NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/callahan/15598

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 12.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bu.edu!crsa!mjmh
From: [e-mail] (Michael J M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Unbe Awakens
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:43:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Boston University Center for Remote Sensing
Lines: 240


The purple C Open-Comment, /*, has been mulling over
Michael's reaction to his purple prose (particularly
regarding the reply to John's comment about religion
and morality.

/* looks serious, raises a finger and opens his mouth...
...and grins.  Then smiles.  Then snickers and laughs!!

Pretty soon the purple guy is almost crying with laughter.
"No, no I'm not laughing at anyone but myself!"  *wheeze*
(I gotta learn to *inhale*!!)

"I'm just laughing at the predicament I find myself in.
I realized I was about to start an attempt to refute
the parts of Michael's argument I disagree with!!
Here I am, a person who strongly advocates a diversity
of personal beliefs - yet I would try to take apart
what Michael believes in!!!  The things I get myself into!"

"Well, Michael could very well be 100% correct, and he
certainly has a very clear sense of his beliefs and their
foundation.  Michael, I admire that in you.  Also, you
are clear and coherent in your comments, without sounding
like an evangelizer."

"There are a few points of yours I would like to comment
on, however, mostly to clarify some things I said..."

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael J M Holmes) writes:

  [my comments are about people whose morals/beliefs change over their
       lifespan]

>    "There are two possible explanations for such change.  One is
>that there is no constant and it's essentially a matter of a random
>walk.  But another is that there is a constant and people grow closer
>to or draw further away from it.  As I drive around, sometimes I might
>find a particular radio station coming in clearly, while other times
>it may be almost lost in static-- and both the trend and the change
>itself depends on the direction and distance I drive.  But it's not
>that there's no radio station, nor that the transmitter is moving."

"This is a *great* analogy!!  You and I split when it comes to which
we think is most likely, as I see no problem with the first possibility
being the actual nature of reality.  But I also wonder if there is
not a third (or more) possibilities we just haven't realized... "

>>"What if the basis for someones morality was simply the idea that
>>you exist, why not make the world a better place for your having existed?
  [without doing it for religious reasons  (a paraphrase of my comments)]

>    "But what do you mean by `better'?  You've just introduced a
>standard of _some_ sort through the back door.  How do you decide what
>constitutes making the world a better place, and why does it please
>you to know that the world will be a better place by whatever standard
>you choose?"

"This is where I think we have a misunderstanding.  'Better' as in
what *I* think, not what I think the universal absolute is.  Yes,
I've introduced a standard, but what if it's a standard *I* created?
I don't think it's a 'back-door,' it's a personal standard, not a
universal one."

[deletions - I brought up an example of an atheist on his
  deathbed, looking at his life and how he feels about his actions]

>    "He made a `positive difference'.  Positive how?  Either he
>has some idea of `the good' or he couldn't have spent his life
>pursuing it.  Meanwhile, the decision that some good matters to him is
>at least as irrational a decision as any religion might be.  I agree
>that it _isn't_ a religion-- but conversely he is hardly in a position
>to criticize religious people for holding unreasonable or false
>beliefs, because he took just as much of a leap when he decided that
>it was better to work for a positive change in the world than not to."

"Here again I think you make an error, on the side of an absolutist's
bias.  :)  Sure, he had some idea of 'the good' but it was an idea
he developed on his own.  He made a positive difference as he
decided to define it."

"The other thing I must comment on is that I *NEVER* said that a
person with this view _must_ criticize religious people for holding
unreasonable or false views.  It is entirely possible that the above
atheist just thinks that deists have a belief that is not his own.
You seem a little bit defensive on this point, and I don't think
it follows from what I've said. (at least I hope it doesn't, because
that's not at all what I am implying."

[deletions - I am discussing why I think an individual's morality
changes, and what can cause those changes, and whether there was
a 'constant' morality at the base of it all.]

>    "How do you deepen your understanding of something that has no
>form of its own?  If you rewrite an essay, it may show a deeper
>understanding of the subject-- but only if you can compare it to what
>you know of the subject to make the judgment.  If you rewrite a poem,
>it may express a deeper truth-- but only if there are deeper truths
>which you've already encountered to be expressed.
     [some deletions]

"And again, some believe that it has a form that an individual creates
for him/herself, so that as you gain experience, your own morality
grows, deepens, and becomes richer - you *create* the form as you live."

[deletions - I mention why I worry when people equate religion and
morality, and the prejudice, bigotry, and oppression that can follow]

>    "Conversely, when you declare that there is no universal
>system of morals that all actions are measured against, you then open
>the door for the same things... since people will declare that since
>*their* philosophy or ideology is as valid as anyone's, they have as
>much right to steal or kill or enslave as you have to resist them.
>The worst-case scenario for moral absolutism is a theocracy in which
>the authorities believe they can do anything they want by divine
>right.  The worst-case scenario for moral relativism is one in which
>the authorities believe they can do anything they want because they're
>permitted to build their own morality, and they choose one which views
>anything they do as permissible and anything done to them as cause for
>punishment.

"I agree with you - some people can and will take things to
extremes, and extremists for either absolutism or relativism
are unhealthy, unhelpful, and in general a bad thing."

>    "The difference, as far as I see it, isn't in worst-case
>scenarios, but in the fact that one who believes in absolutes can say,
>`No.  That's wrong.  It is as wrong for you to kill children for fun
>as it would be for me.'  Relativism doesn't mean that one is more
>likely to kill children for fun, but it implies that one has no moral
>response to someone that is.  As soon as you make the decision that
>the children have more right to happiness or life or whatever than the
>guy with the axe, you've made a moral decision for someone else and
>asserted that your moral code is, provisionally, superior to his.  But
>superior on what basis?  Because it pleases you more?  Well, his code
>pleases him more.  More people would agree with you?  If morality is
>by majority rule, then there are certain countries in which you'd have
>been wrong to try and prevent the massacre of children, if they
>belonged to certain ethnic groups.  You want your life to make a
>positive impact on the world?  That begs the question of what positive
>means and how you figured that out."

"Hmm.  I have heard this before, and it strikes me as a little
like a scare tactic... why is the natural extreme of moral
relativism some kind of rampant chaotic anarchy, where everyone
rapes and murders as they choose?  To my knowledge (and I could
be wrong), there is no decent historical evidence of an
extremist relativistic society.  Yet there are examples of the
negatives that result from extremist absolutist societies
(Spanish Inquisition as one).  I see no reason why a relativist
would say that their personal morality supercedes everyone else's -
that would, in fact, make them an absolutist!!  (in a weird way!).
In fact, I think a relativist would more likely show tolerance
towards others, since by definition they accept that there may
be several different interpretations of what moral is."

"But certainly there are many 'morals' that get almost
universal agreement - murder, rape, etc.  Whether you derive
these from the Bible, Jesus, the Tao, crystals, or simply
deciding that murder is a bad thing, it is a generally
agreed-upon moral."

[deletions - 'know' versus 'believe,' faith and 'proof' issues]

>    "True enough.  But neither can you prove that solipsism is
>false, or that you're not simply a brain in a box with a highly
>sophisticated experiment being done on you, or that the universe
>didn't come into existence five minutes ago with all memory
>pregenerated.  The option for believing only what can be absolutely
>known, or established with falsifiable hypotheses, doesn't exist.  And
>Occam's razor shaves according to our preconceptions-- it was the fact
>that relativism seemed to me to lead to absurdity which led me to
>believing in a moral absolute and hence to theism.  Those who don't
>find the idea absurd may feel that I'm making an unwarranted leap, but
>to me it turned out to be the hypothesis that required the fewest
>assumptions."

The purple guy nods rapidly.  "I agree, I think our preconceptions
do make a big impact.  I try to be as open-minded as possible,
yet my general outlook, life experiences, and philosophical
searching  make it unlikely that your arguments for absolutism
will sway me.  And note that you said 'seemed to me to lead to
absurdity' - that I think is a telling phrase.  After going
through some similar, and some different, thought processes, I
was led to a different conclusion."

[me again - asking for understanding, esp. when moral beliefs
  turn into action, pragmatics]

>    "But even your preference for pragmatic action over philosophy
>requires judging that some people's moral systems are worse than
>others.  Clearly, you believe that burning someone at the stake for
>what he believes is wrong.  The Inquisitor believes it's right.  On
>what basis do you say that his action is more wrong than yours in
>stopping him?  Maybe you're right that he has no _more_ basis to
>determine what's right than you-- but by your own argument, he also
>has no less."

"True, yet I don't see any reason why any of the above weakens my
arguments, or my belief about morality, in any way.  Many deists
would agree with me and disagree with their fellow deist (the
Inquisitor).  He must move forward according to his beliefs - and
based on mine, I must try to stop him.  But that is where *laws*
must come in - commonly accepted restrictions on acceptable
behavior, to allow people of different beliefs to coexist in
a society.  I think this ends up shifting to a discussion
of the basis of law and societies, and less on moral absolutism
and relativism."

"And what if absolutism were true, and was on the side of the
Inquisitor?  What if you found that your belief/interpretation
of morality was incorrect, and that the actual standard
contained moral actions that you considered abhorrent?"

/* smiles.  "No, I don't have the answers, and I acknowledge
that there are some aspects of relativism that rightly
cause you to hesitate.  I guess the pragmatics of the
situation do outweigh any other concerns for me."

"Sure, I want to be 'right' about my beliefs - who goes
around *wanting* to be 'wrong?'  And I think we could
both agree that there are good absolutists and good
relativists, as well as bad absolutists and bad relativists.
And, when it comes to putting your beliefs into practice,
into the way you live your life - that I think is the
most important consideration."

"This conversation is an interesting one, Michael, and
again you present your views very well.  I have had
one or two conversation with people who end up *much*
less coherent!"

:-)

--
========================================================================
Mike Holmes       [e-mail]           "Happiness Will Prevail!"
Boston University Department of Geography (a truly GREAT place to work!)
========================================================================