The Argument for Transcendental Ethics without God.
Elf M. Sternberg
philosophers. Relentlessly materialistic and naturalistic, he
nonetheless spells out a lot of excellent details regarding why human
beings are the way they are. Dennet has a really good podcast on why it
is possible to be good without God on meaningoflife.tv, here:
http://www.meaningoflife.tv/vi deo.php?speaker=dennett&topic= goodwogod
"Let's talk about "transcendent" and "morality". One of the
things that we have evolved to discover on this planet is
arithmetic. We didn't invent it, we didn't make it: we found it.
It is eternal, a priori, true: it's just great stuff. And it's true
everywhere in the universe; it's true everywhere in any universe.
There's only one arithmetic. Now, is that transcendent? I would
say, Yeah.
"If we discovered another civilization somewhere in the
galaxy that was intelligent, what would it share with us? Well, it
would certainly share arithmetic. Maybe not base-10 arithmetic --
that's anybody's guess. It might be base 12 or base 16 or base 8.
Who knows? That's an accident. But it would still be arithmetic.
Now, we can say: "And would it share ethical principles with us?"
And I think, in some regards, "Yes, it would." Now, does that make
those principles transcendent? Yeah."
Dennet here states clearly what has been a staple argument of
the science fiction community for years, and why such silly things as
Klingons and the aliens from V are more or less nonsense: in order to be
a spacefaring *civilization*, one must first be *civilized*. The
economics of scale needed to fund a "get off your planet" program
require that people get along, that they understand the Golden (or at
the very least Brass) rule, and that they comprehend reciprocity.
They certainly will not share any concept of God with those we
have on our planet; it's even reasonable to believe that a majority of
them may not believe in God at all. But given that *we* have evolved to
have reciprocity as a measure of civilization, it is reasonable to
assume that every civilization will have reciprocity (as well as
arithmetic) as a sheer measure of civilization in the first place.
"Goodness" is part of the superstructure of the universe as
surely as the physics that underlies evolution in the first place; this
is evident in that we humans get along. Does that make it
"transcendental," as Dennet argues? I believe it does. Does that
necessarily make it theistic in orgin? I do not believe so.
In fact, I'll make the counter-claim: "goodness" is a much an
accident of the way our universe is organized as we are ourselves.
There is no reason to believe otherwise. More importantly, given what
we know of the way various religions have independently discovered,
codified, and implemented the Brass and Golden rules, it is reasonable
to assume that one does not need any particular God or any god at all to
know of them.
Yet, since religion is clearly a commonplace organizing
instutition for civilizations, let's change things around: it is not
that one must believe in a god in order to be good, but that one (and
one's neighbors) must be good to begin with, in order to found a common
belief in god. Without being good, all is chaos. Without god, all is
still capable of good.
Elf
Greywolf
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87hddla...@drizzle.com...
Hear! Hear! As any good 'moral' atheist knows, goodness comes from the
heart.
It's like 'class.' You either have it, or you don't. Goodness wells up from
within a
person naturally (or so it seems). There's no need for an artificial
construct such as
'God' to keep us in moral check. We are 'naturals' at being good. (It is the
relatively
*few* naturally ultra-bad apples that do us the most harm.) There *is*
something to
be said for the old, "Do unto others ... " thing. The only thing is, we
don't *have* to
accept the notion that we need to adhere to that principal just because some
fictional
man-God is said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves - intuitively.
Greywolf
Denis Loubet
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11gclim...@corp.supernews.com...
I disagree.
> It's like 'class.' You either have it, or you don't. Goodness wells up
> from within a
> person naturally (or so it seems).
I continue to disagree.
> There's no need for an artificial construct such as
> 'God' to keep us in moral check.
THAT I agree with.
> We are 'naturals' at being good. (It is the relatively
> *few* naturally ultra-bad apples that do us the most harm.)
All that's needed for goodness is self interest, and the wit to figure out
what's in your best interest.
> There *is* something to
> be said for the old, "Do unto others ... " thing.
That principle is based solidly on self interest.
