human being whose deliberate destruction is murder. That
idea has been incorporated into laws, though it's based on a purely
religious claim that the soul enters at conception.

There are legitimate questions as to when an embryo becomes a human
being, but the 'life at conception' view is counter to known facts
about biological development. It persists only because religious
doctrines developed that promote it.

As for human cloning, I wonder if AlwaysAskingQuestions can present an
argument that religion provides any special insight into the matter.
The current Pope is an intelligent and, for the most part, ethically
grounded man. His position provides him with a bully pulpit, but he's
also constrained by the ancient attitudes and superstitions that come
with the job.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
news:3moloapvokjafvbqf...@4ax.com:

Ethics can't be based on anything *but* barbaric superstitions. Trouble
is, most people think their own ethics are sound and everyone else's are
barbaric and superstitious.

> So how do we transcend such superstitions?

We don't. We just call them something else.

> Science isn't the whole answer,

It isn't any part of the answer. You can't derive ethics from science:
science can only tell you how people actually behave - it can't tell you
how people *should* behave.

> and the European Enlightenment didn't rid us of all superstition, but
> it did cut away some of the ingorent superstition that had been seen
> as wisdom by the Catholic church.

And replaced it with ignorant superstitions *about* the Catholic
Church.

>>Besides, it was women who were accused of *heresy* were burned alive:
>>if they were accused of witchcraft but not heresy, they were hanged.
>>Same with men, of course. Thousands of men and women were burned alive
>>because they expressed unorthodox views or failed to convince a panel
>>of judges that they had properly renounced their Judaism, but for some
>>reason, people never seem to get as worked up over that as they do
>>about witch trials.
>
> It's my understanding that accused witches were usually burned in
> Europe and hanged in the Americas, but either way it was barbaric
> superstition.

There's at least as much barbaric superstition in the modern conception
of witch trials as there was in the trials themselves.

> AAQ was asking if there's any authoritative basis for ethics that's
> not based on religion.

There's no authoritative basis for ethics in religion or anything else.
If you're looking for someone in authority to tell you how to be
ethical, you're doing it wrong.

> In your response to the OP, you say "organized religion has already
> been discarded as an authority where the application of science and
> new knowledge is concerned: in most modern nations, it's the
> legislature that decides whether or not human cloning (or stem cell
> research, or abortion, or birth control pills) should be allowed." But
> in the USA at least, congress often is more swayed by religious than
> by scientific or humanistic considerations when making decisions about
> such issues.

The belief that the U.S. Congress is under the thumb of religion is
common among certain groups of superstitious barbarians.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in news:1fGdnfxgpLEEdhfI...@giganews.com:

It doesn't count as a WMD unless the MD part actually happens.
--
S.O.P.

[Robert Camp]

That would be a truism.

Whether god/gods "love the good," follow "the good," or just appreciate
a nice ethical bromide, they do not (according to your choice above)
embody "the good." They are independent of "the good."

Further, if they strive to emulate "the good," they can be reasonably
seen to be subservient to whatever "the good" is, if only on matters of
morality. I don't know what to call that if not a constraint.

Also, where does "the good" come from?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:95396da9-6500-4f17...@googlegroups.com:

I doubt it, but then I don't think there's as much religious fanaticism
nowadays as some people seem to think. It does make a good bogeyman,
though - I'll give you that. If we can focus on the religious fanatics
out there and how oh-so-awful and dangerous they are, we don't need to
waste time pondering our own complicity in the crimes committed by the
secular governments that sustain us.

> The other issue was one of access. Things like gas and atomic weapons
> were only available to nation states, and large ones at that. That
> would seem to have changed.

Yes: now the nation-states have even worse weapons. We can kill civilians
from thousands of miles away by remote control. Note that we carefully
designate them as dangerous religious fanatics first.
--
S.O.P.

[jonathan]

On 6/24/2015 11:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> <quote.
>
> 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
> wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
> We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
> twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
> and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of

> people,to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons

> available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
> or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
> of humanity to have it.
>

The above statement hits the nail on the head.
The problem is dictatorships of any kind, whether
military, religious or economic such as corrupt
capitalism. When a few have all the power disaster
is certain.

Top down control systems, or a man-made system is
the antithesis to a naturally evolving system
where the power law defines the decision process
and checks-and-balances are found at every step
of the way.

Let a natural system define morality. And just
as nature is highly adaptive, resilient and
creative, able to problem solve, so will be
our morality. Context dependent or adaptive
not absolute.

> 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
> “an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security,

> usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into

> the stream of culture”,[83] as if reality, goodness and truth
> automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The
> fact is that “contemporary man has not been trained to use power
> well”,[84] because our immense technological development has not been
> accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and
> conscience. Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own
> limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
> challenges now before us. “The risk is growing day by day that man
> will not use his power as he should”; in effect, “power is never
> considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent
> in freedom” since its “only norms are taken from alleged necessity,
> from either utility or security”.[85] But human beings are not
> completely autonomous.

Self organization needs a highly unconstrained
or critical interaction among countless autonomous
agents. A system dominated by a high level of
parallel connectivity, where things can go 'viral'
easily. The added energy from such collective effects
provides the underlying impetus for evolution.

The more in 'the whole is more than it's sum'
flows from the volatility parallel networks
can easily produce.

> Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the
> blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest,
> and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face
> of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.
> We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a
> sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting
> limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
>

Wisdom is an emergent property, a collective property
not of any one person. We have to mimic nature in our
societal systems and place our Faith in nature that
what is produced or decides is good.

If our society is constructed properly to mimic
nature, it should do as nature does.

The only way to predict the future is to create
a rigid man-made system where the output can be planned
in advance. But that is an unnatural system and
the future is destined to become the opposite
of natural, the opposite of beautiful and adaptive
and so on.

In a natural system we can't hope to predict or
plan the future, as a natural system must be
allowed to evolve as it will.

> [83] ROMANO GUARDINI, Das Ende der Neuzeit, 9th ed., Würzburg, 1965,
> 87 (English: The End of the Modern World, Wilmington, 1998, 82).
>
> [84] Ibid.
>
> [85] Ibid., 87-88 (The End of the Modern World, 83).
>
> </quote>
>



> So, if organised religion is discarded as an authority, how should
> ethical standards in the *application* of science and new knowledge
> become established?
> Who for, example, should decide on whether or not
> human cloning should be allowed?
>

The ideal process or wisdom must be that which
produced life and intelligence. It's arrogant
to think man-made systems can do better
than evolution.

The following link shows how my hobby of
Complexity Science might apply it's
mathematics to define wisdom.


The Philosophy of Belief - does it matter ?

Much thought, within the field of philosophy, considers questions
such as "does God exist?", "is the world 'real'?", "can there
be 'objective' morals?". All these sorts of question presuppose
that the answer makes a difference, that it is important to
'know' the truth, yet in general this is rarely the case.

Our behaviours do not depend upon what is 'real' (which
cannot be determined with absolute certainty in any situation)
but upon what we believe is real, and crucially this belief
need have no connection to knowledge as traditionally
understood, i.e. to scientifically based 'fact'. In this sense
all sorts of abstract level values take the stage, and we
can say that is it these, not any 'factually' based values,
that have pride of place as the actual definers of human
activity worldwide, especially in the realms of politics
and religion.

http://www.calresco.org/wp/differ.htm







s

[Jimbo]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:47:34 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"

AlwaysAskingQuestions no doubt believes that Catholicism represents a
sound basis for ethics in the rapidly changing world of today. But he
asked if there is something that could replace religion as a basis for
contemporary ethics. That's the question. Apparently you think
superstition must continue as the foundation for ethics. If not, could
you clarify what it is you're trying to say?

>> So how do we transcend such superstitions?
>
>We don't. We just call them something else.

Okay, that clarifies your position.

>> Science isn't the whole answer,
>
>It isn't any part of the answer. You can't derive ethics from science:
>science can only tell you how people actually behave - it can't tell you
>how people *should* behave.

All ethical systems are based on beliefs about the nature of human
existence in this world. Science can and has clarified many questions
about human existence and the world we live in. Thus it has shed light
on questions underlying the development of ethical systems.

>> and the European Enlightenment didn't rid us of all superstition, but
>> it did cut away some of the ingorent superstition that had been seen
>> as wisdom by the Catholic church.
>
>And replaced it with ignorant superstitions *about* the Catholic
>Church.

It was a social as well as an intellectual movement. Thus it was
influenced by existing prejudices. We now have some understanding of
how prejudices form and develop within social groups. Such
understandings could contribute to new understanding of the nature of
human existence within the world we inhabit. In many respects we're
less barbaric than our ancestors. I call that progress.

>>>Besides, it was women who were accused of *heresy* were burned alive:
>>>if they were accused of witchcraft but not heresy, they were hanged.
>>>Same with men, of course. Thousands of men and women were burned alive
>>>because they expressed unorthodox views or failed to convince a panel
>>>of judges that they had properly renounced their Judaism, but for some
>>>reason, people never seem to get as worked up over that as they do
>>>about witch trials.
>>
>> It's my understanding that accused witches were usually burned in
>> Europe and hanged in the Americas, but either way it was barbaric
>> superstition.
>
>There's at least as much barbaric superstition in the modern conception
>of witch trials as there was in the trials themselves.

I disagree.

>> AAQ was asking if there's any authoritative basis for ethics that's
>> not based on religion.
>
>There's no authoritative basis for ethics in religion or anything else.
>If you're looking for someone in authority to tell you how to be
>ethical, you're doing it wrong.

There's personal ethics and the prevailing ethics of societies. Can
you tell us how to do it right?

>> In your response to the OP, you say "organized religion has already
>> been discarded as an authority where the application of science and
>> new knowledge is concerned: in most modern nations, it's the
>> legislature that decides whether or not human cloning (or stem cell
>> research, or abortion, or birth control pills) should be allowed." But
>> in the USA at least, congress often is more swayed by religious than
>> by scientific or humanistic considerations when making decisions about
>> such issues.
>
>The belief that the U.S. Congress is under the thumb of religion is
>common among certain groups of superstitious barbarians.

The U.S. congress is currently controlled by Republican majorities in
both houses who cater to core religious constituencies who provide
both reliable voting blocs and financial support to favored
candidates.

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mmfad3$5h3$1...@dont-email.me...

???

> Further, if they strive to emulate "the good," they can be reasonably
> seen to be subservient to whatever "the good" is, if only on matters
> of morality. I don't know what to call that if not a constraint.

I call it being good. I would call it a constraint if a living being was
forced to be good against its will. That is impossible, though, since
the will is free.

> Also, where does "the good" come from?

As I said, from the nature of life, or existence, itself. Good is
agreeable with life and seeks to continue, evil is hostile to life and
seeks to cease.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/24/15 3:57 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mmfad3$5h3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/24/15 2:10 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mmf2e6$kv$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 6/24/15 10:48 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1fGdnf1gpLE0dxfI...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 6/24/15, 9:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> news:1khloahn1ajelm8ln...@4ax.com...

<snip>

By virtue of your choice, god/gods are not the instantiation of
morality. Morality does not flow from gods, it and gods are separate things.

>> Further, if they strive to emulate "the good," they can be reasonably
>> seen to be subservient to whatever "the good" is, if only on matters
>> of morality. I don't know what to call that if not a constraint.
>
> I call it being good. I would call it a constraint if a living being was
> forced to be good against its will.

If there's a choice involved, it's a constraint regardless. Though I
choose to always stop at red lights, they are nevertheless a constraint
on my driving behavior.

> That is impossible, though, since
> the will is free.

That's ideological gibberish.

>> Also, where does "the good" come from?
>
> As I said, from the nature of life, or existence, itself. Good is
> agreeable with life and seeks to continue, evil is hostile to life and
> seeks to cease.

That is similarly vacuous.

[chris thompson]

If we allow ourselves to be distracted, sure. But ignoring their reality by saying "we're so much worse" is just as silly.

>
> > The other issue was one of access. Things like gas and atomic weapons
> > were only available to nation states, and large ones at that. That
> > would seem to have changed.
>
> Yes: now the nation-states have even worse weapons. We can kill civilians
> from thousands of miles away by remote control.

We could do that 50 years ago. And drones don't kill as many people as ICBM's. I don't think we have significantly worse weapons today than in 1975.

> Note that we carefully
> designate them as dangerous religious fanatics first.

Nice big blanket you've got there.

Chris

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/24/15 8:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> <quote.
>
> 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
> wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
> We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
> twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
> and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
> people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
> available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
> or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
> of humanity to have it.
>
> 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
> “an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security,

> usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into

Have you read Steven Pinker's _The Better Angels of Our Nature_? In it,
Pinker makes the case that violence has declined greatly over time, and
he analyzes why. One reason is the rise of more centralized
governments, because the rulers found it helps their economic and
military power to have their subject working together rather than trying
to kill each other. Another possible reason is the increase in
literacy, because once you have seen Huck Finn and Jim presented as
genuine people, it becomes harder to think of all blacks and poor people
as unfeeling animals.

The book has far more in it than I can do justice to. I highly
recommend it. It does not address your question directly, but it can be
argued that homicide is a fair proxy for morals in general.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mmfg74$o99$1...@dont-email.me...

