From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:51:15 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> How would a man searching for a particular set of facts be able 
rl> to discover that the facts do not exist?  By searching every nook and 
rl> cranny of the universe, perhaps, and then reporting that the 
rl> objects in question were nowhere to be found?   Do you have a degree
rl> in ethics, by any chance?  

From article <viking.712212922@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Nope, I don't.  Not that it makes any difference, of course.  
ds> Facts and ethics are hardly good things to compare.  How can you 
ds> test an ethical belief?  I'll give you a hint -- it's a belief, 
ds> not a fact.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> We can test ethical ideas in the same manner that we can test
rl> any idea: by analyzing their factual and rational basis.

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.  

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.

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?

[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.]

> ...
rl> So you say, but I consider your opinions to be highly suspect.  
rl> Perhaps you can redeem your credibility by explaining why you 
rl> consider slavery to be ethical simply because some men consider it
rl> such.

ds> I note you skipped a bit: I do consider slavery ethical for a
ds> society that believes it to be ethical, but I do not personally hold
ds> it to be an ethical thing in my own society.  

rl> Is your position a purely arbitrary one...  like flipping a coin?  
rl> Or, have you analyzed the factual and rational arguments for and 
rl> against slavery and determined that slavery is not a good thing?  

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?  

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?

> ...
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.  

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?
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.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