Beastie's fear

[_EAllusion]

For the aforementioned Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory (a respected, popular text used in courses on ethical philosophy):

The first paper in the text is a paper titled "Moral Realism." It is written by a well known philosopher out of Princeton, Micheal Smith. He writes,

"What do moral realists believe? The standard answer is they believe two things. First, they believe that the sentences we use when we make moral claims - sentences like "Torturing babies is wrong" and "Keeping promises is right" - are capable of either being true or false, and second, they believe some such sentences really are true. Moral realism thus contrasts with two quite distinct kinds of view.
The first view shares realism's first commitment, but rejects the second. According to this first alternative, when we make claims about acts being right and wrong, we intend thereby to make claims about the way the world is - we intend to say something capable of being true or false - but none of these sentences really are true. Wehen we engage in moral talk we presuppose that rightness and wrongness are features that acts could possess, but we are in error. There are no such features for acts to possess. This view generally goes under the name of Nihilism or the Error Theory (Nietzsche 1887, Mackie 1977)"

What's that? A highly respected, extensively published philosopher of ethics writing a metaethical text for a instructional volume on ethics defines the terms as I do? He claims that this is standard? Yet, my definitions are "idiosyncratic" and too "shallow and simplistic?"

Happily, the second essay in the volume is entitled Relativism. It is written by Simon Blackburn. He currently is a professor of philosophy at Cambridge. It's worth noting that Dr. Blackburn himself is an expressivist. He writes,

"Relativism in ethical theory is the doctrine that ethical truth is somehow relative to the background body of doctrine, or theory, or form of life, or "whirl of organism." It is an exression of the thdea that there is no one true body of doctrine in ethics. There are different views, and some are true for some people, while others are true for others.

This should be distinguished from what is sometimes thought of in ethics itself, a practical stance that encourages toleration fo different societies or different approaches to practical living. This toleration could in principle coinciden with an absolutist theory of ethics, according to which there is just one correct body of ethical doctrine. For that one correct body of docrtine could, in principle, include the view that it is permissible or even obligatory to tolearte people who do things differently."

Hey, what do you know? This conforms to what I and the Standford Encyclopedia of PHilosophy said. Idiosyncratic indeed.

For good measure, let's return to the first essay for a quote that I might need to bring up to explain what "true for me, but not for you" can look like.

"Rightness is supposed to be that feature, whatever it is, that we would desire our acts to possess if our desires formed a set that is maximally informed, coherent, and unified,. But is the idea supposed to be that the "we" referred to in the analysis includes all rational creatures? In other words, is the idea that we would all converge in the desires we would have under idealized conditions of reflection? Or does the "we" include only some subset of rational creatures? Does it include, say, me and those who desire things similar to things that I actually desire? In otherwords, are contingent and rationally optional culturally induced differences in our actual desires supposed to make convergence in the desires would would have under conditions of idealized reflection impossible? If the latter, then the theory is relativistic."

(He references Gilbert Harman here. He is one of the few philosophers you will find in mainstream academia who defend ethical relativism. It'd be instructive to read what he is saying. I believe the SEoP article I referenced discusses him.)

[_beastie]

Good job with that geographic argument Wade. Moreover, Beastie was pointing out that in the US abortions are predominantly used by the religious majority in the US. To turn that argument on its head, you'd need to show that this was opposite case in other countries. Pointing out gross abortion statistics don't do that. And I imagine what you want to argue would be the case, because non-religious people are less likely to have a moral problem with abortion or cultural pressure to avoid it. Low abortion statistics among atheists specifically has to do with the use of contraception among atheists and the elevated wealth and education of atheists relative to the population. Abortion rates, measure a slightly different thing, as they are number of abortions per known pregnancy. Given what you are arguing about, you want to be looking at abortion per capita numbers. For instance, teen pregnancy rates are much more common in religious geographic areas. The Bible belt also doubles as the teen pregnancy belt. The reason why there are far more secular countries with lower abortion rates lies more in sexual practices less likely to result in unwanted pregnancy. First age of sexual activity tends to be lower and contraception use tends to be higher.

That was pretty funny, wasn't it?

[_wenglund]

Then, we agree on that point.

However, I am moved to ask, "So?". Is God-influenced change in morals necessarily something to be feared?

How many times do I have to answer this, and in how many ways?

Sometimes it is not to be feared. Sometimes it is.

Ignoring for the moment your clear reference to the origin and nature of morals (I.e. "natural instincts") which you ironicaly claimed you didn't want to discuss because of assumed irrelevancy, could you explain why you believe the so-caled "revulsion" necessarily spells trouble?

"So-called revulsion". LOL. Well, I guess it is true that some believers who think God is telling them to kill others, or to have secret relationships with other people's spouses may not experience revulsion over these ideas at first. But that's another story.

If God actually did the unthinkable (and God tends to do that from time to time) and said that it was fine for adult men to have sex with young boys, wouldn't YOU experience revulsion???? If he told you to shoot young children and women point blank in the head, wouldn't YOU experience revulsion????