I gather from your resorting to scoffery that you have nothing else to
say on the matter, or that you can't stand the thought of agreeing with
me.

[dcl...@qis.net]

Robert Camp -- you are correct in that this is a secular moral standard -- the extension of humanism to lifeism. And it is not the morality on display in OT, NT, Koran, Gita, etc. As such, it is God adhering to morality, rather than God defining morality, as the abrahamic religions once held.

However, it is far from vacuous. And it is one of the better secular moral standards we have found.

[Robert Camp]

You gather incorrectly.

I have no problem agreeing with you. I've actually enjoyed doing so in
the past in some cases. I now resort to "scoffery" when you offer
ideological fluff in place of reasoned comment because you disrespect
this forum when you do so.

Unlike quite a few other religious individuals who post here, you have
(in the past) had the wherewithal to distinguish between intellectual
discourse and religious dogma. When someone who is capable of holding up
a sensible side of discussions of science, and philosophy; is capable of
putting aside their religious commitments in favor of enabling some sort
of productive give and take between opposing sides; has (in the past)
had enough gray matter to offer something more sophisticated than, "I
don't have a religion, I know the truth,"- then a choice by that
individual to ignore the high road and resort to empty (to us)
platitudes is an insult to everyone concerned.

I know you fervently believe what you believe. I also know you know that
spouting dogma as if it is obvious and irrevocable wisdom is usually the
choice of the incompetent or the unhinged. I just don't know what you
hope to gain by doing it.

So, you no longer want to have a rational discussion of the issues?
Fine. I no longer want to indulge your foolishness.

(You'll note that, in the post above, I gave serious answers to your
serious remarks.)

[dcl...@qis.net]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:26:48 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/24/15 8:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> > In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> > <quote.
> >
> > 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> > biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> > other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> > power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> > especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> > over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> > had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
> > wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
> > We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
> > twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
> > and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
> > people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
> > available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
> > or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
> > of humanity to have it.
> >
> > 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
> > "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,

> > usefulness, welfare and vigour; ...an assimilation of new values into

Yes, excellent book and a very effective remedy for eternal pessimism.

[Robert Camp]

I'm not at all sure of what you're talking about here. I have no idea
what "lifeism" is, and I can assure you Kalkidas' intent is not secular.
You go on to offer a paraphrase of Euthyphro's Dilemma, but that context
is also clearly not secular. So I really don't know what you're talking
about when you say "it is one of the better secular moral standards..."

As far as my "vacuous" charge - I was referring not to the discussion of
Euthyphro, but to Kalkidas' comments ("As I said,...seeks to cease")
which I think provide little if any semantic content. How is my
knowledge of the origin of "the good" increased by saying it come from
"existence?" What does it mean to say, "Good is agreeable with life and
seeks to continue, evil is hostile to life and seeks to cease?"

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
news:gtbmoa98t190135mf...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:47:34 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>>news:3moloapvokjafvbqf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:50:40 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>>> <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>>>>news:f6kloa900d6j6p8ao...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:11:29 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>>>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>>>>>So, if organised religion is discarded as an authority, how should
>>>>>>ethical standards in the *application* of science and new
>>>>>>knowledge become established? Who for, example, should decide on
>>>>>>whether or not human cloning should be allowed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who should have decided whether or not it was morally acceptable
>>>>> to torture and burn women alive who were accused of witchcraft?
>>>>
>>>>That's unfair. The question is whether or not it was *ethically*
>>>>acceptable: even AAQ knows better than to argue that organized
>>>>religion should be accepted as a *moral* authority.
>>>
>>> A sound ethics can't be based on barbaric superstitions.
>>
>>Ethics can't be based on anything *but* barbaric superstitions.
>>Trouble is, most people think their own ethics are sound and everyone
>>else's are barbaric and superstitious.
>
> AlwaysAskingQuestions no doubt believes that Catholicism represents a
> sound basis for ethics in the rapidly changing world of today.

AAQ is no doubt aware of the fact that Catholicism no longer endorses
the torture and execution of women accused of witchcraft.

> But he asked if there is something that could replace religion as a
> basis for contemporary ethics.

I assumed that was rhetorical.

> That's the question. Apparently you think superstition must continue
> as the foundation for ethics.

I think the belief that life has an inherent value is superstitious, and
I think that belief is the basis for all systems of ethics.

The belief has an obvious benefit to the continuance of our species, but
the continuance of our species has no objectively demonstrable benefit
to anything but itself.

> If not, could you clarify what it is you're trying to say?

Please note that I have no problem with superstition. I believe
that life has value, even though there's no rational basis for that
belief.

>>> So how do we transcend such superstitions?
>>
>>We don't. We just call them something else.
>
> Okay, that clarifies your position.
>
>>> Science isn't the whole answer,
>>
>>It isn't any part of the answer. You can't derive ethics from science:
>>science can only tell you how people actually behave - it can't tell
>>you how people *should* behave.
>
> All ethical systems are based on beliefs about the nature of human
> existence in this world. Science can and has clarified many questions
> about human existence and the world we live in. Thus it has shed light
> on questions underlying the development of ethical systems.

Science provides no basis for characterizing some beliefs about the
nature of human existence as 'barbaric superstitions' but not others.

>>> and the European Enlightenment didn't rid us of all superstition,
>>> but it did cut away some of the ingorent superstition that had been
>>> seen as wisdom by the Catholic church.
>>
>>And replaced it with ignorant superstitions *about* the Catholic
>>Church.
>
> It was a social as well as an intellectual movement. Thus it was
> influenced by existing prejudices.

Oh, well, that's all right then.

> We now have some understanding of how prejudices form and develop
> within social groups.

Which doesn't prevent you from expressing your own anti-Catholic
prejudices.

> Such understandings could contribute to new understanding of the
> nature of human existence within the world we inhabit.

Yes, they could contribute to the sort of understanding that enables us
to realize that we can disagree with other people's ethical standards
without labeling them the products of ignorant superstition.

> In many respects we're less barbaric than our ancestors. I call that
> progress.

I call it a lie. We're just barbaric in different ways: we outsource
much of our barbarism nowadays.

>>>>Besides, it was women who were accused of *heresy* were burned
>>>>alive: if they were accused of witchcraft but not heresy, they were
>>>>hanged. Same with men, of course. Thousands of men and women were
>>>>burned alive because they expressed unorthodox views or failed to
>>>>convince a panel of judges that they had properly renounced their
>>>>Judaism, but for some reason, people never seem to get as worked up
>>>>over that as they do about witch trials.
>>>
>>> It's my understanding that accused witches were usually burned in
>>> Europe and hanged in the Americas, but either way it was barbaric
>>> superstition.
>>
>>There's at least as much barbaric superstition in the modern
>>conception of witch trials as there was in the trials themselves.
>
> I disagree.

Naturally.

>>> AAQ was asking if there's any authoritative basis for ethics that's
>>> not based on religion.
>>
>>There's no authoritative basis for ethics in religion or anything
>>else. If you're looking for someone in authority to tell you how to be
>>ethical, you're doing it wrong.
>
> There's personal ethics and the prevailing ethics of societies. Can
> you tell us how to do it right?

No one can tell you that.

>>> In your response to the OP, you say "organized religion has already
>>> been discarded as an authority where the application of science and
>>> new knowledge is concerned: in most modern nations, it's the
>>> legislature that decides whether or not human cloning (or stem cell
>>> research, or abortion, or birth control pills) should be allowed."
>>> But in the USA at least, congress often is more swayed by religious
>>> than by scientific or humanistic considerations when making
>>> decisions about such issues.
>>
>>The belief that the U.S. Congress is under the thumb of religion is
>>common among certain groups of superstitious barbarians.
>
> The U.S. congress is currently controlled by Republican majorities in
> both houses who cater to core religious constituencies who provide
> both reliable voting blocs and financial support to favored
> candidates.

Si non è vero, è ben trovato.
--
S.O.P.

[dcl...@qis.net]

Robert Camp -- the nastiness you bring to your posts, as part of a discussion of moral standards, show you are not suited to comment on the subject.

[Burkhard]

especially if you eat the cherry cake from all the cherries that were
picked in writing it.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:51 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 6/24/15, 8:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
>> <quote.
>>
>> 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
>> biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
>> other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
>> power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
>> especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
>> over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
>> had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
>> wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
>> We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
>> twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
>> and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
>> people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
>> available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
>> or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
>> of humanity to have it.
>>
>> 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
>> “an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security,

>> usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into

>Why, we should.

Who are "we"? If the USA people and government decide to ban human
cloning but the Chinese government decide to approve it, then can each
country go their own way and both be ethically right?

> Deciding if something should be allowed, in a democracy,
>is up to the legislature and the courts, both of which represent the people.

That implies ethics being decided on the some sort of popular vote. At
the moment, the USA dropping nuclear bombs in the Middle East to wipe
out religious fanaticism would not be regarded as morally acceptable.
If there were a few more 9/11 type attacks on the USA and popular
opinion overwhelmingly turned to supporting the dropping of nuclear
bombs, would that make it ethically ok?

>
>Why should organized religion be regaded as an authority on ethical
>standards? Whence derives that authority?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:50:40 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>news:f6kloa900d6j6p8ao...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:11:29 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

>> Who should have decided whether or not it was morally acceptable to
>> torture and burn women alive who were accused of witchcraft?
>
>That's unfair. The question is whether or not it was *ethically*
>acceptable: even AAQ knows better than to argue that organized religion
>should be accepted as a *moral* authority.

It's a fairly typical knee jerk reaction. I tried to word my question
so as to avoid this sort of crap but there's always one who gets
through the noise filters.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

I think that one important difference is that organised religion at
least *tries* to make judgments on what is inherently good or bad for
mankind rather than on what is convenient or popular which are two
major driving forces for elected representatives.

[Chris Thompson]

Potentially yes. You should have seen my students' faces the other day
when I told them I would try eating dog. They weren't horrified because
the meat was inherently disgusting, it was because it was DOG. Ethics
are culturally determined.

>
>> Deciding if something should be allowed, in a democracy,
>> is up to the legislature and the courts, both of which represent the people.
>
> That implies ethics being decided on the some sort of popular vote. At

Or, to use a slightly less loaded phrase, "societal consensus." Yep,
that's where ethics come from. Do you think any body of ethics, or some
part thereof, is absolute?

> the moment, the USA dropping nuclear bombs in the Middle East to wipe
> out religious fanaticism would not be regarded as morally acceptable.
> If there were a few more 9/11 type attacks on the USA and popular
> opinion overwhelmingly turned to supporting the dropping of nuclear
> bombs, would that make it ethically ok?

Personally, no. And I don't think, despite the jokes made about nuking
this or that, most people would seriously support use of nuclear weapons
in response to any conventional attack. See how ethics are mutable?
Curtis LeMay was all for using nuclear weapons in Viet Nam, and he was
deadly serious and in a position to influence policy.

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

Sure, if you change it to "some organized religions" try "some of the
time" and recognize the fact that they're most often making judgements
based on what's good for them. And that those judgements they're making
for our own good are being made whether we agree with those judgements
or not.

Chris

[Ernest Major]

That organised religion tries to make judgements on what is inherently
good or bad for mankind is questionable - organised religion seems to me
to have a definite bias towards deontological ethics rather than
consequentialist ethics.

--
alias Ernest Major

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Can you give examples of what you mean by good for them? I find it
hard to see, for example, what good there is for the Catholic Church
in holding its line on things like contraception, abortion and stem
cell research. Contraception in particular can be argued as an
unmitigated disaster for the Church both in terms of the level of
internal dissension it has led to and the way it has undermined the
Church's overall moral authority.

Or take its views on homosexuality. There is a lot of debate going on
inside the Church right now about its stance on homosexuality which
will culminate at the Synod of Bishops next October. On one side, you
have those who believe that the Church's position is untenable due to
the latest scientific conclusions that homosexuality is often, if not
mostly,decided at birth rather than being a lifestyle choice and that
the Church's position is causing immense harm and damage by
nationalising homosexuals, their families and their friends. On the
other side, bishops and theologians are arguing that *homosexual sex*
is inherently immoral and must be condemned whatever the cost. At this
stage, it's too close to call which side will prevail.

> And that those judgements they're making
>for our own good are being made whether we agree with those judgements
>or not.

Well, that's what I meant when I said they are trying to make

judgments on what is inherently good or bad for mankind rather than

on what is convenient or popular at a point in time.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

It depends on whether you are talking about issues being inherently
good or bad. The "societal consensus" in the Southern States up to the
mid nineteenth century was that slavery was perfectly ethical. I think
that slavery was *always* inherently evil, whatever the societal
consensus about it in particular areas or at particular times.

>
>> the moment, the USA dropping nuclear bombs in the Middle East to wipe
>> out religious fanaticism would not be regarded as morally acceptable.
>> If there were a few more 9/11 type attacks on the USA and popular
>> opinion overwhelmingly turned to supporting the dropping of nuclear
>> bombs, would that make it ethically ok?
>
>Personally, no. And I don't think, despite the jokes made about nuking
>this or that, most people would seriously support use of nuclear weapons
>in response to any conventional attack.

I wouldn't be sure about that, people under threat don't always act
rationally. Also, it doesn't require unanimity, just the influence of
powerful forces. As far as I can see, most people in the USA regard
current gun laws as being far too loose and every time there is a
bunch of kids killed in a school, there is public outcry and
politicians promising to change the laws but it all comes to nothing,
apparently mainly due to the influence of the NRA.

