From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:36:18 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
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...  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is it merely a matter of stylish belief that suffering is bad?  
rl> If that's the case, why is it that the vast majority of feeling 
rl> individuals, regardless of their cultural background, strive to 
rl> avoid pain?  Perhaps you think that the even the dumbest of 
rl> mammals and birds avoid pain simply because of a culturally 
rl> engendered, arbitrary "belief" that pain is not good?  Or, would 
rl> you be willing to admit that some types of suffering have nothing 
rl> to do with the cognitive realm of "beliefs", but are hardwired into the 
rl> anatomy at a very primitive level.  

From article <viking.712460245@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> There is a big difference between physical pain and what we might
ds> call suffering.  I believe I am suffering if I am within earshot of rap
ds> music, but it causes no physical pain.  In addition, a bee sting causes
ds> a fair amount of pain, but I wouldn't say I was suffering because of it.
ds> What is hardwired into the body has little bearing on suffering, and
ds> pain cannot be measured like an electric field to provide evaluation in
ds> supporting the belief that some benefits might be worth some pain.

You're quibbling, Dan.  

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

rl> Not in this forum, but I'll be happy to engage in such a 
rl> discussion after you and I manage to agree that "goodness" isn't 
rl> always a product of mere belief, like Sunday School 
rl> etiquette-rules or the cut of an italian suit, and that an idea isn't 
rl> necessarily a truthful representation of reality just because 
rl> it's sincerely believed.  

ds> This should be rather fun to listen to, but unfortunately I do
ds> not subscribe to the first idea you mention above.  

Is the distaste that most animals have for pain (aka suffering) merely
a matter of belief?

ds> The second is obvious, but I tend to think that beliefs are what 
ds> the individual views as reality, flawed or not.  You know, 
ds> Plato's cave and all that.  The former I disagree with because 
ds> "goodness" is an abstract concept that cannot be measured, or 
ds> consistently evaluated.  In such a case, there is no way to judge 
ds> the goodness of a decision except on belief.  

Does the world go away when the ostrich sticks his head in the
sand?

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.

rl> Once again, you're assuming that the adjective, "truthful", is 
rl> antonymous with "deceitful".  The fact that an idea is believed 
rl> doesn't mean that it's an accurate reflection of reality.  

ds> 	It doesn't have to be an accurate reflection of reality to be
ds> believed, or to be believed as truth.  You're choosing to ignore that all
ds> reality is merely what we believe we sense.  If truth is reality, or
ds> fact, then this is why we believe things to be true, or correct, and
ds> for all intents and purposes they are reality until a better one is
ds> proposed.  See, I used only one definition there.

If a man truly believes that he can flap his wings and fly like a bird,
thanks to LSD, do you think he's going to land softly?  Or, will he
make a large stain on the sidewalk?

rl> It's apparent to some of us that humility and skepticism only surface
rl> in your arguments when you're looking for an escape hatch. :-)

ds> 	Escape hatch?  The only escape from this argument is the "U"
ds> button, and I'm not pressing it.  I am a humble sceptic only because I
ds> know Einstein could be proven wrong, but right now it's the reality and
ds> law that I live under, and it's correct for me now.  Not that I could
ds> prove Einstein wrong, you understand...

Are you really a skeptic?  If I were to say that you would surely
die if you were to leap from a tall building without the use of any
mechanical contrivance, would you challenge me?   Or would you be
inclined to agree?

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