Equality

[henry quirk]

Spheres,

As I wrote up-thread: 'Inequality (more accurately: 'difference') is obvious and real'...you've presented nuthin' to change that view.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres,

As I wrote up-thread: 'Inequality (more accurately: 'difference') is obvious and real'...you've presented nuthin' to change that view.

No, if you use the term difference, (not difference as it pertains to math. I actually prefer variation) that changes the whole debate, then of course I agree with you, but equality is a totally different story! My point is that any quantity assigned to any difference is purely arbitrary, having no significance of real value on the universal scale, and is only the pettiness of selfish men, that lack any true vision. There are variances amongst people, but any value given to them is always shortsighted.

[aiddon]

The moment we admit that questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, are actually questions about human and animal well-being, we see that science can, in principle, answer such questions. Human experience depends on everything that can influence states of the human brain, ranging from changes in our genome to changes in the global economy. The relevant details of genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, economics etc. are fantastically complicated, but these are domains of facts, and they fall squarely within the purview of science.

Not my words, the Dalai Lama's. A man who recognises that theism does not have special claim on the grounding of ethics. Assuming for one moment that only theists can ground their ethics based on the supernatural, well, what has changed? That the atheist can't doesn't actually change a whole lot. Basically, the theist finds it handy to have God in the background, nodding in approval, whereas the athesist doesn't.

It's like admiring a Van Gogh painting, and grounding that admiration in the fact Van Gogh in general paints nice pictures. But then you find out it's a copy from a century later. Is your admiration any way diminished?

Is it too novel an idea to sugges that to be ethical is truly what matters. In the way that a painting can be good no matter who has painted it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You guys that have been talking of the "grounding" of ethics, I assume are referring to this definition:

5. Often, grounds. the foundation or basis on which a belief or action rests; reason or cause: grounds for dismissal.

I say that to attribute any grounds to a god is so much BS, as all one has in the book titled, Bible are the words of men, that claim they are those of a god. Not much grounding to my way of thinking, but one is free to believe in any particular invisible unproven force, if they want, which brings me to this...

...I see that grounds are to be found common to all men, in their ability to be as free, as the next, to make their own way, while their way has no unwanted adverse affect on another. As I see it, an agnostic, the only thing that we absolutely owe one another is to leave each other alone, unless of course one requests otherwise. This is what grounds me, and is the only reasoning that makes any sense, as no one really knows the truth of the universe, which is in fact the only criteria that 'may' allow anyone to tread upon another, without their request. If one cannot know with 100% proven certainty, backed by evidence, for all to see/hear, from the source, as to mans reason/purpose, assuming there is one, then he has no right but to stay in his own lane of existence, leaving others in theirs, until the day he returns to the earth from whence he came, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, unless of course he's invited to share anothers lane.

That's the only grounding there is, and anyone that thinks otherwise, is a would be dictator, that should instead do to himself, exactly that which he would do to another! That is, if he's that caught up in it!

[Ginkgo]

Kantian ethics is a priori so rationality in terms of morality teaches us that morality can have an objective necessity about it.

Read Wood on Kant, and you'll see why Kantianism is no answer at all. It's actually teleological, or substantive.

Joel Marks, the PN columnist, has recently come to this realization, so you could also read his article on that, but it's much less exhaustive than Wood is.

A nice idea, though.

Yes, but I thought you were asking for someone to suggest an alternative ethical theory to the one proposed by Locke. The idea of grounding human conduct within the framework of a divine command theory. This is also substantive and teleological as well.

I think you asked for a alternative theory not grounded in the idea of a Supreme being. Kant has provided one where by ethics is grounded in human reason. It would be correct to say that both theories suffer from similar problems.

[henry quirk]

"No, if you use the term difference, (not difference as it pertains to math. I actually prefer variation) that changes the whole debate, then of course I agree with you, but equality is a totally different story!"

Not from my perspective, it isn't.

Inequality implies 'difference' (a state where things 'may' be similar but are not the same).