>See how ethics are mutable?

So was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki okay
because it was seen as ethical at the time?

>Curtis LeMay was all for using nuclear weapons in Viet Nam, and he was
>deadly serious and in a position to influence policy.

That seems a good example of the risks of leaving these issues to
politicians.

[chris thompson]

> >>>>> usefulness, welfare and vigour; ...an assimilation of new values into

Sure. Look at fundamentalist sects attempting to get their sect's version of creation taught in public schools. It reinforces their beliefs in the kids, and limits exposure (especially during the time kids' minds are most open to learning) to things the sect does not accept.

As to the below: there are plenty of examples of religious sects acting altruistically. The Salvation Army, for example, puts over 80% of its donations into their work, as opposed to ads or salaries (Red Cross puts in less than 10% to their work). We can always find examples of such, but they don't negate that sects also act in their own interest, sometimes to the detriment of others.

> I find it
> hard to see, for example, what good there is for the Catholic Church
> in holding its line on things like contraception, abortion and stem
> cell research. Contraception in particular can be argued as an
> unmitigated disaster for the Church both in terms of the level of
> internal dissension it has led to and the way it has undermined the
> Church's overall moral authority.
>
> Or take its views on homosexuality. There is a lot of debate going on
> inside the Church right now about its stance on homosexuality which
> will culminate at the Synod of Bishops next October. On one side, you
> have those who believe that the Church's position is untenable due to
> the latest scientific conclusions that homosexuality is often, if not
> mostly,decided at birth rather than being a lifestyle choice and that

Do you mean before birth?

> the Church's position is causing immense harm and damage by
> nationalising homosexuals, their families and their friends. On the
> other side, bishops and theologians are arguing that *homosexual sex*
> is inherently immoral and must be condemned whatever the cost. At this
> stage, it's too close to call which side will prevail.

And then there's the consideration that homosexual couples tend to have fewer kids than heterosexual, and that means few kids brought up in the faith. Did you really never consider that, or think that hasn't occurred to the Church leaders?

>
> > And that those judgements they're making
> >for our own good are being made whether we agree with those judgements
> >or not.
>
> Well, that's what I meant when I said they are trying to make
> judgments on what is inherently good or bad for mankind rather than
> on what is convenient or popular at a point in time.

What they believe is "inherently" good for humanity is sometimes a matter of faith, rather than evidence (and therefore suspect to say the least). It's fine for sects to make faith-based rules for themselves, but they should not be doing it for others. Contraception and homosexuality are 2 fine examples.

Chris

[Burkhard]

In the Clause IV revival category, for its contribution to "secure for
the workers by hand or by brain [...] the common ownership of the means
of (re)production,"

[chris thompson]

> >>>> usefulness, welfare and vigour; ...an assimilation of new values into

And that's why I have such a serious issue with your idea that there are things that are "inherently good" for humanity. Are there? I'd bet for every notion you have that you consider "inherently" good, there's an opposite position held by at least some people that consider it, if not evil, than perhaps not as good as you think. ISTM that if something is inherently good, it should be unanimously thought to be so. Who gets to decide what's inherently good for humanity? Organized religion? I don't think they've got a good enough track record. Politicians? Soldiers? (LeMay was an air force general, btw, and a kook later in life.) Maybe no one should decide, society should make rules about things that actually do harm to individuals, and religion and government should butt out of peoples' private lives otherwise.

Chris

[Burkhard]

Why? Would you consider this criterion also for factual truth? In which
case the mere fact that there are creationists, or flat earthsers, would
mean there are probably no scientific truths either.

If you think moral judgements are cognitive at all, and not just
emotive, then it its perfectly consistent to argue that there are moral
truths (which depending on your preferred ethics may or may not include
a determination of what is "inherently good") and yet not everybody (or
maybe not even the majority) understand them .

Now, if you don't think that ethical judgements can be true or false,
but are mere expressions for personal preferences, you avoid this - but
then it becomes also difficult to claim that anyone else' preferences
are wrong - which could include a preference to burn witches.

>
>Who gets to decide what's inherently good for humanity? Organized religion? I don't think they've got a good enough track record. Politicians? Soldiers? (LeMay was an air force general, btw, and a kook later in life.) Maybe no one should decide, society should make rules about things that actually do harm to individuals, and religion and government should butt out of peoples' private lives otherwise.

That is also sort of problematic, because it seems to think of "society"
as "separate from" things like political parties, religions, or the
numerous other groups that for most sociologists constitute society,
rather than exist being apart form it

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:09:11 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I meant "marginalising" but good catch anyway ;)

[Sneaky O. Possum]

AlwaysAskingQuestions <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ngdnoah1cbc0ha390...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:51 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/24/15, 8:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

[snip]

>>> So, if organised religion is discarded as an authority, how should
>>> ethical standards in the *application* of science and new knowledge
>>> become established? Who for, example, should decide on whether or
>>> not human cloning should be allowed?
>>>
>>Why, we should.
>
> Who are "we"? If the USA people and government decide to ban human
> cloning but the Chinese government decide to approve it, then can each
> country go their own way and both be ethically right?

More to the point, there are other organized religions besides Roman
Catholicism, and they don't all subscribe to the view that human cloning
is inherently wrong.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076930/ns/health-special_reports/t/religions-reveal-little-consensus-cloning/#.VYwMUUYYN2A

http://tinyurl.com/phx34dw

'Jewish law is squarely on the side of medical research that has
potential to save and preserve life, Reichman said. As a result, Jewish
scholars are generally among the most vocal religious leaders in support
of therapeutic cloning.

'"The Jewish faith generally welcomes new technologies and sciences in
as much as they can benefit the world, especially medicine. We do not
necessary perceive all advances as stepping on God's toes," he said.'

If Israel decides to approve human cloning, is that ethically wrong?
--
S.O.P.

[Robert Camp]

Interesting.

Example, please?

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mmfkl6$s31$1...@dont-email.me...

All my remarks are serious. None of my remarks are "gibberish." Get a
grip, for Chrissakes!

[Robert Camp]

You've just cited two issues on which the church is arguably well behind
public sentiment - at least in the developed world. This is hardly an
argument for taking the moral authority of religion over public consensus.

>> And that those judgements they're making
>> for our own good are being made whether we agree with those judgements
>> or not.
>
> Well, that's what I meant when I said they are trying to make
> judgments on what is inherently good or bad for mankind rather than
> on what is convenient or popular at a point in time.

Let's not ignore the fact that they're also "trying to make judgments"
that derive from, or at least accord with, a collection of iron-age tales.

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:311c4c38-dcc3-4097...@googlegroups.com...

Actually, God neither adheres to nor defines morality. Rather, morality
is a co-eternal attribute of God himself. That is the version of the
Bhagavad-gita.

God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of life
itself.

The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly interests
will change, and time will change and temporal interests will change.
These things cannot be standards.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4c9b17c3-3f61-401a...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 6:26:49 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
> wrote:
>> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:95396da9-6500-4f17...@googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>> > Oh, absolutely. But I think that up until the mid-twentieth
>> > century, there were two reasons for that. First, and likely more
>> > important, was that there seemed to be a bit of a low point in
>> > religious fanaticism.
>>
>> I doubt it, but then I don't think there's as much religious
>> fanaticism nowadays as some people seem to think. It does make a good
>> bogeyman, though - I'll give you that. If we can focus on the
>> religious fanatics out there and how oh-so-awful and dangerous they
>> are, we don't need to waste time pondering our own complicity in the
>> crimes committed by the secular governments that sustain us.
>
> If we allow ourselves to be distracted, sure. But ignoring their
> reality by saying "we're so much worse" is just as silly.

And if I were saying 'We're so much worse', you'd have a point. I like
the way you imply that 'their reality' is a given, by the way. Nicely
played.

>> > The other issue was one of access. Things like gas and atomic
>> > weapons were only available to nation states, and large ones at
>> > that. That would seem to have changed.
>>
>> Yes: now the nation-states have even worse weapons. We can kill
>> civilians from thousands of miles away by remote control.
>
> We could do that 50 years ago. And drones don't kill as many people as
> ICBM's. I don't think we have significantly worse weapons today than
> in 1975.

Weapons that are actually killing people now are, IMO, worse than
weapons that may potentially kill people in the future. To date, no one
has been killed by an ICBM. (Not intentionally, at any rate - dunno if
there have been any accidental deaths associated with the things.)
--
S.O.P.

[Jimbo]

You asked a question that seemed to imply that religion does have a
special claim to moral authority. If I've misinterpreted your
position, I suppose I owe you an apology. My question in response may
have seemed biased or overly confrontational, but it does nevertheless
seem relevant to the issue you raised. Your own example framed this
issue as "who should decide on whether or not cloning should be
allowed." That is to say, you framed it as an issue of who should
possess coercive power - how should ethical beliefs or opinions come
to be backed by force of law.

In the case of human cloning there exist certain ethical
considerations based on possible negative effects on society or on the
well being of cloned individuals and on remaining technical problems
that can result in premature aging and other possible unanticipated
effects. One might consider change in beliefs to be socially and
culturally harmful if those beliefs are held by a significant number
of people, or if you view these beliefs as divinely ordained. Is that
your position? Should religious beliefs be considered in determining
whether or not cloning is lawfully permitted? And, if so, is this
purely because of the sociological impact of religion or because you
think one or more religions do possess some special access to truth?

[dcl...@qis.net]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:51:47 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> <dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
> news:311c4c38-dcc3-4097...@googlegroups.com...

> > Robert Camp -- you are correct in that this is a secular moral
> > standard -- the extension of humanism to lifeism. And it is not the
> > morality on display in OT, NT, Koran, Gita, etc. As such, it is God
> > adhering to morality, rather than God defining morality, as the
> > abrahamic religions once held.
> >
> > However, it is far from vacuous. And it is one of the better secular
> > moral standards we have found.
>
> Actually, God neither adheres to nor defines morality. Rather, morality
> is a co-eternal attribute of God himself. That is the version of the
> Bhagavad-gita.
>
> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of life
> itself.
>
> The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
> worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly interests
> will change, and time will change and temporal interests will change.
> These things cannot be standards.
>

Kalkidas,

I think your definitions are sending you awry.

Secular is merely something based on non-religious justifications. If good is established independently of religious revelation, then it is secularly established. Asserting that "God is Good" has any meaning greater than "God is" makes "Good" a secularly defined term.

All knowledge is contingent/tentative. Even direct perception (we are subject to delusions). Everything other than direct perception is an interpretation, hence based on our flawed reasoning skills and limited knowledge. Our knowledge, judgements, and reasoning can change, so everything we think we know is "worldly, time-bound". Pragmatism calls for us to work with this tentative knowledge and reasoning anyway.

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:16:00 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"

Apparently you don't think that gives it special authority to
formulate a universal system of ethics.

>> But he asked if there is something that could replace religion as a
>> basis for contemporary ethics.
>
>I assumed that was rhetorical.

It's still a good question. If traditional systems of meanings are
based on myths about supernatural entities, what can serve in their
stead? Or do we just need myths that are less fantastic and barbaric?

>> That's the question. Apparently you think superstition must continue
>> as the foundation for ethics.
>
>I think the belief that life has an inherent value is superstitious, and
>I think that belief is the basis for all systems of ethics.

You would replace it with a belief that life has no inherent value? I
don't think that attitude represents ethical progress. The lives of
those perceived as alien or inferior have always been regarded as of
lesser or no value. Apparently you think people should see their own
lives as worthless too and then everything would be better. I don't
think that's either moral or workable. Where did you get the notion
that it's superstitious to see life as inherently valuable? It seems
to me that things would improve if everyone could see the universal
value of human life.

>The belief has an obvious benefit to the continuance of our species, but
>the continuance of our species has no objectively demonstrable benefit
>to anything but itself.

In order to make such a declaration, you must have some underlying
conception of value. How do you define and measure 'benefit'?

>> If not, could you clarify what it is you're trying to say?
>
>Please note that I have no problem with superstition. I believe
>that life has value, even though there's no rational basis for that
>belief.

Rationality is always based on underlying postulates of one sort or
another. Some of these postulates may be factually incorrect or
confused. In saying that it's superstitious to believe that life has
inherent value you seem to be defining superstition in some
nonstandard personal way.

>>>> Science isn't the whole answer,
>>>
>>>It isn't any part of the answer. You can't derive ethics from science:
>>>science can only tell you how people actually behave - it can't tell
>>>you how people *should* behave.
>>
>> All ethical systems are based on beliefs about the nature of human
>> existence in this world. Science can and has clarified many questions
>> about human existence and the world we live in. Thus it has shed light
>> on questions underlying the development of ethical systems.
>
>Science provides no basis for characterizing some beliefs about the
>nature of human existence as 'barbaric superstitions' but not others.

Sure it does. The witch burnings were based on an ignorant and
superstitious belief that the victims had been using supernatural
powers to afflict people around them. To the extent that scientific
understanding of nature can replace such ideas, there can be
development of more enlightened ethical systems.

