From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:09:27 GMT

In <Bs3ytH.GyK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <viking.712307557@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Prove that God exists, using only facts and rational basis.  Please
>ds> contrast this with agnostic and atheistic beliefs.  The lesson is left
>ds> as an exercise for the reader of this post (if we're annoying you, let
>ds> us know and we'll take it to e-mail).

>You're confusing ethics with religious speculation.  Why should I 
>try to prove that any gods exist, in view of the fact that I have 
>no evidence to support such a proof?  On the other hand, I could 
>present quite a bit of evidence to show that such actions as 
>murder, rape, and slavery cause more harm than good, and hence, 
>ought to be considered unethical.  

	Virtually all of this evidence would be based on the belief
that individual suffering is bad and hence this outweighs any benefits
the perpetrator might receive.  For slavery, the belief is that the
loss of freedom outweighs the increased leisure time of the owner.  I
submit this is a belief and cannot be proven using "facts."  I also
don't think "social science" exists as a hard science, I believe it to
be opinions that resemble reality.  If I want facts, I measure physical
laws.  That's it.  Most everything else is opinion, which is a belief
supported by some evidence.

>For you to insist that my judgment of murder, rape, and slavery 
>can't be empirically and rationally evaluated, simply because
>your speculation about gods can't be similarly evaluated, doesn't
>make much sense to me.  It's tantamount to saying that no scientific
>observation can be verified simply because a particular fairy tale
>can't be verified.

	Can you measure the amount of "bad" in a rape, or a slave?
Until then, all you have is empirical evidence, which means, "My uncle
Charlie hit me and I didn't like it, so naturally that must hold true
for all beings."  Forget it, Russ -- empirical evaluations are hardly
science no matter how nifty the word sounds.  For this reason one can
make an empirical evaluation on the power of Allah by reading the Koran
and heeding the words of Mohammed, but when it's all done you've done
nothing but verified a fairy by listening to the opinions of the
people who believe it was a true story.  They could still be wrong, and
you'll notice no facts were necessary.

>ds> It's quite similar to saying, "God is good." and then demanding 
>ds> proof one way or the other.  It doesn't work, and never will, 
>ds> because there is no underlying "fact" to base arguments on.  
>ds> Thus, our disagreements.  

>rl> No, it's not like saying, "God is good".  Such a statement is,
>rl> to the best of my knowledge, not supported by any empirical
>rl> data.  

>ds> Neither are ethics, and I eagerly await your reply...

>I asked you previously whether it would be good or bad for someone
>to poke total strangers in the eye with an ice pick just for the
>fun of it.   In evaluating the goodness or badness of such an
>action, would you be able to cite facts and reason to support your
>conclusions?  Or, would your decision be totally arbitrary, like 
>proving that Santa Claus does or does not wear red trousers?

	Arbitrary, of course, unless you can think of a way to measure
the goodness of badness of a situation.  So what's the problem?  Here
I claim I have to make empirical decisions and that's what you wanted
me to do above!  Does it just make you unhappy that I don't agree that
an empirical decision means an ethically right or true decision?

>[Bear in mind that I'm asking you for _your_ opinion.  Please don't
>respond with the worn-out retort that the goodness or badness of
>eye poking would depend on what society thinks.]

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

>ds> I have, and I find that they change with societal structure...

>Beliefs about the nature of the heavens have also changed from 
>culture to culture.  It wasn't all that long ago that educated 
>western men considered the earth to be the center of the universe.  
>Would the diversity in such astronomical beliefs lead you 
>to assert that our modern heliocentric conception of the solar 
>system is purely arbitrary?  Or, would you be willing to admit 
>that our conception is, indeed, based on factual evidence?  

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

>As I pointed out previously, you seem to be unwilling to recognize
>the discrepancies that often exist between a set of symbols and the
>real objects that those symbols are intended to represent.  Critical
>thinkers would use the terms, "truth" and "falsity", to label such 
>descrepancies.   To the extent that you banish such terms from
>your vocabulary, are you not seriously limiting your ability
>to critically evaluate ideas?

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

>> ...
>rl> ...  We can't blame individuals for acting on the
>rl> basis of the best information that they might have available.
>rl> On the other hand, this doesn't mean that witch-burning is a
>rl> good thing, simply because some people subscribed to the notion.

>ds> But if 99% of the society subscribed to it, then it was obviously 
>ds> a "good thing" for that 99% at that time...  

>Not really.  Ignorance isn't bliss.  The tremendous suffering 
>caused by such religious beliefs in the 15th, 16th, and 17th 
>centuries was real, not legendary.  

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

>ds> This is my caveat I refuse to release, since releasing it means 
>ds> any beliefs we might hold that are refuted make us "wrong," 
>ds> despite the best we can do with present information.  In other 
>ds> words, until it's proven it is an opinion, and an opinion is 
>ds> always correct to the believer.  

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

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

>If you're going to continually insist that a false idea isn't really 
>false as long as it's believed, then please tell us what adjective
>the rest of us can use to label ideas that are truly inaccurate 
>representations of the real world.

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

<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. >