Equality implies 'sameness' (a state wherein interchangeability is possible, permissible, and perhaps encouraged).

Legally (within the framework for cleverly constructed and enforced fictions), equality is the game we all play so as to, as I say, grease the wheels for peace...but equality is not real...it's fiction (useful, but fake).

#

"My point is that any quantity assigned to any difference is purely arbitrary, having no significance of real value on the universal scale, and is only the pettiness of selfish men, that lack any true vision. There are variances amongst people, but any value given to them is always shortsighted."

First: I don't live on the 'universal scale'...like (presumably) you, I live on the scale wherein my being able to out-run or out-fight a mugger makes me superior to that mugger (at least in the context of the conflict between me and mugger). I don't dismiss this 'universal scale' (something I myself referred to up-thread as 'the grand scheme') but, for me at least, such a scale has no bearing on what I do on the scale I live in.

That is: the 'universal scale' does nuthin' to put food in my mouth or promote my self-defense or move forward my personal agendas.

That is: the personal always trumps the universal.

Second: there's nuthin' arbitrary about assigning a value...how is, in-context, my capacity to successfully self-defend against the mugger (by running away or by killing him) arbitrary? Seems to me: if I recognize and accurately assess myself as capable of an action (as compared to, or contrasted against, another's capacity), then what I've done is as far away from 'arbitrary' as one can get.

You, of course, should always (arbitrarily) 'do' (and assess) as you see fit (based on the validity of whatever 'scale' you choose to focus on).

*shrug*

[uwot]

Uwot wrote:

This is just drivel. If you wish to insist that non-christians are inconsistent for describing anything they do in ethical terms, that is only because you choose to define ethics as 'sanctioned by god'.

No, it's not drivel at all. I understand why you're going ad hominem again, though.

I'm not. Ad hominem would take the form:

Immanuel Can asserts p.
Immanuel Can is an idiot.
Therefore p is drivel.

I don't happen to think you're an idiot, I just believe the argument you presented is drivel in it's own right.
Let's have another look:

The real question is, "Are atheism's 'ethics' grounded in anything, or does one have to become inconsistent with its worldview to behave 'ethically' at all?"

Yup! It's drivel. It doesn't mean anything.

You're perhaps just a little unnerved by the realization that naturalism cannot ground ethics.

Ah! Now that is ad hominem.

But don't worry; it's a rational concession that many Atheists are willing to make --

How many times did I tell you: IT IS MY VIEW THAT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING IS WRONG. As I keep saying: I cannot prove it. I do not care? Which bit of that do you not understand? On reflection, perhaps you are an idiot. I told you I understand the difference between a valid and a sound argument. I fully accept that my premises are unfounded and that drawing valid conclusions is fraught with difficulties and may even be impossible. I don't care, because it doesn't matter in the real world. Boo. Hooray.

though they find themselves too decent as people to follow it through to its nasty conclusion.

That, too, is ad hominem. Nasty conclusion, eh? Sounds scary. Do tell.

That being so, any definition of 'ethics' that doesn't appeal to the authority of god, isn't in your terms ethics.

No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm talking totally about Naturalistic ethics. I don't need to take one step in the direction of any other ethics to be able to show in quite a straightforward way that Naturalism rationalizes no ethics of any kind at all. I'm not, so to speak, name-calling: I'm just showing what your worldview leads to.

Too bad you're afraid to go there. Henry's not.

Heroic Henry, you mean? What exactly is my world view?

You can only do that if you choose to define ethics as 'sanctioned by god'.

Again, this is simply untrue. I can show Atheism or Naturalism are irrational without reference to any outside system at all...they can't even keep faith with their own fundamental value claims, never mind anyone else's.

You can do this, you can do that. What are these fundamental value claims? When are we going to see these remarkable powers of yours?

Until you 'prove' that your god exists, you have no 'grounding' for your claims.

This again misunderstands the difference between "grounding" and "truth." I don't even have to claim that Theism is true, or that its ethics are the correct one in order to show that Atheism's are not -- precisely for the reasons above.
In fact, I could make wildly implausible truth claims, such as "Santa exists," and on the basis of the existence of Santa, I could specify a consistent ethic with that suppositon. It would be grounded, just wildly untrue.

Why then can't atheists (just to remind you, I'm not one) do likewise and have a perfectly 'grounded' system of ethics, even if it is wildly untrue?

But Atheism cannot even get past the minimal bar of its own claims, and cannot ground anything in the value realm.

What claims are you referring to? The only claim atheism makes is that there is no god.

Show that it can, if you think it can.

Tell me precisely what claims you mean; if they coincide with what I believe, I will defend them.

And once I see you realize that I'm not even having to prove Theism to make the point, I will be more than happy to move on to whatever you wish.

The point is there's a difference between valid and sound arguments. I get it, let's go.

[henry quirk]

"Heroic Henry"

HA!

[Immanuel Can]

Your positions -- by your own admission -- are grounded in GOD, making that foundation not only relevant, but central to this thread.

That doesn't follow, Henry, unless the argument I'm making requires some premise involving belief in God. It doesn't. As I say, an Atheist could make it perfectly well. It would be just as challenging for Atheism.

To claim "I could make precisely the same case if I were writing as an Atheist." is disingenuous of you because, as atheist, you would not make the same arguments, take the same positions. As you say, "Atheists, in consistency have to think X, and theists, in consistency, have to think Y."

That an Atheist *could* make the argument is a statement about its rationality; that he *would* make the statement is an argument about its popularity with Atheists -- I'm only concerned with "could," not "would."

But as it is, your "would" is also wrong. Nietzsche makes the argument very well. So does David Hume. Today, Richard Dawkins is just one publicly-recognized Atheist who admits that the inability to ground values is characteristic of Naturalism as well. That being said, for their own reasons, they were all willing to live with that consequence. But the fact that they all made the same argument surely shows you're quite simply wrong that Atheists "would not" make it.

So ignore me if you wish -- but what will you do with *them*?

[Immanuel Can]

Spheres:

Your last exchange went like this:

IC: Sorry, Spheres... Henry's got you here.
Who are you, that you feel qualified to say so?
Ummm...silly question. It doesn't matter *who* a person is; it matters whether or not what he says is true. In this case, I'm speaking of logic.

IC:Rationally speaking, "equality" is not simply a default position that can hold unless someone disproves it to you -- things go the opposite way.
Incorrect! Innocent until proven guilty!
That's a precept for criminal trials, Spheres...it's not any principle of ethics. Besides, there's no "guilt" or "innocence" implied here, only a question of who has the burden of proving his case. Henry has lots of empirical data to show that people are, in fact, not obviously "equal" in any sense. You need to supply a contrary basis to show that he's wrong.

You will find that almost all advocates of equality -- like, say, social justice advocates -- quite readily admit that there are many senses in which people today are not "equal." The difference between them and Henry is that they think this is a deplorable fact, and Henry thinks it's not. They want to change the inequities into equalities, and he doesn't want to be bothered with all that. So the problem for them is how to show Henry that even though people *are* unequal in many measurable respects, they *ought not* to be treated unequally. They want to convince Henry that the inequalities are unjust and superficial, and that the "right" way to view all people is as equal. In short, they are trying to advocate for some value sense that transcends all the evident inequalities (of birth, gifting, intellect, culture, age...etc.), and shows that we *owe* people to treat them as equal.

All Henry's done is to ask them to spell out how they can rationally get this "value", and so far no one has done so.

IC: The default position has to be inequality, because inequality is very readily observable (see earlier in this same strand...)
No, it's just that this view, more readily, satisfies your self interest, you!
No it's not: see above. I am also personally an advocate of equality, so your objection makes no sense at all here. It's just not true. However, I do give Henry his respect for being consistent.

So make up your mind, it's either "very readily observable" or it's "contrary to obvious facts" you can't have it both ways, as they are directly contradictory.
What I said is that Henry's case is "very readily observable," which makes yours "contrary to obvious facts." There's no contradiction there. Your objection is perplexingly wrong here.

It's you who bear the burden of proof.
Who are you again, that you feel qualified to say so?

Ummm...a logical arguer? I'll say again what I always say: it does not matter *who* I am, or for that matter, *who* you turn out to be, logically speaking. All that matters is, is it true?

IC:You need to show that none of these obvious considerations are relevant to making a value difference among people.
No you need to show that they do! Innocent before proven guilty, remember?
Again, this is just dead wrong, for the reasons above. No one is saying anything about guilt, and this isn't a law court. Burden of proof is always assigned purely on logical grounds. In a contest involving empirical claims (such as Henry makes) versus value claims (such as you are making about equality) it is always the person who lacks the "at first appearance" evidence that has to make the first rational move.

If you don't, then logically, Henry's position prevails until future notice -- not because I say so, but because that's the way burden of proof works.

[Immanuel Can]

Ginko wrote:

Yes, but I thought you were asking for someone to suggest an alternative ethical theory to the one proposed by Locke. The idea of grounding human conduct within the framework of a divine command theory. This is also substantive and teleological as well.

Yes, yes it is. I would argue that *any* ethic is. No argument from me there, G.

I think you asked for a alternative theory not grounded in the idea of a Supreme being. Kant has provided one where by ethics is grounded in human reason. It would be correct to say that both theories suffer from similar problems.

Absolutely. The first problem always is, "Do I have the right grounds?" After that, the question becomes "What ethics are consistent with my grounds?" Those two questions cannot be reversed, though. The rational order is, show your grounds, then show your moral consistency with those grounds.

In the case of "human rationality," if that is the grounds that is offered, it ought to have a means of showing what ethical precepts are consistent with it. All I asked is for someone to spell out that "step 2." Everybody said, "We don't even agree to the grounds -- namely that human beings are rational." Okay, I said. We're one step further away from any solution.

[Immanuel Can]

uwot:

I have no need to agitate you, and I can see you're having a challenge distinguishing between ad hominem and argumentation. Perhaps that's my fault, if I'm expressing myself in such a way that I seem to be irate, shouting or exasperated. I'm actually none of the above, and I apologize if I offended in some way.

But let's back off the name-calling, and just get to the meat, if that's okay.

Why then can't atheists (just to remind you, I'm not one) do likewise and have a perfectly 'grounded' system of ethics, even if it is wildly untrue?
Well, if having no ethics *is* an ethic, then of course they can. But I think it's plausibly true that to have an ethic a person must be able to say at least one thing, at the minimum, is a "good" thing, or at least one thing is "bad." That, I think would be a minimum definition of "ethic," wouldn't you suppose?

Well, what ethic does Naturalism or Materialism advocate? If you can imagine how that reasoning would look, feel free to go ahead and spell it out. I'd be intrigued.

Your question, I think, is really something like "Why would IC say there is no way an Atheist can advocate ethics?" The answer is Hume's Guillotine. Do you know the concept? The Atheist David Hume wrote that one cannot blithely jump from an "is" statement to an "ought" based on it. Such a jump needs to be warranted. I would agree with Hume; if there is nothing going on in this universe but natural laws and physical materials, then there is no warrant for any kind of "ought" statement. Morals then simply cease to be anything more than fictions. The facts don't warrant them.

Now, I hope I'm not sailing us into waters too deep... tell me if you're with me so far, and I'll go on. If not, I'll go back and go slower. I'm in no hurry.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"No, if you use the term difference, (not difference as it pertains to math. I actually prefer variation) that changes the whole debate, then of course I agree with you, but equality is a totally different story!"

Not from my perspective, it isn't.

Inequality implies 'difference' (a state where things 'may' be similar but are not the same).
Of course, but you have it backwards because difference surely doesn't imply inequality, and one has to sense a 'difference,' before it can be 'quantified.' or rather my preferred term "variation," which is in fact the 'truth' of the matter, for anyone not askew. Prove otherwise! Sequence matters, my friend! So the rest... well...
Equality implies 'sameness' (a state wherein interchangeability is possible, permissible, and perhaps encouraged).

Legally (within the framework for cleverly constructed and enforced fictions), equality is the game we all play so as to, as I say, grease the wheels for peace...but equality is not real...it's fiction (useful, but fake).

#

"My point is that any quantity assigned to any difference is purely arbitrary, having no significance of real value on the universal scale, and is only the pettiness of selfish men, that lack any true vision. There are variances amongst people, but any value given to them is always shortsighted."

First: I don't live on the 'universal scale'...like (presumably) you, I live on the scale wherein my being able to out-run or out-fight a mugger makes me superior to that mugger (at least in the context of the conflict between me and mugger). I don't dismiss this 'universal scale' (something I myself referred to up-thread as 'the grand scheme') but, for me at least, such a scale has no bearing on what I do on the scale I live in.
And I thought we were here speaking as philosophers.


That is: the 'universal scale' does nuthin' to put food in my mouth or promote my self-defense or move forward my personal agendas.

That is: the personal always trumps the universal.
And that's why one finds themselves where they do, with muggers or whatever.


Second: there's nuthin' arbitrary about assigning a value...how is, in-context, my capacity to successfully self-defend against the mugger (by running away or by killing him) arbitrary? Seems to me: if I recognize and accurately assess myself as capable of an action (as compared to, or contrasted against, another's capacity), then what I've done is as far away from 'arbitrary' as one can get.
No, the value is arbitrary. The fact that one attempts to assign one, is to be expected, in some cases.

You, of course, should always (arbitrarily) 'do' (and assess) as you see fit (based on the validity of whatever 'scale' you choose to focus on).

*shrug*

*Sheesh*

[uwot]

Ginko wrote:

Yes, but I thought you were asking for someone to suggest an alternative ethical theory to the one proposed by Locke.

Hume.

The first problem always is, "Do I have the right grounds?"

Only if you are attempting to build an edifice in the Euclidean manner. You do not need 'grounds' to behave with compassion towards your fellow human being. It is perfectly legitimate for somebody to equate their compassion with 'ethical' behaviour. If you insist that doing so is inconsistent with some weltanschauung, that is entirely your prerogative. Just as it is for others to say, so what?

In the case of "human rationality," if that is the grounds that is offered, it ought to have a means of showing what ethical precepts are consistent with it. All I asked is for someone to spell out that "step 2." Everybody said, "We don't even agree to the grounds -- namely that human beings are rational."

Who offered human rationality and at the same time denied it?

Okay, I said. We're one step further away from any solution.

Not so.We are only one step further away from your solution.

[uwot]

uwot:

I have no need to agitate you, and I can see you're having a challenge distinguishing between ad hominem and argumentation.

Explain ad hominem to me, if it isn't precisely as I have outlined.

Your question, I think, is really something like "Why would IC say there is no way an Atheist can advocate ethics?" The answer is Hume's Guillotine. Do you know the concept? The Atheist David Hume wrote that one cannot blithely jump from an "is" statement to an "ought" based on it. Such a jump needs to be warranted. I would agree with Hume; if there is nothing going on in this universe but natural laws and physical materials, then there is no warrant for any kind of "ought" statement. Morals then simply cease to be anything more than fictions. The facts don't warrant them.

You misunderstand Hume. His morals, like Schopenhauers were based on compassion, or as Hume I think said, sentiment. Remember, Hume also argued that you couldn't prove any causality, that didn't stop Hume believing in it nor did it stop him being an ethical man. He couldn't prove is to ought, he didn't care either.

Now, I hope I'm not sailing us into waters too deep... tell me if you're with me so far, and I'll go on. If not, I'll go back and go slower. I'm in no hurry.

Are you really sorry for causing offence?