>>>> and the European Enlightenment didn't rid us of all superstition,
>>>> but it did cut away some of the ingorent superstition that had been
>>>> seen as wisdom by the Catholic church.
>>>
>>>And replaced it with ignorant superstitions *about* the Catholic
>>>Church.
>>
>> It was a social as well as an intellectual movement. Thus it was
>> influenced by existing prejudices.
>
>Oh, well, that's all right then.

There's less anti-Catholic prejudice in most Protestant countries
today, and less anti-Protestant prejudice in Catholic countries. Many
people in those countries even see Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and
atheists as fully human. That's progress.

>> We now have some understanding of how prejudices form and develop
>> within social groups.
>
>Which doesn't prevent you from expressing your own anti-Catholic
>prejudices.

All religious and ethical systems are human social constructions. Is
recognition of this fact prejudicial?

>> Such understandings could contribute to new understanding of the
>> nature of human existence within the world we inhabit.
>
>Yes, they could contribute to the sort of understanding that enables us
>to realize that we can disagree with other people's ethical standards
>without labeling them the products of ignorant superstition.

Perhaps some people still believe that witches (of the medieval sort)
exist and should be burned, but such belief is far less prevalent than
in the past. The only contemporary religiously inspired belief I've
characterized as ignorant superstition is the doctrine that fertilized
egg-cells and zygotes are full human beings whose deliberate
destruction should be regarded as murder. This doctrine is based on
ignorant and superstitious beliefs about ontogenetic development. It's
no more prejudicial to say so than it is to point out the absurdity of
regarding the story of Adam and Eve as literally true.

>> In many respects we're less barbaric than our ancestors. I call that
>> progress.
>
>I call it a lie. We're just barbaric in different ways: we outsource
>much of our barbarism nowadays.

Cheney's outsourcing of interrogation methods involving torture? When
that practice was brought to light and subjected to intense ethically
based criticism, the program was canceled. Progress is slow and
setbacks occur, but I'd argue that we tend to be less barbaric than
our ancient and medieval ancestors.

<snip>

>>>> AAQ was asking if there's any authoritative basis for ethics that's
>>>> not based on religion.
>>>
>>>There's no authoritative basis for ethics in religion or anything
>>>else. If you're looking for someone in authority to tell you how to be
>>>ethical, you're doing it wrong.
>>
>> There's personal ethics and the prevailing ethics of societies. Can
>> you tell us how to do it right?
>
>No one can tell you that.

That's a counterfactual claim. All societies have moral and ethical
standards based on values and injunctions that are regarded as
authoritative. You may believe that it shouldn't be that way, and that
each person should work out a personal system of ethics without such
influences, but that's the way it is and has always been.

>>>> In your response to the OP, you say "organized religion has already
>>>> been discarded as an authority where the application of science and
>>>> new knowledge is concerned: in most modern nations, it's the
>>>> legislature that decides whether or not human cloning (or stem cell
>>>> research, or abortion, or birth control pills) should be allowed."
>>>> But in the USA at least, congress often is more swayed by religious
>>>> than by scientific or humanistic considerations when making
>>>> decisions about such issues.
>>>
>>>The belief that the U.S. Congress is under the thumb of religion is
>>>common among certain groups of superstitious barbarians.
>>
>> The U.S. congress is currently controlled by Republican majorities in
>> both houses who cater to core religious constituencies who provide
>> both reliable voting blocs and financial support to favored
>> candidates.
>
>Si non è vero, è ben trovato.

What part of my statement do you doubt?

[Nick Roberts]

In message <bglnoatu5egdij0m8...@4ax.com>

> > > > > power means ?an increase of ?progress? itself?, an advance in
> > > > > ?security, usefulness, welfare and vigour; ?an assimilation
> > > > > of new values into the stream of culture?,[83] as if reality,

> > > > > goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and

> > > > > economic power as such. The fact is that ?contemporary man
> > > > > has not been trained to use power well?,[84] because our

> > > > > immense technological development has not been accompanied by
> > > > > a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.
> > > > > Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own
> > > > > limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity

> > > > > of the challenges now before us. ?The risk is growing day by
> > > > > day that man will not use his power as he should?; in effect,
> > > > > ?power is never considered in terms of the responsibility of
> > > > > choice which is inherent in freedom? since its ?only norms

> > > > > are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or

> > > > > security?.[85] But human beings are not completely

That is written in such a way as to demand the answer "no", and yet
there has been some serious historical research that came to the
conclusion that the total number of deaths (both civilian and military)
caused by dropping those bombs was less than the total number of deaths
that would have been caused if the US continued a conventional island
by island approach. Isn't it moral to reduce the total number of deaths
involved, even if those deaths were all caused in a few seconds in two
places instead of being dragged out over months and numerous places?

And then there is the duty of a CO to his troops: any officer (or
political leader) who deliberately allows his troops to suffer more
casualties than is absolutely necessary has betrayed the trust that
those troops put in him. This is not excusing war crimes or inflicting
unnecessary casualties, but if the choice is a stark 1000 of my men or
5000 of the enemy, any CO worthy of his rank will go for the 5000 of
the enemy.

[SNIP]

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Robert Camp]

We obviously have different definitions of "serious."

> None of my remarks are "gibberish."

Well, that's axiomatically incorrect. You do have a track record here,
you know.

> Get a grip, for Chrissakes!

Gotta give you that one. Regardless of its validity, the post to which
you are responding was inappropriately whiny, personal and self-righteous.

Chalk it up to having a bad day.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

AlwaysAskingQuestions <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bglnoatu5egdij0m8...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:08:56 -0400, Chris Thompson
> <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote:

[snip]

>>Or, to use a slightly less loaded phrase, "societal consensus." Yep,
>>that's where ethics come from. Do you think any body of ethics, or
>>some part thereof, is absolute?
>
> It depends on whether you are talking about issues being inherently
> good or bad. The "societal consensus" in the Southern States up to the
> mid nineteenth century was that slavery was perfectly ethical. I think
> that slavery was *always* inherently evil, whatever the societal
> consensus about it in particular areas or at particular times.

In fact, there was no such consensus in the antebellum South. Even some
slaveholders acknowledged that slavery was unethical: they simply argued
that abolishing slavery would create more problems than it would solve.

In his book *Debt* (which I recommend), David Graeber notes the curious
fact that cultures that practice slavery recognize that it is evil even
as they assume that it 'is simply the nature of reality. This might help
explain why throughout most of history, when slaves did rebel against
their masters, they rarely rebelled against slavery itself. But the flip
side of this is that even slave-owners seemed to feel that the whole
arrangement was somehow fundamentally perverse or unnatural.' He cites
the definition of slavery in Roman law: '"an institution according to
the law of nations whereby one person falls under the property rights of
another, contrary to nature."'

As it happens, I agree with you that slavery is inherently evil.
Unfortunately, that judgment can't prevent people from adopting the
institution if they perceive a need for it. Graeber points out that the
Church has always opposed the institution of slavery, which was
abolished in western Europe during the Middle Ages, but I note that the
Church's moral authority didn't stop the Portuguese and Spaniards from
reviving the slave trade in the 15th Century.

That's the thing about morals: neither the ones you agree with nor the
ones you don't are enforceable. People have been finding ways to skirt
the ethical standards promoted by organized religions for as long as such
standards have existed, and people will continue to do so for as long as
our species continues.
--
S.O.P.

[Robert Camp]

And that is the problem of logic explored in the Euthyphro argument.
Saying morality is an "attribute of God himself" suggests that God does
not love the good, it suggest God is the good. It also contradicts what
you said earlier. Adding "co-eternal" doesn't rescue the contradiction.

> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of life
> itself.

So morality comes from God, then. That's further contradiction of the
choice you originally proposed - "the gods love it because it is good..."

> The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
> worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly interests
> will change, and time will change and temporal interests will change.
> These things cannot be standards.

Of course they can. They are just not absolute or irrevocable standards.
And that fits with the reality we know, wherein morality is subjective.

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:d19b27ef-83a6-4a37...@googlegroups.com...

I disagree.

> Secular is merely something based on non-religious justifications. If
> good is established independently of religious revelation, then it is
> secularly established. Asserting that "God is Good" has any meaning
> greater than "God is" makes "Good" a secularly defined term.

That is one recently adopted meaning of "secular". But the original
sense of "secular" is as I said, worldly and time-dependent.

> All knowledge is contingent/tentative.

Then that statement must, by your criterion, also be
contingent/tentative. Therefore it is unreliable and of no help in
determining truth.

Even direct perception (we are subject to delusions). Everything other
than direct perception is an interpretation, hence based on our flawed
reasoning skills and limited knowledge. Our knowledge, judgements, and
reasoning can change, so everything we think we know is "worldly,
time-bound". Pragmatism calls for us to work with this tentative
knowledge and reasoning anyway.

That statement must, by your criterion, also be delusional and based on
your flawed reasoning. Therefore it is unreliable and of no help in
determining truth.

[Chris Thompson]

No, I would not consider them the same at all. There are certain things
that simply are. I'd put a spherical planet in that category, and
evolution too. I think some ethical issues reach that level- cheating on
exams is an example- but I know there are a lot of people who aren't
bothered by that. You probably read this already, but I liked this piece
from the NY Times:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0

But there are plenty of people for whom their opinions are facts, and
they think that justifies imposing that set of opinions on everyone else.

> If you think moral judgements are cognitive at all, and not just
> emotive, then it its perfectly consistent to argue that there are moral
> truths (which depending on your preferred ethics may or may not include
> a determination of what is "inherently good") and yet not everybody (or
> maybe not even the majority) understand them .

Hmmm. I had to think about this for a moment. I think there are moral
truths. I think there are absolutes. But I think there are a lot fewer
of them than many religious sects believe- my set of absolutes is
probably contained within the sets of those accepted by mainstream
religions. And I don't trust religions to have a correct list of moral
absolutes.

>
> Now, if you don't think that ethical judgements can be true or false,
> but are mere expressions for personal preferences, you avoid this - but
> then it becomes also difficult to claim that anyone else' preferences
> are wrong - which could include a preference to burn witches.

Well, I think executions are wrong no matter what, but I see what you mean.

> >
>> Who gets to decide what's inherently good for humanity? Organized
>> religion? I don't think they've got a good enough track record.
>> Politicians? Soldiers? (LeMay was an air force general, btw, and a
>> kook later in life.) Maybe no one should decide, society should make
>> rules about things that actually do harm to individuals, and religion
>> and government should butt out of peoples' private lives otherwise.
>
> That is also sort of problematic, because it seems to think of "society"
> as "separate from" things like political parties, religions, or the
> numerous other groups that for most sociologists constitute society,
> rather than exist being apart form it

Come now. Don't you think there is a darn near infinite subset of
special interest groups in any society who want to impose their moral
absolutes on the rest of us? Groups who sometimes work together but who
are more often at odds with one another?

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

On 6/24/2015 9:14 PM, dcl...@qis.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:26:48 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

>> Have you read Steven Pinker's _The Better Angels of Our Nature_? In it,
>> Pinker makes the case that violence has declined greatly over time, and
>> he analyzes why. One reason is the rise of more centralized
>> governments, because the rulers found it helps their economic and
>> military power to have their subject working together rather than trying
>> to kill each other. Another possible reason is the increase in
>> literacy, because once you have seen Huck Finn and Jim presented as
>> genuine people, it becomes harder to think of all blacks and poor people
>> as unfeeling animals.
>>
>> The book has far more in it than I can do justice to. I highly
>> recommend it. It does not address your question directly, but it can be
>> argued that homicide is a fair proxy for morals in general.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
>> found it." - Vaclav Havel
>
> Yes, excellent book and a very effective remedy for eternal pessimism.
>

I've despaired of maintaining my eternal pessimism.

Chris

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mmhauk$j35$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/25/15 7:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

[snip]

>> Actually, God neither adheres to nor defines morality. Rather,
>> morality
>> is a co-eternal attribute of God himself. That is the version of the
>> Bhagavad-gita.
>
> And that is the problem of logic explored in the Euthyphro argument.
> Saying morality is an "attribute of God himself" suggests that God
> does not love the good, it suggest God is the good. It also
> contradicts what you said earlier. Adding "co-eternal" doesn't rescue
> the contradiction.

God loves Himself, and He is the good. What contradiction are you
referring to?

>> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of life
>> itself.
>
> So morality comes from God, then. That's further contradiction of the
> choice you originally proposed - "the gods love it because it is
> good..."

There is a difference between "the gods" and "God". Morality indeed
comes from God. But it is not created, it is eternal.

>> The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
>> worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly
>> interests
>> will change, and time will change and temporal interests will change.
>> These things cannot be standards.
>
> Of course they can. They are just not absolute or irrevocable
> standards. And that fits with the reality we know, wherein morality is
> subjective.