> The only thing is, we don't *have* to
> accept the notion that we need to adhere to that principal just because
> some fictional
> man-God is said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves - intuitively.
Or we can learn it.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Kate
wrote:
No, you don't need to figure out what's in your best interest. You
are genetically programmed to act in your best interest - more or
less.
So, yeah, it's in your hear, because your heart as well as the rest of
you has the genes for social behavior which always promotes 'goodness'
or the social group.
If humans were not social animals, we'd think it was good to go out
and hang out alone and not interact with others, unless it's for sex
or to quarrel over territory.
>
>> There *is* something to
>> be said for the old, "Do unto others ... " thing.
>
>That principle is based solidly on self interest.
>
>> The only thing is, we don't *have* to
>> accept the notion that we need to adhere to that principal just because
>> some fictional
>> man-God is said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves - intuitively.
>
>Or we can learn it.
Goodness is just acting towards a goal that you are programmed to
desire. What else could it be?
Elf M. Sternberg
> > The only thing is, we don't *have* to accept the notion that we need
> > to adhere to that principal just because some fictional man-God is
> > said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves - intuitively.
> Or we can learn it.
I think the point, reading Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea,"
is that if you *don't* learn it, you're more likely to get killed.
Being part of "the tribe" is the essential good. Wright (who operates
the website where the Dennet interview took place), in his book
"Non-Zero", turned me on to the idea that "the tribe" expands primarily
as a function of economic ease of transaction: the easier it is to have
an economic relationship with someone "far away," the more likely you're
to view that person's well-being as significant to your own.
Elf
Denis Loubet
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:432d6852....@news-west.newscene.com...
I disagree. Evolution has not prepared us to live in the technological
civilization of the present day. Many of our primitive instincts, when
applied to today's world, are NOT in our best interest. It takes a bit of
brain power to figure out what is.
Granted, because we are biased by our instincts our solutions may not be the
best, but a bit of reflection can drastically improve our odds of a
favorable outcome.
> So, yeah, it's in your hear, because your heart as well as the rest of
> you has the genes for social behavior which always promotes 'goodness'
> or the social group.
Yes, evolution has granted us some crucial abilities like empathy, and
equipped us with an instinctive understanding of fair play.
> If humans were not social animals, we'd think it was good to go out
> and hang out alone and not interact with others, unless it's for sex
> or to quarrel over territory.
Granted.
>>> There *is* something to
>>> be said for the old, "Do unto others ... " thing.
>>
>>That principle is based solidly on self interest.
>>
>>> The only thing is, we don't *have* to
>>> accept the notion that we need to adhere to that principal just because
>>> some fictional
>>> man-God is said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves -
>>> intuitively.
>>
>>Or we can learn it.
>
> Goodness is just acting towards a goal that you are programmed to
> desire. What else could it be?
Ah, but I would argue that intelligence has a lot to do with the level of
success at reaching that goal.
Knowledge can drastically improve our odds.
duke
> They certainly will not share any concept of God with those we
>have on our planet; it's even reasonable to believe that a majority of
>them may not believe in God at all.
How would he know?
Yes, arithmetic is the same everywhere's, as is physics and chemistry. God made
it that way.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kate
wrote:
You weren't specific enough in your original words. Yes, most people
attribute their instincts as some goal given to them by God and stop
thinking there - extremely dangerous to us as a species because we
have become so powerful and we can't afford that luxury any more.
>
>> So, yeah, it's in your hear, because your heart as well as the rest of
>> you has the genes for social behavior which always promotes 'goodness'
>> or the social group.
>
>Yes, evolution has granted us some crucial abilities like empathy, and
>equipped us with an instinctive understanding of fair play.
To be more to point - good is subjective - fair play is only fair play
when instinct hands us the goal of what fair play is good for.
>
>> If humans were not social animals, we'd think it was good to go out
>> and hang out alone and not interact with others, unless it's for sex
>> or to quarrel over territory.
>
>Granted.
>
>>>> There *is* something to
>>>> be said for the old, "Do unto others ... " thing.
>>>
>>>That principle is based solidly on self interest.