The revulsion spells trouble because it usually signals a behavior is counter-productive to the successful survival and reproduction, which requires interdependence. So it usually signals that the behavior is dangerous to others.

Did you do any reading on tit-for-tat, reciprocal altruism? You keep expressing curiosity about this point, and that curiosity could be easily satisfied with a simple google search and a couple of reads. I doubt that you have done any reading to this point, because your questions could actually be answered therein.

Would it surprise you to learn that, for the most part, I agree? I believe the "revulsion" test is a good rule of thumb. But, I wouldn't restrict its application to religionist, but believe it beneficial to apply it across the board. Do you agree?

I even like the notion that "revulsion" may be an internal signal of counter-productiving and threats to successful survival, though I may differ with you as to who or what all is the source and nature of that internal signal. ;-)

I would also suggest that whether or not the "revulsion" is felt (not always is "trouble" preceeded by "revulsion"), that our inclination for productivity and successful survival (which I believe would include satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved, to value and be valued, and to be meaningful to self and others) should be a governing factor in our decisionmaking. Do you agree?

In fact, shouldn't it govern, to some degree, whether or not we should participate on this discussion board (I am not just refering to the "revolting" elements), but how often and in what ways we should participate? (I realize that I am leaving myself open to a slam here, but I am fine with that.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Would it surprise you to learn that, for the most part, I agree? I believe the "revulsion" test is a good rule of thumb. But, I wouldn't restrict its application to religionist, but believe it beneficial to apply it across the board. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree.

I even like the notion that "revulsion" may be an internal signal of counter-productiving and threats to successful survival, though I may differ with you as to who or what all is the source and nature of that internal signal. ;-)

I would also suggest that whether or not the "revulsion" is felt (not always is "trouble" preceeded by "revulsion"), that our inclination for productivity and successful survival (which I believe would include satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved, to value and be valued, and to be meaningful to self and others) should be a governing factor in our decisionmaking. Do you agree?

Generally, yes, although you're starting to get into some ambiguous areas, as noted below.

In fact, shouldn't it govern, to some degree, whether or not we should participate on this discussion board (I am not just refering to the "revolting" elements), but how often and in what ways we should participate? (I realize that I am leaving myself open to a slam here, but I am fine with that.)

If participating on this board is counter-productive to one's life, then that person should stop participating on this board.

Aside from that, the ambiguity in this position is that we have critically different opinions on what the LDS church is, and what our moral responsibilities are in regards to it. So while a believer may think that criticism of the church demeans him or her personally (and I believe you've expressed a similar idea, that you feel personally attacked when the church is attacked), the critic may think that it's his/her moral responsibility to share information about potentially fraudulent LDS claims.

Aside from that, if you agree that revulsion is a good indicator to avoid certain behavior, why would you consider working to overcome that revulsion if God sanctioned the revolting behavior?

[_wenglund]

Would it surprise you to learn that, for the most part, I agree? I believe the "revulsion" test is a good rule of thumb. But, I wouldn't restrict its application to religionist, but believe it beneficial to apply it across the board. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree.

I even like the notion that "revulsion" may be an internal signal of counter-productiving and threats to successful survival, though I may differ with you as to who or what all is the source and nature of that internal signal. ;-)

I would also suggest that whether or not the "revulsion" is felt (not always is "trouble" preceeded by "revulsion"), that our inclination for productivity and successful survival (which I believe would include satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved, to value and be valued, and to be meaningful to self and others) should be a governing factor in our decisionmaking. Do you agree?

Generally, yes, although you're starting to get into some ambiguous areas, as noted below.

In fact, shouldn't it govern, to some degree, whether or not we should participate on this discussion board (I am not just refering to the "revolting" elements), but how often and in what ways we should participate? (I realize that I am leaving myself open to a slam here, but I am fine with that.)

If participating on this board is counter-productive to one's life, then that person should stop participating on this board.

Aside from that, the ambiguity in this position is that we have critically different opinions on what the LDS church is, and what our moral responsibilities are in regards to it. So while a believer may think that criticism of the church demeans him or her personally (and I believe you've expressed a similar idea, that you feel personally attacked when the church is attacked), the critic may think that it's his/her moral responsibility to share information about potentially fraudulent LDS claims.

I understand about differences of opinion. But, isn't the point less about differences of opinion and more about being governed by the criteria of productivity and successful survival. In other words, shouldn't the so-called 'moral responsibility to share information" be a function of productivity and successful survival? (I think we are now closing in on the heart of the matter as I see it.)

Aside from that, if you agree that revulsion is a good indicator to avoid certain behavior, why would you consider working to overcome that revulsion if God sanctioned the revolting behavior?

While I find "revulsion" to be a good indicator, I don't see it as an infalable indicator, nor do I see it as the only indicator. I find it useful to rationally test and weigh the emotion of "revultion" against a variety of epistemic factors and external inputs/feedback (both natural and spiritual).

Do you have any way of rationally testing and weighing "revultion"? If so, then what?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I understand about differences of opinion. But, isn't the point less about differences of opinion and more about being governed by the criteria of productivity and successful survival. In other words, shouldn't the so-called 'moral responsibility to share information" be a function of productivity and successful survival? (I think we are now closing in on the heart of the matter as I see it.)

I suppose you could live your life governed solely by survival and reproductive success. Many people do. However, many human beings, due to the nature of our thinking skills, have determined that a "productive" and successful life is also dependent on recognizing and honoring factual information, and using that factual information to help us determine how to live our lives.

Evolutionary dictates do not equate personal happiness and fulfillment. Sometimes we have to choose to go beyond evolutionary dictates and basic instincts to find that.

While I find "revulsion" to be a good indicator, I don't see it as an infalable indicator, nor do I see it as the only indicator. I find it useful to rationally test and weigh the emotion of "revultion" against a variety of epistemic factors and external inputs/feedback (both natural and spiritual).

Do you have any way of rationally testing and weighing "revultion"? If so, then what?

People know when they feel revulsion. No test or weighing is necessary.

Seriously, if you don't recognize when you feel revulsion, then something is very wrong with you.

[_ludwigm]

...

Percent of known pregnancies ending in legal abortions, most recent data (2005):
Russia: 52.5%
Greenland: 50.2%
....
US: 23.9%
....
Utah: 6.6%

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can an utahn woman make a little vacation in another state
- 1. to hide her condemned deed ?
- 2. to make the state statistic better ?

Good job with that geographic argument Wade. Moreover, Beastie was pointing out that in the US abortions are predominantly used by the religious majority in the US. To turn that argument on its head, you'd need to show that this was opposite case in other countries. Pointing out gross abortion statistics don't do that. And I imagine what you want to argue would be the case, because non-religious people are less likely to have a moral problem with abortion or cultural pressure to avoid it. Low abortion statistics among atheists specifically has to do with the use of contraception among atheists and the elevated wealth and education of atheists relative to the population. Abortion rates, measure a slightly different thing, as they are number of abortions per known pregnancy. Given what you are arguing about, you want to be looking at abortion per capita numbers. For instance, teen pregnancy rates are much more common in religious geographic areas. The Bible belt also doubles as the teen pregnancy belt. The reason why there are far more secular countries with lower abortion rates lies more in sexual practices less likely to result in unwanted pregnancy. First age of sexual activity tends to be lower and contraception use tends to be higher.

That was pretty funny, wasn't it?

Can a country, a state or any group make cosmetic changes in the statistic ? (for any purpose, for example looking better)

Anyway, statistic may be a two-edged sword.

[_wenglund]

I understand about differences of opinion. But, isn't the point less about differences of opinion and more about being governed by the criteria of productivity and successful survival. In other words, shouldn't the so-called 'moral responsibility to share information" be a function of productivity and successful survival? (I think we are now closing in on the heart of the matter as I see it.)

I suppose you could live your life governed solely by survival and reproductive success. Many people do. However, many human beings, due to the nature of our thinking skills, have determined that a "productive" and successful life is also dependent on recognizing and honoring factual information, and using that factual information to help us determine how to live our lives.

Evolutionary dictates do not equate personal happiness and fulfillment. Sometimes we have to choose to go beyond evolutionary dictates and basic instincts to find that.

I agree. In fact, some of us utilize religion to "go beyond" what you call "evolutionary dictates and basic instincts" (or as some may call it: the "natural man") , and have found it to be a wonderful means for fascilitating happiness and fulfillment. As long as religion is productive in enabling its adherents to be happy and fulfilled and to successfully survive thereby, then what is there to fear?

While I find "revulsion" to be a good indicator, I don't see it as an infalable indicator, nor do I see it as the only indicator. I find it useful to rationally test and weigh the emotion of "revultion" against a variety of epistemic factors and external inputs/feedback (both natural and spiritual).

Do you have any way of rationally testing and weighing "revultion"? If so, then what?

People know when they feel revulsion. No test or weighing is necessary.

Seriously, if you don't recognize when you feel revulsion, then something is very wrong with you.

[/quote]

You misunderstood my question. As should be obvious from the context in which the question was asked (see the paragraph preceeding my question), I wasn't asking about testing and weighing whether or not someone is experiencing revulsion or not, but rather, given what I believe to be the fallibility of feelings of revoltion, testing whether each experienced revulsion is, respectively, a "good indicator" of what is in one's interest productivity and successful survival wise.

In other words, as with other strong emotions like anger and hate, there is the potential for revultion to be fallible in a variety of ways, not the least of which is disproportionality, inappropriatness, and dysfunctionality. Because of the fallibility, I ask again, "Do you have any way of rationally testing and weighing "revultion"? If so, then what?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

...

Percent of known pregnancies ending in legal abortions, most recent data (2005):
Russia: 52.5%
Greenland: 50.2%
....
US: 23.9%
....
Utah: 6.6%

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can an utahn woman make a little vacation in another state
- 1. to hide her condemned deed ?
- 2. to make the state statistic better ?

Yes, a Utah woman can go to other states, but the statistics I quoted from account for that. The in-state statistics were 6.0 %, whereas the total statistics were 6.6%

Fascinating, huh--Particularly when compared with the 50% or so abortion rate for some relatively godless nations?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-