Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind?
Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,014 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 01:50 PM
So it's about improviing the experience of all conscious minds that exist.

That remark seems oddly "spiritual." :biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I never said atheists weren't ethical people, did I? I never said you have to be a theist to love your wife and kids and do nice things, did I?

And it doesn't matter to me -- you should be asking Jeff since it really seems to matter to him. 


Hmm but you've alluded in the past to this 'death' of ethics as having some kind of significance - resulting in people going around wailing on each other. [Your response to Ax was that you were going to go out and trip little old ladies up].

If this "death of ethics" is merely the death of a classical view that is tied directly to undefineable meta-stuff but that people will still continue behaving ethically, still continue using the words "ethics" "right" "wrong" "good" "bad", still continue putting forward different arguments for whether some policy or decision or occurance is good/bad, right/wrong. Then surely describing neuroscience as the "last assault on ethics" is rather misplaced. No?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
As far as i'm concerned ethics is about attempting to build a better world for all entities to which the term "better" can apply. So it's about improviing the experience of all conscious minds that exist.


That is precisely what Hitler wanted.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
What was all the stuff about Aryans being so much more important than other people then?

Further he didn't act like that's what he wanted. If some deranged person wants a big house and because he's deranged starts blowing up local people's shed because he thinks this will somehow get him his wish this is not evidence for anything other than the fact he's deranged.

Finally even if Hitler did want maximal utility, and wasn't deranged (and this combination is clearly not true) then his failure does not mean that wanting maximal utility leads to genocide or awful consequences. It would simply serve as a the repeated lesson that sacrificing large numbers of people for highly uncertain and unrealistic visions of Utopia doesn't work.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
You are dancing. Hitler wanted a world that was better in the way he viewed it and, if he had succeeded, the whole world (those who were left) would have believed it to be better as well. After generations of inculcation (Hitler Jungen et al) their "ethic" would have been indestinguishable as something good from anything you tie yourself to.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
oops.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Hitler wanted a world that was better in the way he viewed it


I'm not talking about the way "someone views it" i'm talking about what it _is_. As i said before there is an objective answer to the question of whether X is good for some person or some group people or the collection of all minds.

Quote:
 

and, if he had succeeded, the whole world (those who were left) would have believed it to be better as well.


What people would have believed is completely differnet to whether some set of actions actually caused a net increase in utility, nor does it affect whether his decisions were good decisions in light of a wish to cause a net increase to utility.

Quote:
 

After generations of inculcation (Hitler Jungen et al) their "ethic" would have been indestinguishable as something good from anything you tie yourself to.


I don't see your point here.

As far as i'm concerned ethics is about maximising the utility of the universe. I don't think Hitler was concerned with that, even if he was, his deranged actions do not imply anything other than that he was deranged. Even if he wasn't deranged, even if he had attempted some master Utilitarian calculation, all his example shows us is that his calculation sucked. We can learn from this - don't go sacrificing millions of people for uncertain ill-thought through ideas of Utopia.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Posted Image
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
No God:

No good and evil. Just naughty and nice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
quoting a man I admire, "With the Bible, you have 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth'...with Darwin, you have 'blessed are the fittest, for they shall survive'."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Evolution does not tell us what is ethical it tells us what happens. The two are very separate entities.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
I just don't see how good and evil can be defined without ethics and morality.

Without morality, what Hitler did was no worse, or no better, than an African Plains predator munching on his supper.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
nothing is separate from anything else within the universe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 03:10 PM
Evolution does not tell us what is ethical it tells us what happens. The two are very separate entities.

EXACTLY.

Evolution tells us what happens.

What tells us what is ethical?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Deb
 
nothing is separate from anything else within the universe


Exactly, morality and ethnics notwithstanding, everything is governed by the laws of physics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Moonbat (whose penis measures 2") Don't know how to tell you any more plainly. you obviously have been smitten by the notion that there is some sort of universal ethic to which all sufficiently enlightened persons will repair. That is bunk. History is replete with examples of societies whose ethics diverged (radically, in some cases) from anything we might find acceptable but it was no less ethical to them. There is no reason to believe that we have forever purged that from the human psyche making that impossible again. You say that something cannot be called an ethic simply because people happen to believe in it but that is no more than you have for any ethic you might seriously entertain. Their belief can be bolstered with arguments just as bullet proof as any you might bring to bear.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
JB, a good example would be the Aztecs. The destruction of Aztecs by Cortez and the Spanish was an act of humanitarianism. The Aztecs as a society were beyond total depavity and acceptable morality- total savages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 12 2007, 03:25 PM
JB, a good example would be the Aztecs. The destruction of Aztecs by Cortez and the Spanish was an act of humanitarianism. The Aztecs as a society were beyond total depavity and acceptable morality- total savages.

Not for them. They were perfectly in accord with their acceptable morality. And AC, who the hell are you to call any one and savage? We are all the same under universal health benefits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
Apr 12 2007, 03:21 PM
Moonbat (whose penis measures 2") Don't know how to tell you any more plainly. you obviously have been smitten by the notion that there is some sort of universal ethic to which all sufficiently enlightened persons will repair. That is bunk. History is replete with examples of societies whose ethics diverged (radically, in some cases) from anything we might find acceptable but it was no less ethical to them. There is no reason to believe that we have forever purged that from the human psyche making that impossible again. You say that something cannot be called an ethic simply because people happen to believe in it but that is no more than you have for any ethic you might seriously entertain. Their belief can be bolstered with arguments just as bullet proof as any you might bring to bear.

Not to let it slide--great post, JB.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
And AC, who the hell are you to call any one and savage?



Savages, every last one them. Just like Islamicists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 12 2007, 03:31 PM
Savages, every last one them. Just like Islamicists.

Then what makes us so special?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Moonbat (whose penis measures 2") Don't know how to tell you any more plainly. you obviously have been smitten by the notion that there is some sort of universal ethic to which all sufficiently enlightened persons will repair. That is bunk. History is replete with examples of societies whose ethics diverged (radically, in some cases) from anything we might find acceptable but it was no less ethical to them. There is no reason to believe that we have forever purged that from the human psyche making that impossible again. You say that something cannot be called an ethic simply because people happen to believe in it but that is no more than you have for any ethic you might seriously entertain. Their belief can be bolstered with arguments just as bullet proof as any you might bring to bear.


A straw man extravaganza.

I never claimed that "sufficiently enlightened persons will repair" to anything. (though i think there is a very good reason to think that human society will converge to something quite like Utilitarianism, however that has nothing to do with "enlightenment" and everything to do with the forces that influence social evolution).

I never said different people don't have different concepts of ethics. I said that there is an objective concept of good and bad, and then defined precisely what i meant by the sentence "there is an objective concept of good and bad".

I never claimed that we have "forever purged this from the human ethic" what ever that even means.

I'm uninterested in whether people want to call something a certain word like "ethic" or not for that is mere semantics and of no consequence.

Regarding arguments, i think Utilitarianism is the strongest system of ethics intellectually because it defines itself on self-evidence concepts. Everything else has to say "X is bad because we say it is" Utilitarians appeal to a concept of good and bad that is self-evidently real. Namely that there are negative and positive aspects to experience. Any of you are capable of verifying that as true.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 03:36 PM

I never said different people don't have different concepts of ethics. I said that there is an objective concept of good and bad, and then defined precisely what i meant by the sentence "there is an objective concept of good and bad".


there is certainly no objective concept of good and bad. If 40 million Germans think that killing Jews is "good" for Germany. (With real objective results.) Maybe killing Jews might not be a bad thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

there is certainly no objective concept of good and bad. If 40 million Germans think that killing Jews is "good" for Germany. (With real objective results.) Maybe killing Jews might not be a bad thing.


It's bad overall though. The net effect, when considering all of conscious experience, the utility of the universe, that effect is bad.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 10:50 AM

I agree with you  assesment that without theology there is no difference between bad and evil. But i find it of no consequence.


This I can respect -- at least you are trying to be consistent, even if both "evil" and "bad" mean a privation of a good. What you are really saying here -- perhaps unintentionally -- is that without theology there is no difference between any evaluation of a thing (bad as a general category of deficiency) and morality (evil as a specific category of a moral deficiency).

But in your understanding of ethics you seem inconsistent, namely:

Quote:
 


As far as i'm concerned ethics is about attempting to build a better world for all entities to which the term "better" can apply. So it's about improviing the experience of all conscious minds that exist.


So the bottom line is that what you call "ethical" is a descriptor for those biomachines that produce the response to stimuli that thinks it knows what a better world would be and will do whatever is necessary to achieve it?

By that definition both Pol Pot and Mao were deeply ethical people.

Also, I am concerned that by this definition there can be no moral imperative to even try to build a better world. Yet ethics must have an *ought* -- a moral imperative -- to recommend human action. You even presuppose a "what ought to be" -- namely a better world.

So it seems that by this definition either there is no moral imperative for any of us to build a better world -- and that your term "ethics" is an idiosyncretic word for your hobby; or that ethics classically understood is still a valid discipline. Which is it?

Moonbat
Apr 12 2007, 11:00 AM

Hmm but you've alluded in the past to this 'death' of ethics as having some kind of significance - resulting in people going around wailing on each other. [Your response to Ax was that you were going to go out and trip little old ladies up].

I see that your biomachine is profoundly deficient in the *humour* processor.
Quote:
 


If this "death of ethics" is merely the death of a classical view that is tied directly to undefineable meta-stuff but that people will still continue behaving ethically, still continue using the words "ethics" "right" "wrong" "good" "bad", still continue putting forward different arguments for whether some policy or decision or occurance is good/bad, right/wrong. Then surely describing neuroscience as the "last assault on ethics" is rather misplaced. No?


Not misplaced at all. Once one determines that the project of "improviing the experience of all conscious minds" can most efficiently be accomplished by tweaking the neurochemistry, it all depends on what one decides "improving the experience" entails. For many people, the tension of choosing between conflicting goods is what makes life worthwhile. It is also the foundational understanding that classically allowed biomachines to be considered "moral beings" and to make "ethical choices".

This phenomenon that was classically considered "free will" now must be presumed to be a mechanical process, and therefore able to be manipulated to achieve the desired output of whatever another biomachine determines is "improving the experience".

Yet it is precisely that faculty which is the source of all "evil" or bad choices that adversely impact the experience of other self aware biomachines. So that must be the ultimate object of your "ethics".

yet without free will there is no ethics. Now that we see that free will can be reduced to a mechanical process, once the process is tweaked free will is destroyed and with it ethics.

Materialism has a wonderful track record in this regard -- lobotomies, electric shock therapy, chemical castration, and other magnificent experiments on biomachines, all under the guise of "attempting to build a better world for all entities to which the term "better" can apply."

Your improvement project will most like do monstrous damage to humanity.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply