Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:25:55 EDT
From:         Ed Nilges <EGNILGES@PUCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: LONG POST!!! Unavoidably delayed response to Ed Nilges
              11 Apr 1992 22:25:00 EST from <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>

On Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:25:00 EST JIM DOWNEY said:
>
>My reply (quoted above) never addressed the TEXT!!!!!!  I asked how did
>you make the jump from what we were discussing to this... And then you accuse
>me of lacking substance in my response...  I just want to know what in God's
>name brought you to the issues of incoherence and Orwell...  Was it something
>from out of left field or does it related to our discussion...  I made no
>connection...  It did NOT make sense to me...  Asking you to clarify it
>brought about the accusation of lacking substance...

Instead of confronting the issues of professional standards, Jim, you
ask the question, how can any one person or group have enough information
to set such standards, and you appear to regard such an attempt as ipso
facto a grab for elite power and privilege.  I contend that elites of
some sort are inevitable in our society (and an elite based on economic
dominance is in the process of being formed.)  The liberating feature
of an elite based on professional standards as opposed to market power
is that professional standards can be learned and applied by the people
who by definition do not enjoy market power.

This becomes Orwellian when the power, whether of the State or of the
market oligarchy, becomes such that the ordinary person is forced to
compromise his integrity in order to remain alive.
>
>No, it's not a quibble...  It is an important point of logic in the debate
>process...  If we are struggling to clarify what "ethics" are, then we have
>to be clear in our methods and statements...

(Sigh) "computer science KNOWS" is merely a verbal reformulation of
"computer scientists KNOW."

>
>But I point out to you that you have once again set forth elitist statements.
>You practically accuse a majority of computer science majors, graduates,
>managers, programmers and professionals of being incompetent because they
>do not meet your criteria of the discipline...  You have set yourself and
>those of whom you approve above others as a class based solely on your
>attitudes (subjectivism) and claim it is "right" and "good."

I am merely the messenger.  Jack Crenshaw writes (in the March issue of
Computer Language) of a graduate of a reputable school who claimed he
knew about "structure programming."  See also Ed Yourdon's article in
last week's Computerworld.  Far from being some private vision, the
existence of a software crisis has long been acknowledged by reputable
authorities.

>
>I don't argue with your views per se...  I argue with your method of applying
>them as ethical standards from which all flags must fly.  Your method relies
>upon these views as truth and the basis for ethical norms within the entire
>field...  I return to my argument that this is subjectivism and ethical egoism,
>extended to an elite group (cultural relativism) that then mandates what is
>or is not the "greatest good for the greatest number."

Where on earth you get this strange association of what you call "elitism"
(by which you mean, apparently, any sort of dominance or control which
is not preconscious) and "cultural relativism" is beyond me.  I've been
too lazy to call you on this misuse of words heretofore, being content
to allow you to use the terms as synonyms, but cultural relativism is
basing ethical standards on culture such that what is good for one culture
may not be for another culture.  This is quite different from elitism.

>
>The other part of my argument is that individual choice (vision), natural
>rights and natural laws exist and form the foundation of ethics within the
>U.S....

Hmm.  Computer scientists, those elitist bastards, have advice to give
on avoiding bugs and developing efficient and usable systems.  But it
appears that this is a violation of "vision, natural rights and natural
laws."  Orwell's O'Brien, able to violate mathematical law, becomes
the Common Man (enter fat John Goodman to Coplandesque trumpets) who
must not be told that he is wrong.

Your attitude is plainly prephilosophic.  What is "natural" about these
rights and these laws?

>It is supported by teachings, beliefs and actions around the world
>(c.f. the recent events in Russia and Central Eastern Europe)

This was merely an environmental collapse brought about because the
wrong people were in charge of the socialist experiment.  The West
is next.  Can you say "ozone hole?"

>because it
>affords natural inherent efforts to facilitate "good."  These principles
>and rights are inalienable and belong to each individual without anyone
>passing judgement or forming an opinion...

This is "wrong" :-).  What, has it become illegal, a violation of the
rights of bad programmers, fundamentalists, and flat earthers, that
2+2==5, that Adam and Eve were descended from the apes, that the
world is round?!  Give me a fucking break.

Ethics based on this foundation
>ultimately allows for "the greatest good for the greatest number" as a natural
>process that is "sui generis."

Mikhail Zeleny, where are you when we need you.

How on earth has it been decided that utilitarianism must be our
overriding ethical principle?  Are you even aware, Jim, of recent
work in ethical theory that shows how utilitarianism is being
REJECTED because it violates rights, rights that to you are "inalienable."
>
>Your views on ethics depend on the consistency of your views about other
>things as well...  If tomorrow your work resulted in a discovery that
>demonstrated your previous ideas were all erroneous, then your ethical
>views must change with it...  Time and space modify the ethical foundations
>upon which your arguments rest...  This is not the case with natural rights,
>natural law and individualism.

Unfortunately, time will never disprove the propositions of logic and
of mathematics.  Whereas natural law and natural rights as understood
by the writers of the US Constitution did not even exist until the 18th
century.  Likewise individualism: the very notion of the individual
is a MODERN concept.
>
>Kant spoke to "rules" and only rules in his ethical approach.  His main

You still don't get it.  Kant is as much of a CRITIC of rules as a fan
of them, since his work constitutes a liberating critique of rules.

>theme is deontological, having "duty" (thus obedience, obligation) as the
>primary "good."  The Catergorical Imperative is based on a duty to ACT a
>certain way, absent of consideration of the end result...  Since morality
>is defined by the "good will" (intent), the imperative that is formed becomes
>"No matter what you must..."  Kant's position on this is unconditional...
>Morality, "the good will" and duty are a priori knowledges that can not be
>described by merely describing behavior...

Kant DOES tell us that freedom lies in adherence to the moral law.
In a society that defines freedom as the freedom to trash the earth
with shopping malls, Kant's view is a long drink of pure water to the
thirsty man.  Our society treats desire and whim as moral primitives
and calls these rights, refusing to recognize ambiguity and surfeit
for what they are.
>
>> is that precisely BECAUSE "very few rules pass Kant's test" it is
>> *** LIBERATING ***.  It is only "impractical" from the standpoint
>> of people with a vested interest in making rules: cops, lawyers,
>> and the less creative forms of unix systems administrators.
>
>This is like saying that if the law-makers were to pass a law that could
>only be enforced on cities beginning with the letter "R" and then only on
>Sundays it would be a practical and good law... and that it would free the
>citizens of those cities...

Bullshit.  The lawmakers are actually constrained by Kant's test in
passing laws which contravene the universitality of the moral law.
"So act so that your conduct could become a general moral law" as
a metarule means one moral law for all, from duke to dustman.  As
a corollary, legislated laws (as opposed to moral laws) must not,
without some good and sufficient reason, apply to some and not to
others (something like this principle is in the "equal protection
of the laws" 14th amendment to the US Constitution.)  That "good
and sufficient reason" for varying the application of the laws (of
which the legal recognition of professional standing is an instance)
can be utilitarian or Rawlsian (from the John Rawls Theory of Justice,
a book I recommend you read if you have not done so: Rawls would
allow for distinctions as long as they supported the good of the
least advantaged members of society, the so-called Difference
Principle.)
>
>Kant's issue of duty is not liberating...  It is constricting because it
>takes no notice of rights, competing rights, observable natural laws, or
>the freedom of individual choice/vision...  It states that one must ALWAYS
>act in a certain way...  So if an authority came knocking at your door and
>asked if you were hiding a slave (and you were), the categorical imperative
>requires that you adhere to duty without question...  What is the duty in
>this case?  Kant states that you know a priori... before it happens...

