From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The (alleged) Errors of Socialism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:31:56 GMT

In article <93027.155504SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.204907.8517@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:
>
>>In article <93026.113155SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge
>><SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan26.010015.8889@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
>>>Morrison) says:
>
>>>>     Our ethical system was not designed by anyone; it is
>>>>traditional, handed down from generation to generation, and
>>>>learned by imitation.  Its progress and development were
>>>>achieved by a process of social evolution: those cultures
>>>>which adopted "good" ethical systems survived and flourished,
>>>>while those with "bad" ones either floundered or adopted more
>>>>successful ethical systems.  This subtle process of trial-and-
>>>>error has produced Western ethics, a highly successful system.
>>>
>>>Not by the accounts on which we base the system itself. The
>>>Western ethical and legal traditions still come out of
>>>Christian roots; and Christian tradition claims divine acts as
>>>its source. You may like or dislike that fact; but to claim
>>>some ethical "evolution" produced a morality based in fact on
>>>an interpretation of the Ten Commandments dodges the fundamental
>>>questions about the sources of our "ethical system".
>>>
>>
>>I think that is what he means by intuition and reason both
>>being necessary.
>
>What do you mean by "intuition and reason"? Dr. Hayak appears to
>claim that our ethics developed through a process of evolution.

Yes, evolution, intellect or reason, and the non-rational elements
for which he uses the term intuition, which would encompass things
like religious influences.  I think he is using "intuition" for
the non-rational parts of human nature which include the religious
or spiritual, and are as real and important as the rational. 
The intuitive aspects of human nature really only can enter 
via evolution and not via reason.

>I would point out that the people who "developed" these ethics
>did not, by and large, consider the process one of evolution;
>rather, they considered it an attempt to conform to principles
>laid down by divine guidance. Since we have access to the basic
>sources of these principles (the Bible, the Q'ran, and other
>religious texts) and they conform quite closely to the basic
>morality we follow today, I challenge the idea that evolution
>has produced our ethical values. Certainly, the evidence gives
>no clear support to this belief.
>

This is sort of a chicken-and-egg argument...the intuitive or
non-rational aspect of human nature creates the spirituality
or the religion which then influences what happens...the
effects of this non-rational part of human nature on society
if one looks at the evolution of society.

>I see no way in which the difference between intuition and
>reason makes any difference. I simply see too much difference
>between the stated conclusion and the available evidence.
>
>>I don't think he is imposing a value judgement about the quality
>>of life...he is discussing the scale of life, the scope of the
>>sphere of activity which affects the life that is lived.  I
>>sense no imposition of an idea of progress...only an idea of
>>history.
>
>Excuse me, I see a contradiction. Either you see the historical
>process as value neutral, in which case you can not logically
>use historical precedent as a source for values, or you do not
>see the historical process as value neutral. In order to see the
>separation of "large group" ethics and "small group" ethics as
>sensible, you have to argue that either (a) a logical basis
>exists for such a claim, or you have to argue that such a
>separation produced "better" societies. I suggest the use of
>words such as "rudimentary" to describe tribal economies suggests
>the superiority of a modern diversified economy without actually
>establishing it. Thus, I see it as another flaw in the argument.
>

I don't think there is a notion of better other than a notion
of "survival of what is most utile".  What is better is only
a product of the scale of life...the scale of modern technological
society is such that "large group" ethics are more utile...if
we were still hunters and gatherers...this would not be the
case.  Evolution moves toward what is optimal given the boundary
conditions...change the boundary condition, and what is optimal
changes...one set of boundary conditions is not "better" than
the other...they are only different.

>>Evolution does not necessarily connote progress...evolution is
>>merely a time line where one observes what happens.
>
>Correct. So how can we assume that the process Dr. Hayak outlines
>(even assuming the validity of his historical paradigm) gives us
>an acceptable starting point for a discussion of ethics? If we
>can't have rational ethics, we can use history as a source; but
>the use of history as a source for ethics assumes evolution
>involves progress, and the superiority of the ethics of societies
>that survived over those that did not.
>

I disagree that to use history to observe optimization connotes
any idea of progress...the evolutionary change in ethics is only
a result of changing boundaries conditions relating to the scale
of human existence...say hunter-gatherers vs. the information age
in the global village.  One system is only "better" than the other
with respect to what the conditions of existence are.

>>Evolution is survival of the fittest...the human beings who
>>best adapted to the emerging reality, partly through their
>>social, political, and economic structures survived.  You
>>are imposing a morality on the social evolution of humans based
>>on your current enlightened state.
>
>Damn right. Whereas your morality rests on a tautology: the "fittest"
>(the word "fit" contains a value judgement) survive because their
>social systems survive. In other words, the morality of the winners
>validates them by pronouncing them the most "fit". This certainly
>does not square with your earlier concept of evolution as value
>neutral.
>

What is optimal changes with the boundary conditions...the morality
is relative to the conditions of existence...an asteroid hitting
the earth creating enormous climate change changes the boundary
conditions, and could very well change what type of society is
optimal...there is no notion of progress or morality...it is 
just adaptation.

>Either we can base our social values on the historical process, or
>we can't. If the historical process we observe conflicts with the
>values we now hold, that strongly suggests we can not use it as a
>source for values.
>

I think you're getting Hegelian or Marxist again...history connotes
no notion of progress...Hegel and Marx were wrong...progress is
an absurd idea...history and evolution is optimization which perhaps
gives an illusion of progress...but it is not progress.

>>The culmination of the development of "extended order" ethics...
>>the idea of popular sovereignty and democracy did not really emerge
>>till around 300 hundred years ago...evolution is a slow and uneven
>>process...you are looking microscopically instead of macroscopically
>>at the time line.
>
>What basis have you for calling "popular sovereignty and democracy"
>the "culmination" of extended order ethics? That begs the whole
>question of whether social ethics develop through trial and error,
>and whether we can or should attempt (through more trials) to
>develop them further.
>

Democracy is really a method and not an ideology...democracy carries
precious little ideological baggage...it is a method for experimenting
with ideas, and in the "extended" order, it frees society from any
particular ideology, and is adaptable to change...democracy makes
society easily adaptable to rapidily changing circumstances.

>>Success when discussing evolution does not connote progress...only
>>what emerges.  You are applying a Hegelian or Marxist notion
>>of history as necessarily developing towards an ideal...not
>>just necessarily developing into what is, from moment to moment.
>
>Nope. I challenge the idea that we can use history as a substitute
>for either rationally or inspired ethical systems, precisely
>because history does not develop towards an ideal state.
>

One is not observing development or progress...but optimization,
and the observation of history tells us about the non-rational
or intuitive or inspired part of human nature.

>
>One final note: I believe Mr. Morrison posted an article about
>Dr Hayak, not by him. So you should take my criticisms as aimed at
>the article posted, not Dr. Hayak's argument itself.
>

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.politics:11610 soc.culture.canada:10242