>>>
>>>> The only thing is, we don't *have* to
>>>> accept the notion that we need to adhere to that principal just because
>>>> some fictional
>>>> man-God is said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves -
>>>> intuitively.
>>>
>>>Or we can learn it.
>>
>> Goodness is just acting towards a goal that you are programmed to
>> desire. What else could it be?
>
>Ah, but I would argue that intelligence has a lot to do with the level of
>success at reaching that goal.
>
>Knowledge can drastically improve our odds.
All we have to do is keep the blind, the selfish, the unintellgent
from being in control and making decisions that screw us all.
That's today's war.
Ted King
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> Daniel Dennet, as old-timers on alt.atheism know, is one of my favorite
> philosophers. Relentlessly materialistic and naturalistic, he
> nonetheless spells out a lot of excellent details regarding why human
> beings are the way they are. Dennet has a really good podcast on why it
> is possible to be good without God on meaningoflife.tv, here:
>
> http://www.meaningoflife.tv/vi deo.php?speaker=dennett&topic= goodwogod
>
> "Let's talk about "transcendent" and "morality". One of the
> things that we have evolved to discover on this planet is
> arithmetic. We didn't invent it, we didn't make it: we found it.
> It is eternal, a priori, true: it's just great stuff. And it's true
> everywhere in the universe; it's true everywhere in any universe.
> There's only one arithmetic. Now, is that transcendent? I would
> say, Yeah.
>
Does he intend his notion of transcendence to include the idea of
existence independent of the physical universe; IOW, does
"transcendence" of mathematics imply mathematical realism?
If so, I would say the realism of mathematics is, at least, debatable;
that is, a reasonable case can be made that mathematics is not
realistic. Something that is worth noting, I think, is that if
mathematics is realistic, then it has an existence independent of the
physical universe and would presumably exist even if there were no
physical universe. This, of course, introduces the problem of
elucidating just what this existence is that is separate from the
physical universe.
If Dennet's notion of transcendence does not include the implication of
mathematical realism, then is transcendence simply universality of a
quality of the physical universe? If so, then, at least theoretically,
it seems like it should be possible to empirically "find" a relationship
between any "true" mathematical concept and some phenomenon of the
physical universe. If that is the case, then it would seem that
mathematicians ought to have separate categories of those mathematics
that are empirically verified as true by correlation with physical
phenomena and those notions that are "hypothesized" as being true but
awaiting the empirical verification of being correlated with physical
phenomena.
> "If we discovered another civilization somewhere in the
> galaxy that was intelligent, what would it share with us? Well, it
> would certainly share arithmetic. Maybe not base-10 arithmetic --
> that's anybody's guess. It might be base 12 or base 16 or base 8.
> Who knows? That's an accident. But it would still be arithmetic.
> Now, we can say: "And would it share ethical principles with us?"
> And I think, in some regards, "Yes, it would." Now, does that make
> those principles transcendent? Yeah."
>
> Dennet here states clearly what has been a staple argument of
> the science fiction community for years, and why such silly things as
> Klingons and the aliens from V are more or less nonsense: in order to be
> a spacefaring *civilization*, one must first be *civilized*. The
> economics of scale needed to fund a "get off your planet" program
> require that people get along, that they understand the Golden (or at
> the very least Brass) rule, and that they comprehend reciprocity.
I think there are some things that are worth considering about this. One
is that it would seem to be possible to find an intelligent "race"
elsewhere in the universe that has not, and perhaps is incapable of,
getting off their planet - that, though it is not "civilized", is
never-the-less, intelligent. Another is that as far as we know, Earth is
the only place in the universe where there is intelligence, and since it
may be the only place where there is intelligence, it would hardly seem
justifiable to conclude from what we find on this planet that civilized
reciprocity is universal to the whole of the physical universe.
>
> They certainly will not share any concept of God with those we
> have on our planet; it's even reasonable to believe that a majority of
> them may not believe in God at all. But given that *we* have evolved to
> have reciprocity as a measure of civilization, it is reasonable to
> assume that every civilization will have reciprocity (as well as
> arithmetic) as a sheer measure of civilization in the first place.