This is a ridiculous example.  Slavery is wrong according to the
categorical imperative.  For if everyone sought to be a slaveowner,
humanity would return to a war of all against all and the bitter
resentments of the slave would destroy whatever advantage the master
enjoyed.  Whereas lying to bad authority (for the authority is by
the facts you state bad, since it supports slaveowning) is an act of
revolutionary violence commanded by the categorical imperative.

If authority seriously violates principles commanded by the catergorical
imperative, the categorical imperative commands us to use revolutionary
violence when peaceful means of redress fail.  The abolitionist who has
exhausted peaceful avenues and who has resorted to assisting the
underground railroad is engaged in revolutionary violence against his
government (and if you read the writings of actual abolitionists you'll
see this is how they understood their situation.)  However, to wage a
just war against one's own sovereign, moral principles also command
a mininum amount of violence as necessary to attain one's end.  It is
therefore best, in the situation you mention, to lie to the slave
catchers rather then shoot.  So your example does not violate the CI.

>
>But Kant never asks if it is ethical to pay... just pay... We may find
>that in a drunken stupor you signed a credit billing for ten rounds of drink
>at the insistence of the bartender...  Do you have a right to dispute the
>bill...  Not if you follow Kant...  You must always pay... (NOTICE:  No intent
>was present to call you an alcoholic or drunk...  It was just an extension
>of the circumstance you offered.)

Kant does not command me to pay over money which I never hired. "Pay
your debts" means, of course, pay your TRUE debts made according to
accepted principles of business law (one of which is that a person
who is a minor, under duress, or under the influence of strong waters
can't make contracts.)  Indeed, since a society in which people
challenged unjust business conduct in a consumerist spirit is BETTER
than a society of cowed peasants who pay every bill, regardless of whether
or not it is legal, the categorical imperative commands me to FIGHT
the bartender on such an imposition.
>
>
>But that duty to basic honesty is a myth... unless it is based on something
>other than an imperative or opinions...  If we lay capitalism upon the
>foundations of rights, choice and law, Adam Smith doesn't seem so far-
>fetched because the utilitarianism of capitalism now stands firm on
>ethical principles that cause the SYSTEM to act justly, within defined
>rules and expectations, and according to basic rights that are balanced...

I guess those rights don't include housing or a decent education, huh.

>
>
>Poppycock!  Kant would no sooner approve of the pro-choice position
>that you espouse above than commit suicide...  He would see that duty
>called for a women to always bear the child...  There is no choice
>within Kant's model... You must always!!! that is the imperative...

No no no.  If every woman were to bear the child of every man who
inseminated her, the very conditions for bearing and raising children
with dignity would be destroyed.  Women are therefore commanded by the
Categorical Imperative to CHOOSE whether or not to have children.

It is doubtful that Kant would regard abortion as a violation of the
Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have done unto you") which
Kant regarded as a necessary consequence of the Categorical Imperative.
Although if I were a fetus I would not "want" to be aborted, this
assumes that the fetus is a Kantian rational agent, capable of having
wants.  Even if we suppose for argumenative purposes that the fetus IS
capable of desire and fear, there remains a question whether a life
as an unwanted child is something to be desired in all cases.  My
claim is that women are best qualified to weigh the issues raised
by abortion, and far from being a violation of the categorical
imperative this is in its spirit.

In general, Jim, I feel that anytime you detect a note of hard THOUGHT,
whether about morality, or computer science, your "elitism" and
your "unAmerican" alarms go off.  The best statement of your position
appears to be:


     "a lotta regular, stand-up guys (not including wierdos like
     Plato or fuckin Nazis like Kant, who wanna tell us stand-up
     guys what to do), guys like Aristotle and Tommy Aquinas,
     thought real hard about natural rights and natural law and
     cool stuff like that.  Then, capitalism and the USA was
     invented and that was even cooler.  Because of all this cool
     shit, we don't need anybody telling us how to program our
     computers.  Plus we got rights, see?"