That is contradictory. If morality is subjective, there is no reality
but only a magical realm of imagination.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/25/15 4:29 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> chris thompson wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 6:46:47 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:08:56 -0400, Chris Thompson
>>> <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2015 4:13 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:51 -0700, John Harshman
>>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/24/15, 8:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>> Deciding if something should be allowed, in a democracy,
>>>>>> is up to the legislature and the courts, both of which represent
>>>>>> the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> That implies ethics being decided on the some sort of popular vote. At
>>>>
>>>> Or, to use a slightly less loaded phrase, "societal consensus." Yep,
>>>> that's where ethics come from. Do you think any body of ethics, or some
>>>> part thereof, is absolute?
>>>
>>> It depends on whether you are talking about issues being inherently
>>> good or bad. The "societal consensus" in the Southern States up to the
>>> mid nineteenth century was that slavery was perfectly ethical. I think
>>> that slavery was *always* inherently evil, whatever the societal
>>> consensus about it in particular areas or at particular times.
>>>
>>
>> And that's why I have such a serious issue with your idea that there
>> are things that are "inherently good" for humanity. Are there? I'd bet
>> for every notion you have that you consider "inherently" good, there's
>> an opposite position held by at least some people that consider it, if
>> not evil, than perhaps not as good as you think. ISTM that if
>> something is inherently good, it should be unanimously thought to be so.
>
> Why? Would you consider this criterion also for factual truth? In which
> case the mere fact that there are creationists, or flat earthsers, would
> mean there are probably no scientific truths either.

I agree that "unanimously" doesn't work as a description of the real
world. Just as there are always empirical nihilists there will likely
always be moral nihilists.

But I think there's an argument to be made that objective morality, if
there is such a thing, can be expected to be beyond misinterpretation or
occultation (even more so than god(s), who may have motives for being
mysterious). I can't say it's a logical necessity, but it's hard for me
to imagine a sense in which an "absolute and irrevocable ethic" need not
also be immediately apparent to agents concerned with ethics.

Okay, maybe not a good argument, but...

> If you think moral judgements are cognitive at all, and not just
> emotive, then it its perfectly consistent to argue that there are moral
> truths (which depending on your preferred ethics may or may not include
> a determination of what is "inherently good") and yet not everybody (or
> maybe not even the majority) understand them .
>
> Now, if you don't think that ethical judgements can be true or false,
> but are mere expressions for personal preferences, you avoid this - but
> then it becomes also difficult to claim that anyone else' preferences
> are wrong - which could include a preference to burn witches.

I don't think it's fair to equate moral relativism with "mere
expressions for personal preferences" or a renunciation of true and
false. I prefer a middle ground in which ethical judgments can be
"ecologically" true or false - in other words considered in the context
of social factors. I think this reasonably allows us to claim that
burning witches is wrong. What it may not necessarily allow is for us to
claim that the burning of a witch under any and all conditions is wrong
because that is a much more aggressive, universal "wrong" than the kind
of socially and temporally constrained judgment that I think serves us
quite well.

<snip>

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote in
news:574458d9...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk:

> In message <bglnoatu5egdij0m8...@4ax.com>
> AlwaysAskingQuestions <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> So was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki okay
>> because it was seen as ethical at the time?
>
> That is written in such a way as to demand the answer "no", and yet
> there has been some serious historical research that came to the
> conclusion that the total number of deaths (both civilian and
> military) caused by dropping those bombs was less than the total
> number of deaths that would have been caused if the US continued a
> conventional island by island approach. Isn't it moral to reduce the
> total number of deaths involved, even if those deaths were all caused
> in a few seconds in two places instead of being dragged out over
> months and numerous places?

That's a bit sketchy, seeing as how nobody actually knows what the total
number of deaths would have been in the counterfactual case. And so long
as we're talking counterfactuals, I note that nobody knew beforehand
that the immolation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would end the war.

The evidence is ambiguous: other serious historical researchers have
come to the conclusion that the Japanese government would have
surrendered in August 1945 in any case. Nor is it clear that reducing
the total number of deaths was a main consideration: the decision to
drop the bombs should be viewed in light of the fact that the U.S.'s
erstwhile ally, the U.S.S.R., was poised to enter the war against Japan,
which was the last thing Truman wanted. (Truman and Churchill were
already worrying about Stalin before Germany surrendered; Churchill had
gone as far as demanding that his boffins draw up a plan for a
preemptive war against Russia.)

> And then there is the duty of a CO to his troops: any officer (or
> political leader) who deliberately allows his troops to suffer more
> casualties than is absolutely necessary has betrayed the trust that
> those troops put in him.

That makes it sound as though there is some calculus by which the number
of 'absolutely necessary' deaths can be determined either before or
after the fact.

> This is not excusing war crimes or inflicting unnecessary casualties,
> but if the choice is a stark 1000 of my men or 5000 of the enemy, any
> CO worthy of his rank will go for the 5000 of the enemy.

Any CO worthy of his or her rank will know that he or she will never be
given that choice. Sometimes sound plans fail; sometimes insane
recklessness succeeds. Sometimes a tactic that has led to slaughter in
the past will accidentally lead to victory. War is a strange business.
--
S.O.P.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/25/15 2:03 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:51 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>

>>> Why should organized religion be regaded as an authority on ethical
>>> standards? Whence derives that authority?
>

> I think that one important difference is that organised religion at
> least *tries* to make judgments on what is inherently good or bad for
> mankind rather than on what is convenient or popular which are two
> major driving forces for elected representatives.

I don't see that happening, at least not generally. Organized religion
(to the extent one may personify the collective) more often makes moral
judgments on the basis of tradition. Only where tradition has no
precedent (e.g., cloning) does it look more closely at issues of
good/bad. I think a lot of religious people do not even realize that
what they deem as "good" is really no different from "traditional".
Thus the moral outrage displayed when others point out that some
traditions are immoral.

It is worth repeating that that is the generality, and there are happy
exceptions within it. I think the current Pope is one.

Furthermore, I think you underestimate how much judgment of what is
inherently good or bad goes into the popularity driving elected
representatives. It is far from overwhelming to be sure, but it is
there. The populace does think, sometimes, about good and bad.

[Robert Camp]

On 6/25/15 10:08 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mmhauk$j35$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/25/15 7:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Actually, God neither adheres to nor defines morality. Rather,
>>> morality
>>> is a co-eternal attribute of God himself. That is the version of the
>>> Bhagavad-gita.
>>
>> And that is the problem of logic explored in the Euthyphro argument.
>> Saying morality is an "attribute of God himself" suggests that God
>> does not love the good, it suggest God is the good. It also
>> contradicts what you said earlier. Adding "co-eternal" doesn't rescue
>> the contradiction.
>
> God loves Himself, and He is the good. What contradiction are you
> referring to?

You are using "loves" here in an equivocal way. The context is
Euthyphro's Dilemma, not self-esteem.

You were willing to answer the question previously. Now you appear to be
retreating into ambiguity.

>>> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of life
>>> itself.
>>
>> So morality comes from God, then. That's further contradiction of the
>> choice you originally proposed - "the gods love it because it is
>> good..."
>
> There is a difference between "the gods" and "God".

Not one that is relevant here as far as I can tell.

> Morality indeed comes from God. But it is not created, it is eternal.

In other words, things are moral because they come from God. God doesn't
do things because they are moral (an act that depends upon the existence
of morality external to the actor).

>>> The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
>>> worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly
>>> interests
>>> will change, and time will change and temporal interests will change.
>>> These things cannot be standards.
>>
>> Of course they can. They are just not absolute or irrevocable
>> standards. And that fits with the reality we know, wherein morality is
>> subjective.
>
> That is contradictory. If morality is subjective, there is no reality
> but only a magical realm of imagination.

Really? *Morality* is what grounds us in the real universe? Not
physicality, not shared perception, not "Cogito ergo sum?"

Please tell me you're not redefining words again.

[Robert Camp]

I'm quite optimistic about mine.

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mmhdvq$vk0$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/25/15 10:08 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mmhauk$j35$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 6/25/15 7:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Actually, God neither adheres to nor defines morality. Rather,
>>>> morality
>>>> is a co-eternal attribute of God himself. That is the version of
>>>> the
>>>> Bhagavad-gita.
>>>
>>> And that is the problem of logic explored in the Euthyphro argument.
>>> Saying morality is an "attribute of God himself" suggests that God
>>> does not love the good, it suggest God is the good. It also
>>> contradicts what you said earlier. Adding "co-eternal" doesn't
>>> rescue
>>> the contradiction.
>>
>> God loves Himself, and He is the good. What contradiction are you
>> referring to?
>
> You are using "loves" here in an equivocal way. The context is
> Euthyphro's Dilemma, not self-esteem.
>
> You were willing to answer the question previously. Now you appear to
> be retreating into ambiguity.

Again, what contradiction?

>
>>>> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of
>>>> life
>>>> itself.
>>>
>>> So morality comes from God, then. That's further contradiction of
>>> the
>>> choice you originally proposed - "the gods love it because it is
>>> good..."
>>
>> There is a difference between "the gods" and "God".
>
> Not one that is relevant here as far as I can tell.

The gods are contingent beings. God is not contingent being. There is
nothing "beyond" God to which He is subject. However, His nature is
Good, among other attributes. What is the difficulty? God is not
"obeying" His nature, nor is He "defining" His nature. He is simply
being Himself.

>
>> Morality indeed comes from God. But it is not created, it is eternal.
>
> In other words, things are moral because they come from God. God
> doesn't do things because they are moral (an act that depends upon the
> existence of morality external to the actor).

>
>>>> The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
>>>> worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly
>>>> interests
>>>> will change, and time will change and temporal interests will
>>>> change.
>>>> These things cannot be standards.
>>>
>>> Of course they can. They are just not absolute or irrevocable
>>> standards. And that fits with the reality we know, wherein morality
>>> is
>>> subjective.
>>
>> That is contradictory. If morality is subjective, there is no reality
>> but only a magical realm of imagination.
>
> Really? *Morality* is what grounds us in the real universe? Not
> physicality, not shared perception, not "Cogito ergo sum?"

> Please tell me you're not redefining words again.

Please tell me you're not beating your wife again.

[Chris Thompson]

On 6/25/2015 11:30 AM, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:4c9b17c3-3f61-401a...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 6:26:49 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum
>> wrote:
>>> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:95396da9-6500-4f17...@googlegroups.com:
> [snip]
>>>> Oh, absolutely. But I think that up until the mid-twentieth
>>>> century, there were two reasons for that. First, and likely more
>>>> important, was that there seemed to be a bit of a low point in
>>>> religious fanaticism.
>>>
>>> I doubt it, but then I don't think there's as much religious
>>> fanaticism nowadays as some people seem to think. It does make a good
>>> bogeyman, though - I'll give you that. If we can focus on the
>>> religious fanatics out there and how oh-so-awful and dangerous they
>>> are, we don't need to waste time pondering our own complicity in the
>>> crimes committed by the secular governments that sustain us.
>>
>> If we allow ourselves to be distracted, sure. But ignoring their
>> reality by saying "we're so much worse" is just as silly.
>
> And if I were saying 'We're so much worse', you'd have a point. I like
> the way you imply that 'their reality' is a given, by the way. Nicely
> played.
>

I thought your implication was pretty clear; you seemed to be saying
that by focusing on dangerous religious fanatics we could ignore our own
war crimes. Is there something stopping people from doing both?

>>>> The other issue was one of access. Things like gas and atomic
>>>> weapons were only available to nation states, and large ones at
>>>> that. That would seem to have changed.
>>>
>>> Yes: now the nation-states have even worse weapons. We can kill
>>> civilians from thousands of miles away by remote control.
>>
>> We could do that 50 years ago. And drones don't kill as many people as
>> ICBM's. I don't think we have significantly worse weapons today than
>> in 1975.
>
> Weapons that are actually killing people now are, IMO, worse than
> weapons that may potentially kill people in the future. To date, no one
> has been killed by an ICBM. (Not intentionally, at any rate - dunno if
> there have been any accidental deaths associated with the things.)
>

Nice goalpost shift.

Chris

[Robert Camp]

"The former* is true" - *the gods love it because it is good.

"...morality is a co-eternal attribute of God himself."

>>>>> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of
>>>>> life
>>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> So morality comes from God, then. That's further contradiction of
>>>> the
>>>> choice you originally proposed - "the gods love it because it is
>>>> good..."
>>>
>>> There is a difference between "the gods" and "God".
>>
>> Not one that is relevant here as far as I can tell.
>
> The gods are contingent beings. God is not contingent being.

Still an irrelevant caveat.

> There is
> nothing "beyond" God to which He is subject.

There is if he "loves the good."

> However, His nature is
> Good, among other attributes. What is the difficulty? God is not
> "obeying" His nature, nor is He "defining" His nature. He is simply
> being Himself.

There is no illumination of the issue there. Just vaporous clichés.

>>> Morality indeed comes from God. But it is not created, it is eternal.
>>
>> In other words, things are moral because they come from God. God
>> doesn't do things because they are moral (an act that depends upon the
>> existence of morality external to the actor).
>
>>
>>>>> The term "secular moral standard" is contradictory. "Secular" means
>>>>> worldly, or time-bound. But the world will change and worldly
>>>>> interests
>>>>> will change, and time will change and temporal interests will
>>>>> change.
>>>>> These things cannot be standards.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they can. They are just not absolute or irrevocable
>>>> standards. And that fits with the reality we know, wherein morality
>>>> is
>>>> subjective.
>>>
>>> That is contradictory. If morality is subjective, there is no reality
>>> but only a magical realm of imagination.
>>
>> Really? *Morality* is what grounds us in the real universe? Not
>> physicality, not shared perception, not "Cogito ergo sum?"
>
>> Please tell me you're not redefining words again.
>
> Please tell me you're not beating your wife again.

I promise to never again beat my wife if you promise to use English as
do the rest of us. Well, that and try to give reasoned responses to
serious questions.

[dcl...@qis.net]

Yes. All standards, even of those of math and logic, are contingent. They are based on our best efforts at observation and reasoning, and reaching of consensus to sift out for individual error, but that does not provide certainty in any application.

> Therefore it is unreliable
Yes, everything is unreliable.

> and of no help in determining truth.

No. Invalid inference. Truth is approached incrementally, and "unreliable" processes can be of great help in approaching it.

>
>> than direct perception is an interpretation, hence based on our flawed
>> reasoning skills and limited knowledge. Our knowledge, judgements, and
>> reasoning can change, so everything we think we know is "worldly,
>> time-bound". Pragmatism calls for us to work with this tentative
>> knowledge and reasoning anyway.
>
> That statement must, by your criterion, also be delusional and based on
> your flawed reasoning. Therefore it is unreliable and of no help in
> determining truth.
>

Flawed does not equate to delusional. Unreliable does not equate to "of no help".

Sample example -- you awaken in a crashed car, injured and being gnawed upon by rats. There is a tree branch in reach through broken glass, you can reach and drive the rats away. This could a) be a delusion/dream, b) if real, you may have too severe injuries to drive off the rats, and c) the branch might be ineffective -- you may find yourself unable to swing it in the confines of the crash, or it could be too weak/rotten to affect the rats. you could-based on the uncertainties of a), b) and c), do nothing, or you could reach for the branch and try to drive off the rats.

Those who work off best guesses rather than dithering their lives away due to lack of certainty have dramatically outperformed the ditherers.

[Kalkidas]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mmhhia$eao$1...@dont-email.me...

No there isn't, since He boith loves and is the Good.

>
>> However, His nature is
>> Good, among other attributes. What is the difficulty? God is not
>> "obeying" His nature, nor is He "defining" His nature. He is simply
>> being Himself.
>
> There is no illumination of the issue there. Just vaporous clichés.

My, what a big knowledge filter you have!

[dcl...@qis.net]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 2:36:46 PM UTC-4, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 6/25/15 11:04 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> > "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:mmhdvq$vk0$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 6/25/15 10:08 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

> >>>>> God is life, and, as I wrote, morality comes from the nature of
> >>>>> life
> >>>>> itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> So morality comes from God, then. That's further contradiction of
> >>>> the
> >>>> choice you originally proposed - "the gods love it because it is
> >>>> good..."
> >>>

> > There is

> > nothing "beyond" God to which He is subject.
>
> There is if he "loves the good."
>
> > However, His nature is
> > Good, among other attributes. What is the difficulty? God is not
> > "obeying" His nature, nor is He "defining" His nature. He is simply
> > being Himself.
>
> There is no illumination of the issue there. Just vaporous clichés.
>
> >>> Morality indeed comes from God. But it is not created, it is eternal.
> >>
> >> In other words, things are moral because they come from God. God
> >> doesn't do things because they are moral (an act that depends upon the
> >> existence of morality external to the actor).
> >

If Kalkidas accepts that "good" has an independently developed meaning, and that God hypotheses are testable based on that God's asserted character and actions, then statements of a God's properties, such as "God is intrinsically Good" are not vacuous.

Should he accept that he is making a testable assertion, then that assertion could, depending on the circumstances, be shown to be false.

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:4180df06-7411-468c...@googlegroups.com...

No. Math and logic are not subject to changing circumstances. 2 + 2 = 4
is an absolute. The syllogism is an absolute. They are true at all times
and in all circumstances. They are not dependent even on whether or not
any human knows about or understands them.

>They are based on our best efforts at observation and reasoning, and
>reaching of consensus to sift out for individual error, but that does
>not provide certainty in any application.

>> Therefore it is unreliable
> Yes, everything is unreliable.
>
>> and of no help in determining truth.

> No. Invalid inference. Truth is approached incrementally, and
> "unreliable" processes can be of great help in approaching it.

No. Unreliable processes can not arrive at truth, incrementally or
otherwise. Truth, or "true truth" as Francis Schaeffer coined it, is
revealed in totality by the Absolute Truth, or God.

>>
>>> than direct perception is an interpretation, hence based on our
>>> flawed
>>> reasoning skills and limited knowledge. Our knowledge, judgements,
>>> and
>>> reasoning can change, so everything we think we know is "worldly,
>>> time-bound". Pragmatism calls for us to work with this tentative
>>> knowledge and reasoning anyway.
>>
>> That statement must, by your criterion, also be delusional and based
>> on
>> your flawed reasoning. Therefore it is unreliable and of no help in
>> determining truth.
>>
> Flawed does not equate to delusional. Unreliable does not equate to
> "of no help".
>
> Sample example -- you awaken in a crashed car, injured and being
> gnawed upon by rats. There is a tree branch in reach through broken
> glass, you can reach and drive the rats away. This could a) be a
> delusion/dream, b) if real, you may have too severe injuries to drive
> off the rats, and c) the branch might be ineffective -- you may find
> yourself unable to swing it in the confines of the crash, or it could
> be too weak/rotten to affect the rats. you could-based on the
> uncertainties of a), b) and c), do nothing, or you could reach for the
> branch and try to drive off the rats.
>
> Those who work off best guesses rather than dithering their lives away
> due to lack of certainty have dramatically outperformed the ditherers.

In addition to being a false dilemma, the assumption that "best guesses"
are equivalent to "certainty" is false.

[Kalkidas]

<dcl...@qis.net> wrote in message
news:7d7a14ad-f8be-44d3...@googlegroups.com...

My rational assertion is that there must be a "Ground of Being" which is
self sufficient, completely independent, uncontingent. Such an entity
must exist or else nothing exists. Since it is evident that something,
not nothing, exists, then the Ground of Being exists.

The issue then is, what is that "Ground of Being" like?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:49:58 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:

<snip>

>...Just retain the ethical standards of organized
>religion...

Which organized religion's ethical standards should be used?
They seem to vary quite a bit...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Robert Camp]

The context is Euthyphro's Dilemma. If that has changed I was unaware of
it. In that context it seems to me the statement that God is inherently
good or intrinsically good or just *is* "the good," is inconsistent with
a suggestion that "good" is independent of god. Such an equivocation
ignores the point of the argument.

It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the conditions of the
argument. But having accepted them, to subsequently attempt to rewrite
the script such than an equivocation on the main issue becomes valid is
unseemly.

> Should he accept that he is making a testable assertion, then that
> assertion could, depending on the circumstances, be shown to be
> false.

I find nothing testable in,

"However, His nature is Good, among other attributes. What is the
difficulty? God is not "obeying" His nature, nor is He "defining" His
nature. He is simply being Himself."

But that's not the problem. I also find nothing coherent in it. As a
comment on the problems of the concept of objective morality it offers
no real information. That makes it rather difficult to respond rationally.

Now Kalkidas has an explanation for this - he believes that we are all
capable of knowing his _Truth_ if only we stop deceiving ourselves. He
finds this a reasonable rejoinder to asking for clear logic or
demonstrable evidence. He is not concerned with testability.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
news:cu8ooahmlfait8com...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:16:00 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>>news:gtbmoa98t190135mf...@4ax.com:

[snip]

>>> AlwaysAskingQuestions no doubt believes that Catholicism represents
>>> a sound basis for ethics in the rapidly changing world of today.
>>
>>AAQ is no doubt aware of the fact that Catholicism no longer endorses
>>the torture and execution of women accused of witchcraft.
>
> Apparently you don't think that gives it special authority to
> formulate a universal system of ethics.

I think it's as sound a basis for ethics in the rapidly changing world
of today as anything else is. A 'universal' system of ethics is a red
herring: as you say below, all ethical systems are human social
constructions.

>>> But he asked if there is something that could replace religion as a
>>> basis for contemporary ethics.
>>
>>I assumed that was rhetorical.
>
> It's still a good question.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. As a rhetorical device, it made
sense; as an actual question, it's just silly.

> If traditional systems of meanings are based on myths about
> supernatural entities, what can serve in their stead? Or do we just
> need myths that are less fantastic and barbaric?

You keep using the word 'barbaric' as though you imagine it has some
objective significance. How do you quantify barbarism? What besides your
own opinion makes one myth more or less fantastic than another?

The belief that people have certain inherent rights is a myth about
supernatural entities. It's a good myth in many ways, but it's still a
myth.

>>> That's the question. Apparently you think superstition must continue
>>> as the foundation for ethics.
>>
>>I think the belief that life has an inherent value is superstitious,
>>and I think that belief is the basis for all systems of ethics.
>
> You would replace it with a belief that life has no inherent value?

Perhaps you should read an entire post before you start responding to
it. As I've already said, I have no problem with superstition, and I
believe that life has value. You seem to imagine that all superstitions
are harmful; I imagine that some superstitions are beneficial - even
necessary. Doesn't make them any less superstitious.

[snip]

>>The belief has an obvious benefit to the continuance of our species,
>>but the continuance of our species has no objectively demonstrable
>>benefit to anything but itself.
>
> In order to make such a declaration, you must have some underlying
> conception of value. How do you define and measure 'benefit'?

May I take it that you disagree with my declaration but choose to
obfuscate in lieu of demonstrating the objective benefits provided by
the continuance of our species?

>>> If not, could you clarify what it is you're trying to say?
>>
>>Please note that I have no problem with superstition. I believe
>>that life has value, even though there's no rational basis for that
>>belief.
>
> Rationality is always based on underlying postulates of one sort or
> another.

Do you think there's a rational basis for the belief that life has
value?

> Some of these postulates may be factually incorrect or confused. In
> saying that it's superstitious to believe that life has inherent value
> you seem to be defining superstition in some nonstandard personal way.

In what way is it not superstitious, then? Can you cite any
independently verifiable data that support the hypothesis that life has
value?

>>>>> Science isn't the whole answer,
>>>>
>>>>It isn't any part of the answer. You can't derive ethics from
>>>>science: science can only tell you how people actually behave - it
>>>>can't tell you how people *should* behave.
>>>
>>> All ethical systems are based on beliefs about the nature of human
>>> existence in this world. Science can and has clarified many
>>> questions about human existence and the world we live in. Thus it
>>> has shed light on questions underlying the development of ethical
>>> systems.
>>
>>Science provides no basis for characterizing some beliefs about the
>>nature of human existence as 'barbaric superstitions' but not others.
>
> Sure it does.

No it doesn't.

> The witch burnings were based on an ignorant and superstitious belief
> that the victims had been using supernatural powers to afflict people
> around them.

Science is silent on the question of whether that belief is more
ignorant and superstitious than any other belief.

> To the extent that scientific understanding of nature can replace such
> ideas, there can be development of more enlightened ethical systems.

Among cultures where the belief that there are witches has become
extinct, it has been replaced by an equally unprovable belief that are
no witches. There is an identical amount of independently verifiable
scientific evidence for either proposition, viz., none.

[snip]

>>> We now have some understanding of how prejudices form and develop
>>> within social groups.
>>
>>Which doesn't prevent you from expressing your own anti-Catholic
>>prejudices.
>
> All religious and ethical systems are human social constructions. Is
> recognition of this fact prejudicial?

When you responded to AAQ's post by associating his religious beliefs
with witch-burning and asserting that 'A sound ethics can't be based on
barbaric superstitions,' you were expressing prejudice, whether you care
to acknowledge that fact or not.

>>> Such understandings could contribute to new understanding of the
>>> nature of human existence within the world we inhabit.
>>
>>Yes, they could contribute to the sort of understanding that enables
>>us to realize that we can disagree with other people's ethical
>>standards without labeling them the products of ignorant superstition.
>
> Perhaps some people still believe that witches (of the medieval sort)
> exist and should be burned, but such belief is far less prevalent than
> in the past.

What does that have to do with your assertion that a sound ethics can't
be based on barbaric superstitions?

> The only contemporary religiously inspired belief I've
> characterized as ignorant superstition is the doctrine that fertilized
> egg-cells and zygotes are full human beings whose deliberate
> destruction should be regarded as murder. This doctrine is based on
> ignorant and superstitious beliefs about ontogenetic development. It's
> no more prejudicial to say so than it is to point out the absurdity of
> regarding the story of Adam and Eve as literally true.

I understand why you'd prefer to avoid acknowledging the fact that
you've been parading your prejudice in full view of the newsgroup, but
this is a pretty sad charade, Jimbo.

>>> In many respects we're less barbaric than our ancestors. I call that
>>> progress.
>>
>>I call it a lie. We're just barbaric in different ways: we outsource
>>much of our barbarism nowadays.
>
> Cheney's outsourcing of interrogation methods involving torture?

I was thinking more of the people in other countries who work under
appalling conditions so we can cover our civilized asses in affordable
clothing. And then there are the dictators we cozy up to, the human
rights violations we ignore, and the natural resources we plunder from
nations too weak to resist - and the weapons and mercenaries we export
to protect our interests in nations that start to show a little
strength.

> When that practice was brought to light and subjected to intense
> ethically based criticism, the program was canceled. Progress is slow
> and setbacks occur, but I'd argue that we tend to be less barbaric
> than our ancient and medieval ancestors.

And I argue that you're simply overlooking the endemic barbarism of our
society because, as I said, we outsource much of it.

> <snip>
>
>>>>> AAQ was asking if there's any authoritative basis for ethics
>>>>> that's not based on religion.
>>>>
>>>>There's no authoritative basis for ethics in religion or anything
>>>>else. If you're looking for someone in authority to tell you how to
>>>>be ethical, you're doing it wrong.
>>>
>>> There's personal ethics and the prevailing ethics of societies. Can
>>> you tell us how to do it right?
>>
>>No one can tell you that.
>
> That's a counterfactual claim.

'Tisn't.

> All societies have moral and ethical standards based on values and
> injunctions that are regarded as authoritative.

Nice use of the passive voice. If you regard particular values and
injunctions as authoritative, that's your choice: you confer authority
upon them. As you may have noticed, people can and do behave unethically
with the full knowledge that they are doing so, and no moral or ethical
standard can prevent them from doing so. Moreover, people can and do
behave ethically with the full knowledge that their own society condemns
their actions.

And as I suppose you're also aware, every system of ethics ends up
contradicting itself sooner or later. When your friend breaks the law,
what do you do? Uphold the law and betray your friend? Honor your
friendship and betray the law? Which is right? You say society can tell
you that. What does it tell you, then?

> You may believe that it shouldn't be that way, and that
> each person should work out a personal system of ethics without such
> influences, but that's the way it is and has always been.

Each person *does* work out a personal system of ethics, typically
before he or she leaves the nursery. Haven't you ever heard a child
insist that something or other isn't fair? As we age, most of us
gradually, grudgingly accept the need to conform to social standards
that we don't personally accept: nobody internalizes *all* of those
standards, and nobody can make them do so.

>>>>> In your response to the OP, you say "organized religion has
>>>>> already been discarded as an authority where the application of
>>>>> science and new knowledge is concerned: in most modern nations,
>>>>> it's the legislature that decides whether or not human cloning (or
>>>>> stem cell research, or abortion, or birth control pills) should be
>>>>> allowed." But in the USA at least, congress often is more swayed
>>>>> by religious than by scientific or humanistic considerations when
>>>>> making decisions about such issues.
>>>>
>>>>The belief that the U.S. Congress is under the thumb of religion is
>>>>common among certain groups of superstitious barbarians.
>>>
>>> The U.S. congress is currently controlled by Republican majorities
>>> in both houses who cater to core religious constituencies who
>>> provide both reliable voting blocs and financial support to favored
>>> candidates.
>>
>>Si non è vero, è ben trovato.
>
> What part of my statement do you doubt?

Everything except the part about the Republican majorities in the House
and Senate is opinion masquerading as fact.
--
S.O.P.

[Jimbo]

What makes you think the Ground of Being is a person? Persons have
desires and needs. Thus we are not self sufficient, completely
independent, uncontingent. If God is completely self sufficient, it
has no need to create anything. If it does so for its own amusement,
then it's not independent of the need for amusement.

[Burkhard]

Ignorance of the Greek language as measured by vocabulary, reading
comprehension and number of grammar mistakes, of course.

>What besides your
> own opinion makes one myth more or less fantastic than another?
>

><snip>

[Kalkidas]

"Jimbo" <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in message
news:8oqooalk88jsftrka...@4ax.com...

That is your conception of "person", as having "needs". I don't consider
"needs" to be essential to personhood.

Thus we are not self sufficient, completely
> independent, uncontingent. If God is completely self sufficient, it
> has no need to create anything. If it does so for its own amusement,
> then it's not independent of the need for amusement.

That is your conception of "amusement", as a "need". I don't consider
amusement a "need" but an entirely voluntary act. God might or might not
amuse Himself. He suffers not at all in either case.

In the mean time, consider that persons are capable of manifesting
impersonal things, but the reverse is never observed: an impersonal
thing manifesting a person.

[Dale]

On 06/24/2015 11:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> <quote.
>
> 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used
> wisely

if you want to start with ethics, I think a good addition to the
peer-review process are some formalities as to how journals are
disseminated into text books and other ends of communication

such formalities would provide a feedback mechanism too, I think

for instance, have you ever heard of six-sigma manufacturing?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Jimbo]

You can substitute the term 'desire' for 'need' if you want to do so.
A completely self sufficient entity would have no desires. It's self
sufficient. There's nothing it needs and so nothing to desire. If it
lacks all desire it will never do anything. It won't create anything
because it has no desire to create anything.

>Thus we are not self sufficient, completely
>> independent, uncontingent. If God is completely self sufficient, it
>> has no need to create anything. If it does so for its own amusement,
>> then it's not independent of the need for amusement.
>
>That is your conception of "amusement", as a "need". I don't consider
>amusement a "need" but an entirely voluntary act. God might or might not
>amuse Himself. He suffers not at all in either case.

Why would an entirely self sufficient entity desire amusement? As a
cure for boredom? If it becomes bored, it's not entirely self
sufficient. An entirely self sufficient entity is complete in itself.
It requires no external stimuli.

>In the mean time, consider that persons are capable of manifesting
>impersonal things, but the reverse is never observed: an impersonal
>thing manifesting a person.

Ontogeny is an impersonal process, but it gives rise to persons.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/24/2015 11:11 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> In his recent encyclica, Pope Francis said:
> <quote.
>
> 104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
> biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many
> other abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous
> power. More precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and
> especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance
> over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity
> had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used

> wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.
> We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the middle of the
> twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism, Communism
> and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
> people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons
> available for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie,
> or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part
> of humanity to have it.
>
> 105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means
> “an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security,

> usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into

> become established? Who for, example, should decide on whether or not
> human cloning should be allowed?

I fail to see organised (sic :-)) religion as a sole source of values.
In fact religion is human social values of the disant past offloaded
into system of myth, allegory, and/or pseudohistory. So religion is a
mere byproduct of human morality. It has been a somewhat useful
byproduct over the years for some social systems (if you're not a woman
or a religious minority).

Religions such as Catholicism have had their darker moments, but have
been dragged kicking and screaming in the modern era. This new pope
seems to be opening up a lot more than previous popes. If he really
wanted to earn respect he might proclaim infallibility to be BS and say
that popes aren't any closer to God than anyone else. This pope seems
rather well educated so his wisdom is of earthly origins and not divine,
though he might prefer to think otherwise.

Religions should inform moral perspectives, when they are totally off in
left field, not determine them. I have the same bone of contention to
pick with science. Facts gained from science can inform our moral
decisions, but not determine them. The ultimate justifications for moral
decisions should not be based solely upon religion and/or science. I
would lean far more toward the science than religion camp myself, but
given some of the horrors of the 20th century, I would be somewhat
cautious there. Though reduced a bit in impact by *Skinner v Oklahoma*,
*Buck v Bell* has never been overturned, though I would have a hard time
envisioning a test case now that would do it. And our wonderful American
eugenics crowd inspired the Nazis, though they took a further step from
sterilization into euthanasia. And as Jonathan Spiro points out in
_Defending the Master Race_, some of our more cherished ideals, like
ecological conservation and birth control share common ground with
eugenics. Some of the same folks (of volk?) who promoted national parks
were gung ho for sterilization, anti-miscegenation and immigration
restrictions again non-Nordics.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/24/2015 11:48 AM, Jimbo wrote:

> Who should have decided whether or not it was morally acceptable to
> torture and burn women alive who were accused of witchcraft?

The Medici (forerunners of the Illuminati) were early humanists who by
their patronage were able to sneak humanistic and paganistic themes in
under the radar, at least until that vanity bonfire guy arrived on the
scene. After Lorenzo the Magnificent died things ttook a major nosedive
for a awhile, but they later gave us Galileo (and a couple popes).

[Jimbo]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:02:47 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"

<sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>news:cu8ooahmlfait8com...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:16:00 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>>>news:gtbmoa98t190135mf...@4ax.com:

<snip>

>>>> But he asked if there is something that could replace religion as a
>>>> basis for contemporary ethics.
>>>
>>>I assumed that was rhetorical.
>>
>> It's still a good question.
>
>We'll have to agree to disagree, then. As a rhetorical device, it made
>sense; as an actual question, it's just silly.

Are you claiming that religion is the only possible basis for
contemporary ethics. If not, then why do you think it's silly to ask
about other possible bases?

>> If traditional systems of meanings are based on myths about
>> supernatural entities, what can serve in their stead? Or do we just
>> need myths that are less fantastic and barbaric?
>
>You keep using the word 'barbaric' as though you imagine it has some
>objective significance. How do you quantify barbarism? What besides your
>own opinion makes one myth more or less fantastic than another?

Actually I was asking about a deep human delemma connected with our
perhaps innate tendency to create and share fantasy stories which come
to be taken as literally true or as revelations of an underlying
spiritual truth. Even today stories about evil supernatural beings,
undead creatures stalking the night and alien things masquerading as
human are quite popular. Barbarism arises when the fantasies are taken
seriously and other people who we don't personally know and identify
with are seen as fiends worthy of the severest possible punishment. As
I say this may be an innate human tendency that had adaptive value for
Paleolithic people living in small and isolated groups. It's no longer
adaptive.

This isn't an adequate definition of barbarism, but at least it lends
itself to scientific investigation and, perhaps if it were developed
more rigorously, to possible falsification.

>The belief that people have certain inherent rights is a myth about
>supernatural entities. It's a good myth in many ways, but it's still a
>myth.

I haven't argued against that position. You're agreeing that some
myths are better than others. There may be no truly objective criteria
for defining the relative goodness and badness of such beliefs and
associated values, but I think the recognition that people different
from oneself aren't necessarily evil or worthless is an advance in
human understanding and more empirically accurate than the ancient
default position that everyone not of one's own social group is
inferior and not truly human.

>>>> That's the question. Apparently you think superstition must continue
>>>> as the foundation for ethics.
>>>
>>>I think the belief that life has an inherent value is superstitious,
>>>and I think that belief is the basis for all systems of ethics.
>>
>> You would replace it with a belief that life has no inherent value?
>
>Perhaps you should read an entire post before you start responding to
>it. As I've already said, I have no problem with superstition, and I
>believe that life has value. You seem to imagine that all superstitions
>are harmful; I imagine that some superstitions are beneficial - even
>necessary. Doesn't make them any less superstitious.

You haven't yet stated the basis for your belief that life has no
inherent value.

>>>The belief has an obvious benefit to the continuance of our species,
>>>but the continuance of our species has no objectively demonstrable
>>>benefit to anything but itself.
>>
>> In order to make such a declaration, you must have some underlying
>> conception of value. How do you define and measure 'benefit'?
>
>May I take it that you disagree with my declaration but choose to
>obfuscate in lieu of demonstrating the objective benefits provided by
>the continuance of our species?

I said nothing about the continuance of our species. Species come and
go.

>>>> If not, could you clarify what it is you're trying to say?
>>>
>>>Please note that I have no problem with superstition. I believe
>>>that life has value, even though there's no rational basis for that
>>>belief.
>>
>> Rationality is always based on underlying postulates of one sort or
>> another.
>
>Do you think there's a rational basis for the belief that life has
>value?

Yes, but I can't give you a detailed proof. It's based on empathetic
understanding that each person is real just like me. I value my own
life and see no reason why other lives would have less value. That
attitude may not be objective, but it's not irrational.

>> Some of these postulates may be factually incorrect or confused. In
>> saying that it's superstitious to believe that life has inherent value
>> you seem to be defining superstition in some nonstandard personal way.
>
>In what way is it not superstitious, then? Can you cite any
>independently verifiable data that support the hypothesis that life has
>value?

If I were to accept your own criterion of "objectively demonstrable
benefit to anything but itself," then certainly I could demonstrate
our species benefit to domestic breeds of plants and animals, and bees
which in turn benefit other species. But you'd probably then say that
the lives of those various breeds and species have no inherent value.
Your position is nihilistic. It leads logically to the conclusion that
nothing has inherent value. In that case, why do you bother to go on
living?

>>>Science provides no basis for characterizing some beliefs about the
>>>nature of human existence as 'barbaric superstitions' but not others.
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>> The witch burnings were based on an ignorant and superstitious belief
>> that the victims had been using supernatural powers to afflict people
>> around them.
>
>Science is silent on the question of whether that belief is more
>ignorant and superstitious than any other belief.

I disagree. If the accused witches really possessed ungodly
supernatural powers to afflict other people, this fact would have
stood up to objective testing. Tossing women into a pond to see if
they floated or torturing confessions out of them does not constitute
objective evidence of such powers.

>> To the extent that scientific understanding of nature can replace such
>> ideas, there can be development of more enlightened ethical systems.
>
>Among cultures where the belief that there are witches has become
>extinct, it has been replaced by an equally unprovable belief that are
>no witches. There is an identical amount of independently verifiable
>scientific evidence for either proposition, viz., none.

You might as well claim there's no evidence that the planets aren't
moved in their orbits by angels pushing them around.

<snip>

>>>> Such understandings could contribute to new understanding of the
>>>> nature of human existence within the world we inhabit.
>>>
>>>Yes, they could contribute to the sort of understanding that enables
>>>us to realize that we can disagree with other people's ethical
>>>standards without labeling them the products of ignorant superstition.
>>
>> Perhaps some people still believe that witches (of the medieval sort)
>> exist and should be burned, but such belief is far less prevalent than
>> in the past.
>
>What does that have to do with your assertion that a sound ethics can't
>be based on barbaric superstitions?

A truely sound ethics would be based on a complete and accurate
understanding of human nature and experience, and of the world we live
in. Fantasy based ethical systems might promote social stability of
particular cultures but none have been founded on an accurate
understanding of ourselves and nature.

>> The only contemporary religiously inspired belief I've
>> characterized as ignorant superstition is the doctrine that fertilized
>> egg-cells and zygotes are full human beings whose deliberate
>> destruction should be regarded as murder. This doctrine is based on
>> ignorant and superstitious beliefs about ontogenetic development. It's
>> no more prejudicial to say so than it is to point out the absurdity of
>> regarding the story of Adam and Eve as literally true.
>
>I understand why you'd prefer to avoid acknowledging the fact that
>you've been parading your prejudice in full view of the newsgroup, but
>this is a pretty sad charade, Jimbo.

Do you regard the story of Adam and Eve as factually accurate? If not,
are you parading your prejudice in full view of the newsgroup?

<snip>

>And I argue that you're simply overlooking the endemic barbarism of our
>society because, as I said, we outsource much of it.

I don't overlook it. I've personally contributed to it, to the extent
of serving overseas in an empirialistic war. I wasn't aware of the
barbarity prior to Vietnam. I'm saying that a greater percentage of
the population has become aware of exploitative barbarisms that have
been dressed up as altruistic programs and crusades.

<snip>

>> You may believe that it shouldn't be that way, and that
>> each person should work out a personal system of ethics without such
>> influences, but that's the way it is and has always been.
>
>Each person *does* work out a personal system of ethics, typically
>before he or she leaves the nursery. Haven't you ever heard a child
>insist that something or other isn't fair? As we age, most of us
>gradually, grudgingly accept the need to conform to social standards
>that we don't personally accept: nobody internalizes *all* of those
>standards, and nobody can make them do so.

Sure. There are always rebels and nonconformists. They constribute to
a kind of latent social variability that can contribute to social
change and even transformation. This doesn't negate the fact that
societies transmit values and codes of conduct from one generation to
the next and that everyone is heavily influenced by them.

<snip>

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/24/2015 12:37 PM, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> AlwaysAskingQuestions <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1khloahn1ajelm8ln...@4ax.com:

> I'm afraid organized religion has already been discarded as an authority

> where the application of science and new knowledge is concerned: in most
> modern nations, it's the legislature that decides whether or not human
> cloning (or stem cell research, or abortion, or birth control pills)
> should be allowed.

And when said legislature is composed of a majority of fundie true
believers, along with the executive (sometimes) and a good number of
Supreme Court justices?

> Pope Francis is IMO right about our meager awareness of our own
> limitations, but as he says, each age suffers from that problem. No, we
> cannot claim to have a sound ethics, but no other age has ever been able
> to make that claim, either: no religion has ever been able to save us
> from ourselves.

Religion is ourselves, and nothing more. The divinity is but a
hyberbolic flourish.

[Jimbo]

It just goes to show that progress is possible, despite setbacks.

[*Hemidactylus*]

From what I recall of Oliver Stone's documentary (really???) _Untold
History of the United States_ the threat of UUSR running gangbusters
through Manchuria was more significant than the atomic bombs from the
Japanese POV. Japan had already suffered massive firebombing campaigns
by the allies, so the atomic ones had a bigger bang and more death
density, but maybe not quite the fear factor as the Soviet hordes. Not
sure if I'm remembering this correctly and that I agree with it. Maybe
the USSR threat forced the Allied hand in dropping the bombs?

Alas whatever Soviet threat there was, they occupied the northern part
of Korea and how did that work out for us a half decade later? Or right
here and now?

And we (US OSS Deer Team under Thomas and Patti) started training the
Viet Minh around the same time as the bombs dropped (early August). The
Japanese surrendered not long after, but there we were buddy pals with
the friendly old Uncle Ho and his sidekick Vo Nguyen Giap. Kinda ironic
that. See _The OSS and Ho Chi Minh: Unexpected Allies in the War against
Japan_ by Dixee Bartholomew-Feis.

Two wars (Korea and Second Indochina) were somewhat portended by the
outcome of WWII. We have Mountbatten and Gracey to thank somewhat for
the latter giving a red carpet to the French colons in the south (though
FDR didn't help matters by going and doing a blunderous thing like dying
in office and letting Truman take over).

Korea got its start much earlier when we kinda looked the other way as
the Japanese asserted themselves after their little spat with the
Russian bear. James Bradley in _The Imperial Cruise_ kinda laid a bit of
blame on TR and Taft, though this is much disputed by others.

[Kalkidas]

"Jimbo" <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in message

news:4e0poa9bmu0sn0dqa...@4ax.com...

So you disagree that there is a Ground of Being, because what you are
describing is nothing.

>
>>Thus we are not self sufficient, completely
>>> independent, uncontingent. If God is completely self sufficient, it
>>> has no need to create anything. If it does so for its own amusement,
>>> then it's not independent of the need for amusement.
>>
>>That is your conception of "amusement", as a "need". I don't consider
>>amusement a "need" but an entirely voluntary act. God might or might
>>not
>>amuse Himself. He suffers not at all in either case.
>
> Why would an entirely self sufficient entity desire amusement? As a
> cure for boredom? If it becomes bored, it's not entirely self
> sufficient. An entirely self sufficient entity is complete in itself.
> It requires no external stimuli.

That is your conception of "amusement". But amusement does not
necessarily require "external stimuli".

>>In the mean time, consider that persons are capable of manifesting
>>impersonal things, but the reverse is never observed: an impersonal
>>thing manifesting a person.
>
> Ontogeny is an impersonal process, but it gives rise to persons.

That has never been observed.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/25/2015 05:02 PM, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
> news:cu8ooahmlfait8com...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:16:00 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jimbo <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in
>>> news:gtbmoa98t190135mf...@4ax.com:
> [snip]
>>>> AlwaysAskingQuestions no doubt believes that Catholicism represents
>>>> a sound basis for ethics in the rapidly changing world of today.
>>>
>>> AAQ is no doubt aware of the fact that Catholicism no longer endorses
>>> the torture and execution of women accused of witchcraft.
>>
>> Apparently you don't think that gives it special authority to
>> formulate a universal system of ethics.
>
> I think it's as sound a basis for ethics in the rapidly changing world
> of today as anything else is. A 'universal' system of ethics is a red
> herring: as you say below, all ethical systems are human social
> constructions.

I have a hard time in the middle ground between ethical relativism and
absolutism. As humans there may be some deep-seated universal grounding
that founds (or funds) our morality, as a bootstrap at least. Kinship
and reciprocity get the ball rolling, but in themselves yield nothing
better than homespun nepotism and tit-for-tat cronyism. The biggest
boost to a true morality is reduction of localized parochialism, less
outgrouping (what Singer calls expanding the circle) and a personalized
shift from egoism to group orientation.

And as opposed to objective morality, I would assert the importance of
intersubjective agreement or consensus. Ain't great, but it's all we got.

>>>> But he asked if there is something that could replace religion as a
>>>> basis for contemporary ethics.
>>>
>>> I assumed that was rhetorical.
>>
>> It's still a good question.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree, then. As a rhetorical device, it made
> sense; as an actual question, it's just silly.
>
>> If traditional systems of meanings are based on myths about
>> supernatural entities, what can serve in their stead? Or do we just
>> need myths that are less fantastic and barbaric?
>
> You keep using the word 'barbaric' as though you imagine it has some
> objective significance. How do you quantify barbarism? What besides your
> own opinion makes one myth more or less fantastic than another?
>
> The belief that people have certain inherent rights is a myth about
> supernatural entities. It's a good myth in many ways, but it's still a
> myth.

Yeah, I fall flat beyond the useful fiction of personal freedom and
rights. For one, how does one get there without true volition. There
doesn't seem to be a grounding for freedoms or responsibilities sans an
applied concept for legal means.

Value is what we make of it. Otherwise we are no different from a couple
of rocks. Intersubjectively (but not quite objectively) we feel better
than mere rocks, or at least *I* do. Can't speak for you snarky
poopyhead ;-)

I can't say I'm a epistemic, existential, or ethical nihilist. So I've
gotta clutch at some straws.

>> Some of these postulates may be factually incorrect or confused. In
>> saying that it's superstitious to believe that life has inherent value
>> you seem to be defining superstition in some nonstandard personal way.
>
> In what way is it not superstitious, then? Can you cite any
> independently verifiable data that support the hypothesis that life has
> value?

If you, me, and Jimbo each agree to it as people and move on? We can't
quite go all Popperian epistemic on it now can we?

>>>>>> Science isn't the whole answer,
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't any part of the answer. You can't derive ethics from
>>>>> science: science can only tell you how people actually behave - it
>>>>> can't tell you how people *should* behave.
>>>>
>>>> All ethical systems are based on beliefs about the nature of human
>>>> existence in this world. Science can and has clarified many
>>>> questions about human existence and the world we live in. Thus it
>>>> has shed light on questions underlying the development of ethical
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Science provides no basis for characterizing some beliefs about the
>>> nature of human existence as 'barbaric superstitions' but not others.
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
>> The witch burnings were based on an ignorant and superstitious belief
>> that the victims had been using supernatural powers to afflict people
>> around them.
>
> Science is silent on the question of whether that belief is more
> ignorant and superstitious than any other belief.

And science has limited applicability to ethics, if I can march out my
personal hobbyhorse into the discussion. Facts are important, but not
sufficient in making value judgments (sic).

But science is not entirely silent on whether people are capable of
witchcraft or whether the plague came from rat fleas or Jews poisoning
wells (another superstition).

>> To the extent that scientific understanding of nature can replace such
>> ideas, there can be development of more enlightened ethical systems.
>
> Among cultures where the belief that there are witches has become
> extinct, it has been replaced by an equally unprovable belief that are
> no witches. There is an identical amount of independently verifiable
> scientific evidence for either proposition, viz., none.

People known as Wiccans gather and have festivals. Whether they can be
charming is a different story altogether. They are free do do as they
please, but don't expect me to believe as they do.

> [snip]
>>>> We now have some understanding of how prejudices form and develop
>>>> within social groups.
>>>
>>> Which doesn't prevent you from expressing your own anti-Catholic
>>> prejudices.
>>
>> All religious and ethical systems are human social constructions. Is
>> recognition of this fact prejudicial?
>
> When you responded to AAQ's post by associating his religious beliefs
> with witch-burning and asserting that 'A sound ethics can't be based on
> barbaric superstitions,' you were expressing prejudice, whether you care
> to acknowledge that fact or not.

And ignoring the dragged kicking and screaming modernization of the
Catholic church (excepting Scalia and Mel Gibson's dad).

There's the civil rights movement and abolitionism before that, which
cut across the grain morally and sometimes legally.

> And as I suppose you're also aware, every system of ethics ends up
> contradicting itself sooner or later. When your friend breaks the law,
> what do you do? Uphold the law and betray your friend? Honor your
> friendship and betray the law? Which is right? You say society can tell
> you that. What does it tell you, then?

As WD Ross held, there are prima facie duties.

I would hold that lying can be very ethical in certain circumstances,
Kant be damned. I would do it to prevent harm of an innocent against a
malevolent force (hiding Jews from Nazis or blacks on Underground
railroad).

>> You may believe that it shouldn't be that way, and that
>> each person should work out a personal system of ethics without such
>> influences, but that's the way it is and has always been.
>
> Each person *does* work out a personal system of ethics, typically
> before he or she leaves the nursery. Haven't you ever heard a child
> insist that something or other isn't fair?

Is that an egoistic or impersonal sense of fairness? One eventually
gives way to the other at some point in some peoples lives.

[Jimbo]

There may be an underlying Ground of Being, but it's necessarily
impersonal. Personalized conceptions of God are can't logically be
equated with the Ground of being because they are depicted as
differentiated entities. For example one might describe a particular
god as male. But male implies a female compliment, so differentiation
has already occurred. Claiming that they are completely self
sufficient is logically inconsistent. Their differentiated
characteristics imply complimentary elements within a pre-existing
environment.

>>>Thus we are not self sufficient, completely
>>>> independent, uncontingent. If God is completely self sufficient, it
>>>> has no need to create anything. If it does so for its own amusement,
>>>> then it's not independent of the need for amusement.
>>>
>>>That is your conception of "amusement", as a "need". I don't consider
>>>amusement a "need" but an entirely voluntary act. God might or might
>>>not
>>>amuse Himself. He suffers not at all in either case.
>>
>> Why would an entirely self sufficient entity desire amusement? As a
>> cure for boredom? If it becomes bored, it's not entirely self
>> sufficient. An entirely self sufficient entity is complete in itself.
>> It requires no external stimuli.
>
>That is your conception of "amusement". But amusement does not
>necessarily require "external stimuli".

Then it's mere internal daydreaming.

>>>In the mean time, consider that persons are capable of manifesting
>>>impersonal things, but the reverse is never observed: an impersonal
>>>thing manifesting a person.
>>
>> Ontogeny is an impersonal process, but it gives rise to persons.
>
>That has never been observed.

Women have never been observed to get pregnant and give birth?