>
> "Goodness" is part of the superstructure of the universe as
> surely as the physics that underlies evolution in the first place; this
> is evident in that we humans get along. Does that make it
> "transcendental," as Dennet argues? I believe it does.
I think the ontological status of "goodness" is even more debatable than
that of mathematics. How to proceed with that debate may depend on
whether or not Dennet is implying realism in his notion of transcendence
(i.e., that "goodness" has an existence independent of the physical
universe).
The argument here seems to be that "goodness" is civilized reciprocity
and since civilized reciprocity is universal, goodness is universal, and
that which is universal in the physical universe is transcendent.
Working from the latter assertion backwards - why would the condition of
something being universal in the physical universe imply transcendence?
(The answer to that seems to depend on whether or not one includes
"realism" within their notion of transcendence.) Also, I wonder if
Dennet may be guilty of a form of an "is/ought fallacy" - *that* an
attitude is universal does not necessarily imply that it *ought* to be
the case. And then, what actual evidence is there that civilized
reciprocity is a characteristic of all intelligences in the physical
universe (additionally, there is the question of whether or not there
are other intelligences in the physical universe)? And why is "goodness"
necessarily identified with civilized reciprocity? And finally, but
hardly least of all, there is the question of whether or not "goodness",
no matter what it is identified with, is an objective quality or that
"goodness" is actually never more than attitudes about certain things
(subjective opinion or preference).
Does that
> necessarily make it theistic in orgin? I do not believe so.
>
> In fact, I'll make the counter-claim: "goodness" is a much an
> accident of the way our universe is organized as we are ourselves.
> There is no reason to believe otherwise.
Again, this may be getting into an is/ought problem. Just because the
universe is a certain way (and it isn't entirely evident to me that the
universe is the way Dennet claims), does not in itself imply that that
is the way it *ought* to be. Suggesting that the way the universe is, in
some sense, "accidental", seems to me to undermine the notion that there
is an inherent "oughtness" to the way things are.
Ted
Elf M. Sternberg
> Again, this may be getting into an is/ought problem.
I don't think so, because I think Dennet's point is deeper than
that: if we are (arguably) a spacegoing species (and we are, we just
can't go very far yet), then it's not a matter of "we are good,
therefore we ought to be good"; it's a matter of "we are good because,
by definition, we cannot be anything else," in much the same way that
1+1 cannot be anything other than 2.
Elf
Denis Loubet
Granted. My apologies!
> Yes, most people
> attribute their instincts as some goal given to them by God and stop
> thinking there - extremely dangerous to us as a species because we
> have become so powerful and we can't afford that luxury any more.
You can say that again! (But don't.)
>>> So, yeah, it's in your hear, because your heart as well as the rest of
>>> you has the genes for social behavior which always promotes 'goodness'
>>> or the social group.
>>
>>Yes, evolution has granted us some crucial abilities like empathy, and
>>equipped us with an instinctive understanding of fair play.
>
> To be more to point - good is subjective - fair play is only fair play
> when instinct hands us the goal of what fair play is good for.
Hmmm. Yeah, I have to agree.
The thing is, the means to achieve our subjective goals are often objective,
which muddies the issue.
>>> If humans were not social animals, we'd think it was good to go out
>>> and hang out alone and not interact with others, unless it's for sex
>>> or to quarrel over territory.
>>
>>Granted.
>>
>>>>> There *is* something to
>>>>> be said for the old, "Do unto others ... " thing.
>>>>
>>>>That principle is based solidly on self interest.
>>>>
>>>>> The only thing is, we don't *have* to
>>>>> accept the notion that we need to adhere to that principal just
>>>>> because
>>>>> some fictional
>>>>> man-God is said to have uttered it. We know that ourselves -
>>>>> intuitively.
>>>>
>>>>Or we can learn it.
>>>
>>> Goodness is just acting towards a goal that you are programmed to
>>> desire. What else could it be?
>>
>>Ah, but I would argue that intelligence has a lot to do with the level of
>>success at reaching that goal.
>>
>>Knowledge can drastically improve our odds.
>
> All we have to do is keep the blind, the selfish, the unintellgent
> from being in control and making decisions that screw us all.
>
> That's today's war.
You said it!
What they seem to be doing is manipulating the world to make a vast monetary
shield against the world they're creating.
DanielSan
> On 19 Aug 2005 13:35:57 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>
>> They certainly will not share any concept of God with those we
>>have on our planet; it's even reasonable to believe that a majority of
>>them may not believe in God at all.
>
>
> How would he know?
>
> Yes, arithmetic is the same everywhere's, as is physics and chemistry. God made
> it that way.
No, that's the friend of Manfred's doing.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
Ted King
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
I couldn't get the link you provided in your original post to work
initially so I just went by the quotes you provided in my first reponse.
But I decided to give the link another try by whacking off part of it to
get to the general site and then burrow down to it. That worked. So,
upon hearing the whole discussion (at least what was provided at that
link) I can see what with the talk of "platonism" that, yes, indeed,
Dennet is thinking in terms of mathematical and ethical realism - that
such "truths" exist independent of our thoughts about them. In both
cases we "discover" these truths. With that clearly established, I would
agree that there isn't an is/ought problem (or even a naturalistic
fallacy) involved. Dennet is not saying that moral (prescriptive) claims
of truth are *derived* from descriptive claims (about what is) - instead
such claims of truth are somehow discovered as they exist in some
transcendent reality.
I'm a little concerned with the notion that something being "true by
definition" implies that it cannot be otherwise. All artificial
tautologies are, in a sense, "true by definition", but given the whim of
the human creator they could be otherwise. I think rather than frame the
issue as one of definition, it might be better to say that given the
assumption that there are transcendental moral truths (moral realism),
then those behaviors which are consistent with those truths are "morally
good". But, of course, the assumption that there are transcendental
moral truths is open to question. Even Dennet seems somewhat ambivalent
about this, as when he says he is agnostic with respect to the question
of whether or not there are universal principles of behavior for
intelligent beings.
Ted
Jim Burns
I suspect it's not so much like "1 + 1 = 2" as like "Don't
bet against the house, or eventually you'll lose."
I think that's a significant difference, because, even though
the second is inarguably true, it doesn't always look like it's
true. Sometimes someone will get a hot streak. Also, those
who 'believe in' "1 + 1 = 2" are, for most purposes, everyone.
There are lots of people who think they can find a system
to beat the house, enough to pay for all those lovely
casinos.
In the context of finding alien civilizations (or other kinds
of strangers), it's all fine and dandy if it's truly in the
stranger's best interest to be good, but that won't help you
much if the stranger doesn't believe that.
On the other hand, if we focus on long terms relationships
rather than first meetings, the weight of the mathematics
involved will have long enough to make themselves felt.
I think this may be yours and Dennett's point (although
I haven't listened to the interview).
I agree with that -- in the long run. The difficult part
is getting from the first meeting to the long run.
Jim Burns
Jim Burns
"Elf M. Sternberg" wrote:
>
> I think the point, reading Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous
> Idea," is that if you *don't* learn it, you're more likely to
> get killed. Being part of "the tribe" is the essential good.
> Wright (who operates the website where the Dennet interview
> took place), in his book "Non-Zero", turned me on to the idea
> that "the tribe" expands primarily as a function of economic
> ease of transaction: the easier it is to have an economic
> relationship with someone "far away," the more likely you're
> to view that person's well-being as significant to your own.
This makes sense to me. Romans built roads to tie their empire
together.
I suspect, though, that the important thing is the long-distance,
/long-term/ relationship, and it's less important that the
relationship be economic. Of course, economic relationships
seem to be easier to get going.
I wonder if the river of foreign students coming to the US
for graduate work for decades acted as a non-economic
"tribal" expansion, here moderating our isolationism and
overseas reducing anxiety over our increasingly stronger
position in the world.
Jim Burns
D. Stephen Heersink
have an intuitionist sense of morality by a posteriori reason. Check
it out.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:59:40 -0500, "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com>
wrote: