From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:08:39 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
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).

In <Bs3ytH.GyK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> You're confusing ethics with religious speculation.  Why should I 
rl> try to prove that any gods exist, in view of the fact that I have 
rl> no evidence to support such a proof?  On the other hand, I could 
rl> present quite a bit of evidence to show that such actions as 
rl> murder, rape, and slavery cause more harm than good, and hence, 
rl> ought to be considered unethical.  

From article <viking.712375767@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
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.  

> ...
rl> I asked you previously whether it would be good or bad for someone
rl> to poke total strangers in the eye with an ice pick just for the
rl> fun of it.   In evaluating the goodness or badness of such an
rl> action, would you be able to cite facts and reason to support your
rl> conclusions?  Or, would your decision be totally arbitrary, like 
rl> proving that Santa Claus does or does not wear red trousers?
rl> 
rl> Arbitrary, of course, unless you can think of a way to measure
rl> [Bear in mind that I'm asking you for _your_ opinion.  Please don't
rl> respond with the worn-out retort that the goodness or badness of
rl> eye poking would depend on what society thinks.]

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.  

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

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.  

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

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. :-)

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?  

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...  

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

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.  

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.

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.  

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?  

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

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".   

If I were to adopt the word "accurate" as a replacement for the
word "truthful", it would have no impact on the overall direction
and thrust of my arguments.  I'd simply say that it's 
"inaccurate", rather than "false", for someone to declare that 
witch-burning is good for victims and society.  And I'd say that 
it's "accurate", rather than "truthful", for someone to point out 
that witch-burning was not only agonizingly painful for the 
victims, but socially disruptive in many ways.  In the end, we'd 
still come to the conclusion that the "goodness" or "badness" of 
witch-burning is not simply a product of mere belief, but an 
evaluation that can and should be based on facts and reason.  

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