From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:37:25 GMT

In <Bs52IG.3Fq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Dan Sorenson writes:

>ds> Virtually all of this evidence would be based on the belief that 
>ds> individual suffering is bad and hence this outweighs any benefits 
>ds> the perpetrator might receive...  

>Is it merely a matter of stylish belief that suffering is bad?  
>If that's the case, why is it that the vast majority of feeling 
>individuals, regardless of their cultural background, strive to 
>avoid pain?  Perhaps you think that the even the dumbest of 
>mammals and birds avoid pain simply because of a culturally 
>engendered, arbitrary "belief" that pain is not good?  Or, would 
>you be willing to admit that some types of suffering have nothing 
>to do with the cognitive realm of "beliefs", but are hardwired into the 
>anatomy at a very primitive level.  

	There is a big difference between physical pain and what we might
call suffering.  I believe I am suffering if I am within earshot of rap
music, but it causes no physical pain.  In addition, a bee sting causes
a fair amount of pain, but I wouldn't say I was suffering because of it.
What is hardwired into the body has little bearing on suffering, and
pain cannot be measured like an electric field to provide evaluation in
supporting the belief that some benefits might be worth some pain.

>ds> You're tired of that one, eh?  Have you ever given a convincing
>ds> reason to not subscribe to this view?

>Not in this forum, but I'll be happy to engage in such a 
>discussion after you and I manage to agree that "goodness" isn't 
>always a product of mere belief, like Sunday School 
>etiquette-rules or the cut of an italian suit, and that an idea isn't 
>necessarily a truthful representation of reality just because 
>it's sincerely believed.  

	This should be rather fun to listen to, but unfortunately I do
not subscribe to the first idea you mention above.  The second is
obvious, but I tend to think that beliefs are what the individual views
as reality, flawed or not.  You know, Plato's cave and all that.  The
former I disagree with because "goodness" is an abstract concept that
cannot be measured, or consistently evaluated.  In such a case, there
is no way to judge the goodness of a decision except on belief.

>ds> I'll admit that our conception is based on factual evidence,
>ds> but I submit that the factual evidence available to the ancients as
>ds> proof of their views was no less real, or valid, or true, than what
>ds> we know today.  Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Ether are no less valid
>ds> to a Greek of antiquity than hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen,
>ds> nitrogen, and plutonium are to us.  The same goes for the ethical views.

>Once again, you're assuming that the adjective, "truthful", is 
>antonymous with "deceitful".  The fact that an idea is believed 
>doesn't mean that it's an accurate reflection of reality.  

	It doesn't have to be an accurate reflection of reality to be
believed, or to be believed as truth.  You're choosing to ignore that all
reality is merely what we believe we sense.  If truth is reality, or
fact, then this is why we believe things to be true, or correct, and
for all intents and purposes they are reality until a better one is
proposed.  See, I used only one definition there.

>ds> I don't think I am.  I think it furthers my ability to evaluate
>ds> ideas, because I am always willing to admit that I may not have all the
>ds> information or knowledge available on the subject.  This of it this way,
>ds> Russ (symbols and stuff for you to think on).  Truth is pi, a real
>ds> number.  It exists, it's certain, it has a value.  Reality, which is
>ds> where I happen to live and think, is 22/7, or perhaps 3.141592654; I know
>ds> it's not exactly the true value, but since I know it's not perfect I can
>ds> also determine if it's close enough for my purposes.

>It's apparent to some of us that humility and skepticism only surface
>in your arguments when you're looking for an escape hatch. :-)

	Escape hatch?  The only escape from this argument is the "U"
button, and I'm not pressing it.  I am a humble sceptic only because I
know Einstein could be proven wrong, but right now it's the reality and
law that I live under, and it's correct for me now.  Not that I could
prove Einstein wrong, you understand...

>Getting back to the question of critical thinking, do you really endorse
>the notion that the earth is a flat body lying at the center of the
>universe, and that burning heretics might dispell demons?  Or, would
>you say that such beliefs are false?  In view of the fact that you
>are such a humble man, would you seek out a barber, knowledgeable
>in bloodletting, if you were suffering from fever?  

	Burning heretics only provides some entertainment, the Earth
is a curved sphere orbiting a fusion furnace in an ecliptical path,
and I haven't seen a barber in years.  When suffering from a fever,
I seek out a physician, who usually draws blood for some reason.  ;-)
Two hundred years from now, will we go to a physician or a technician
when we suffer from an ailment?  Right now there may or may not be
intelligent life in this universe besides our own.  There is no way
to prove this one way or the other.  I choose to think there is, but
it's only a belief of mine.  If it's ever proven that no other life
exists, am I wrong now, or will I be wrong then?

>ds> Of course it was real.  What it ethical?  The Church of the
>ds> time said so, the Kings said so, many thousands of volunteers 
>ds> seemed to think it was so...  

>The fact that a group of people might believe the earth to be flat
>and heretic-burning to be an activity that's good for victims and 
>society alike, doesn't make it so.  The true badness of heretic 
>burning and religious wars were demonstrably evident, even to 
>devout believers, by the end of the 17th century, and that 
>evidence helped bring about the respect for human rights that 
>began to manifest itself in the following century.  

	Until that time, though, was it a good thing or a bad thing?
I'd submit that it was a good thing to do when the people thought it a
good thing, and a bad thing once it was recognized as such.  The time
difference is the point of contention -- ethics are not absolute over
time and space, in other words.

>ds> Was it?  How do you explain any difference of opinion you might 
>ds> have with a Crusader?  Could it be it's ethical for him to fight 
>ds> a Holy War and not for you?  You remind me of the people who 
>ds> wonder why suicide missions get volunteers, these same people 
>ds> also of the opinion that nothing is worth dying for.  Think about 
>ds> it.  Ethics are values, and each of us has different ones.  What 
>ds> society is to ethics, the dollar is to value.  Understand?  

>We both agree that ethics involves values.  We disagree on the role
>that empiricism and reason ought to play in judging those values.

	What's the value of a dollar?  Empiricism and reason would tell
you it's worth four candy bars, or a gallon of gasoline, or an hour of
parking, or something like that.  Pricing around will show different
values being placed on that dollar by different people.  Japan, on the
other hand, values that dollar at 150 yen.  Individual Japanese won't,
but collectively this is what the dollar is worth to the Japanese.  I
submit that emiricism and reason play as little role in societal ethics
as they do on Wall Street.  Their role is to the individuals.

>rl> You're not making much sense here.  Do you really believe that you can
>rl> banish falsity by simply declaring that false ideas don't exist?

>ds> Only if you believed I was right, Russ. ;-)

>Is it possible for you to conceive of the existence of a false idea,
>apart from deliberate lies?  

	You mean like black men being better able to play basketball?
Sure it's a false idea.  What is it to the person who believes it and
just thinks those who don't have been brainwashed?

>ds> You used it yourself, Russ -- inaccurate.  It has a nice ring to 
>ds> it, doesn't it?  Despite having all the facts available, it is 
>ds> possible to made a claim that is in error.  When these facts are 
>ds> later known and your claim refuted, were you wrong for those 
>ds> years where everybody thought you were correct?  In hindsight, 
>ds> yes.  Since you don't have the advantage of hindsight when you 
>ds> make the claim, then I believe you were right at that time.  It's 
>ds> an important distinction I make in judging moral and ethical 
>ds> correctness of others (as in, I don't judge the past or future.  

>You're laboring with the misconception that our judgment of an 
>idea is a personal reflection on the thinker of the idea, and 
>that we have some sort of obligation to vindicate all sincere 
>ideas lest we condemn the men and women who subscribed to them.  
>In effect, you're refusing to judge ideas because you 
>(erroneously) believe that such judgments reflect back on the 
>proponents of those ideas, as though a bad idea could only come 
>from a tainted "soul".   

	Bingo on the idea, missed a bit on the "soul" thing, but
you're right the rest of the way.  I wouldn't call Plato an idiot
because he was later proven wrong any more than I'd call you one
if it turns out animals are all just cleverly disguised remote
monitoring devices set up by aliens.  Are you still right, Russ,
even with this possibility of being proven wrong despite all the
reasoning, evaluation, and empiricism in your arguments?  If the
deer I shot was really just a clever camera powered by electro-
chemical energy, is it still unethical to shoot?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >