tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post2927850795851609671..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: My ethicsLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-42306433187433613792007-08-24T13:57:00.000-06:002007-08-24T13:57:00.000-06:00Hi James,That's why I don't hide behind a pseudony...Hi James,<BR/><BR/><I>That's why I don't hide behind a pseudonym, but sign my name to every comment and every post, and have since day one.</I><BR/><BR/>My full name and identity are plain from even my blogger page. So much so that it sometimes makes me nervous.<BR/><BR/>Quick correction: It's not an ontological argument, it's a transcendental argument for God's existence.<BR/><BR/>We can conclude, as far as I am concerned. I'm satisfied w/ what has transpired.<BR/>Thanks for your time.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-85319156817905923432007-08-24T12:55:00.000-06:002007-08-24T12:55:00.000-06:00I take this to be historical.Isn't that my point? ...<I>I take this to be historical.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't that my point? You claim exegisis -- reading in historical context -- on one hand, and literality on the other, whenever it's convenient to your interpretory needs. You're an ever-present example of shifting your footing as needed. You're a walking font of the relativism you decry.<BR/><BR/><I>Cool, what part of the context indicates that the women were raped?</I><BR/><BR/>I already answered that question: the fact that their "marriages" result from the genocide of their peoples, which, if one is not in need of being led by the nose, draws a direct line to coercion. Coercion + sex = rape.<BR/><BR/><I>And you're a slave too, to your own desires, to evil, to the devil, etc...</I><BR/><BR/>You'll just have to take it on a little faith, Rho, that I find you just as evil and would tell you so to your face just as calmly. That's why I don't hide behind a pseudonym, but sign my name to every comment and every post, and have since day one.<BR/><BR/><I>Which you find distasteful. Big deal, what if I don't? </I><BR/><BR/>Then by the evolutionary needs of social survival, you should be ostracized or killed. We keep coming back to a matter of preference: you don't <I>like</I> internal authority, <I>preferring</I> instead external authority. You're doing exactly what I do but with a different semantic construction. Only difference is one of us is honest about it, and it's not you.<BR/><BR/><I>It's very telling that you didn't say "distasteful".</I><BR/><BR/>I'm afraid Christianity doesn't own the term "evil." It's a semiotic concept used as a descriptor in common parlance. That you impart it to be fraught with Christian symbolism is merely useful to convey the vehemence of the underlying sentiment. All language is ultimately metaphorical.<BR/><BR/><I>No, b/c it's inconsistent w/ your own stated ethical system.</I><BR/><BR/>How so? I've already noted how moral valuations are simply competing ethical schema. That's not inconsistent with what I've written at all.<BR/><BR/><I>This is painfully obvious to me.</I><BR/><BR/>Only because you're relying on the ontological argument for the existence of God. It's hard to escape your framework when it's so self-referential. <BR/><BR/>You just stated that moral laws are decrees; therefore they are arbitrary. By that definition, I should give equal weight to the Aboriginal beliefs that they gods need to sing constantly in order to keep the earth in existence. <BR/><BR/><I>It's Nietzsche, for one thing.</I><BR/><BR/>I have a profound and apparently incorrectable problem with i-e inversions. I blame Explorer's lack of a spellchecker like Firefox's. Sartre's ethic of personal and mutual responsibility has already been mentioned waaaaaay up in one of my first comments on this tread, though I didn't credit Sartre explicitly.<BR/><BR/>Aaaaand...<BR/><BR/><I>Assigning "value" that is only w/in yourself doesn't cut it, <B>at least to me</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm thinking maybe I can stop and just let you do my work for me...<BR/><BR/><I>But atheists in general are good at self-deception.</I><BR/><BR/>Pot, this is Kettle: You're black, sucker!<BR/><BR/><I>That's ironic - I was talking about YOUR position. <BR/>Whenever you tell me my position is evil, it's you making value judgments into sthg objective like a mathematical equation.</I><BR/><BR/>Har. Okay, you explicitly asked "who cares if I like to torture girls?" to which I replied that I and the victim would care. You asked if that was justification for action, to which I replied affirmatively. You asked "why," implying that your desire would cancel out two other people's competing beliefs, thus implying the mathematical equation. You have completely failed to demonstrate <B>why</B> some sort of "objective" fact is needed to justify my intervention, as well as failing to draw a correct mathematical analogy. I've already demonstrated above that judgments are all we really have to go on, since no person acts with complete and total information.<BR/><BR/><I>You are begging the question at hand...</I><BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you'll have to reformulate this bit, as I simply don't understand what you're saying. I'll grant that I often have difficulty with the semantics of is/ought formulations, so may simply be lacking in comprehension; but your whole bit seems incoherent.<BR/><BR/>I agree that my second sentence is poorly phrased (as I must type quickly at work). A more accurate statement would be:<BR/><BR/>"How I 'ought' to act is predicated on my <I>perception</I> of <I>how</I> others are acting in turn."<BR/><BR/><I>That's my position.</I><BR/><BR/>And you still haven't demonstrated beyond an ontology why your position is <I>any more</I> objective than mine. What makes the Bible more His word than the Koran? What makes the Book of Mormon <I>not</I> His word? What makes the unwashed guy preaching peace, love, understanding, and impending doom on the streetcorner not a prophet? NOTHING.<BR/><BR/>You're just running in rhetorical circles at this point, Rho. I suggest we conclude, as my patience for your lack of coherent argument and self-perception is just about done.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-35708949428306382482007-08-24T11:54:00.000-06:002007-08-24T11:54:00.000-06:00JFE,The Bible is metaphorical or literal depending...JFE,<BR/><BR/><I>The Bible is metaphorical or literal depending on your requirements for being comfortable with its contents.</I><BR/><BR/>1) I take this to be historical.<BR/>2) You are importing your assumption into the text. But anyone can play that game. I'm trying to see what the text says.<BR/><BR/><I>being able to comprehend context</I><BR/><BR/>Cool, what part of the context indicates that the women were raped?<BR/>This is the same question, just posed a diff way. We've already seen you can't answer. It's just rhetorical at this point.<BR/><BR/><I>If you were projecting, you'd be able to put yourself in the woman's shoes and draw a simple conclusion that a marriage conducted after one is a survivor of wholesale slaughter contains more than a little coercion, and coercion in regards to sex is rape.</I><BR/><BR/>But I could just as easily project what I said. Who says I can't? You? On what basis? <BR/>See, now it's just your projection against mine. It's a flimsy way to build just one argument; imagine how bad it is to build an ethical system around!<BR/><BR/><I>you're simply proving that you believe that even genocide is fine so long as God orders it. You're not a moral being: you're a slave.</I><BR/><BR/>1) Guilty as charged, seriously. I am a slave to Jesus Christ.<BR/>2) The good thing about it, though, is that I am a slave to righteousness precisely BECAUSE of that fact.<BR/>3) And you're a slave too, to your own desires, to evil, to the devil, etc. I know tone of voice wont' come across in text, but I'd look you in the eye and tell you, w/o raising my voice or getting all worked up, these things if we were face to face. <BR/>4) But again, we've seen that you have no basis to say anythg to anyone about genocide except that you don't like it. And that's not transferable to anyone else. Again, why'd you even write it?<BR/><BR/><I>If you don't care about genocide and rape, Rho, there is something wrong with you: it's called sociopathy. </I><BR/><BR/>Which you find distasteful. Big deal, what if I don't? <BR/><BR/><I>And in your case, it's because of the evil ethic you pay obeisance to. Yes, evil.</I><BR/><BR/>Case in point - you're borrowing from Christianity again, calling things evil. It's very telling that you didn't say "distasteful".<BR/><BR/><I>Why do I have no basis? Because you disagree?</I><BR/><BR/>No, b/c it's inconsistent w/ your own stated ethical system. <BR/><BR/><I>You simply haven't refuted anything I've argued except to assert time and again the primacy of your imposed ethic. </I><BR/><BR/>1) I'm content to let the reader decide.<BR/>2) I'm analysing the internal inconsistency of your own ethical system.<BR/><BR/><I>I consider your avowed position -- the arbitrary authority of your tyrannical god -- a danger.</I><BR/><BR/>Fine, that IS consistent.<BR/>But not calling me "evil" or sthg like that. Try to keep w/in the bounds of your own framework here.<BR/><BR/><I>How can they be objective laws and set in place by something? </I><BR/><BR/>B/c they flow out from Who God is, and He communicates them by decrees.<BR/><BR/><I>If morals are objective laws, then they exist independent of, not because of, God.</I><BR/><BR/>They are part of how God is. W/o Him, there aren't any objective laws.<BR/>Thing is, you TALK like there are, from time to time, and when you do, you betray the fact that you know God exists but won't admit it. This is painfully obvious to me.<BR/><BR/><I>And here's the "nihilism" canard. Read your Neitzsche more carefully. </I><BR/><BR/>1) It's <B>Nietzsche</B>, for one thing.<BR/>2) I was speaking more along the lines of Sartre.<BR/>3) Assigning "value" that is only w/in yourself doesn't cut it, at least to me. But atheists in general are good at self-deception. <BR/><BR/><I>You're essentially saying "I prefer that (1+1)-1 = 0." </I><BR/><BR/>That's ironic - I was talking about YOUR position. <BR/>Whenever you tell me my position is evil, it's you making value judgments into sthg objective like a mathematical equation. <BR/><BR/><I>"Ought" is dependent on point of view. In the real world, how I "ought" to react is predicated on HOW others ARE IN FACT acting.</I><BR/><BR/>You are begging the question at hand.<BR/>1) The great objective OUGHT is only possible if theism is true.<BR/>2) Your 2nd sentence tries to make an objective law out of your ethical system, which lacks any mechanism beyond your <I>ipse dixit</I> to do so. Yet again, you are acting like a Christian.<BR/><BR/><I>You are basing your entire argument on "I like the belief that the Bible is the revealed word of God." </I><BR/><BR/>God is God and His word is His word whether you or I like it or not. That's my position.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34715531802197169852007-08-24T10:48:00.000-06:002007-08-24T10:48:00.000-06:002) The text does not, however, say that they were ...<I>2) The text does not, however, say that they were raped nor forced. They got married. There is no mention of the terms under which sex took place. </I><BR/><BR/>This is rank sophistry. The Bible is metaphorical or literal depending on your requirements for being comfortable with its contents. Instead of actually being able to comprehend context you seem to indicate that you require a phrase like "And Josiah did manfully burst Lilith's hymen despite her pleas to the contrary" in order to draw a simple conclusion.<BR/><BR/><I>1) I'm not speaking for them, I'm projecting (as you mentioned), which you guys have been endorsing. </I><BR/><BR/>No, you're not. If you were projecting, you'd be able to put yourself in the woman's shoes and draw a simple conclusion that a marriage conducted after one is a survivor of wholesale slaughter contains more than a little coercion, and coercion in regards to sex is rape. What you're doing is sublimating your ability to project to your commitment to the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>God mentions elsewhere that these societies are condemned b/c of their rank sin and so He judges them. </I><BR/><BR/>And again, you're simply proving that you believe that even genocide is fine so long as God orders it. You're not a moral being: you're a slave.<BR/><BR/><I> Here you act like a Christian again, implying that there's sthg wrong w/ me if I don't care like you care.</I><BR/><BR/>Christians corner the market on judging others, do they? If you don't care about genocide and rape, Rho, there <I>is</I> something wrong with you: it's called sociopathy. And in your case, it's because of the evil ethic you pay obeisance to. Yes, evil.<BR/><BR/><I>What, the fact that you have no basis on which to apply a moral judgment to anyone else's thoughts or behavior?</I><BR/><BR/>Why do I have no basis? Because you disagree? You simply haven't refuted anything I've argued except to assert time and again the primacy of your imposed ethic. Let me state it very clearly: Someone who lacks empathy for the suffering of others is a potential threat to the survival of me and mine, which I will not tolerate, whether that lack is a genetic, psychological, or ethical predisposition. I consider your avowed position -- the arbitrary authority of your tyrannical god -- a danger.<BR/><BR/><I>The careful reader will note what a cheap shot this is.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not a rebuttal. I've marshaled plenty of external evidence for my system; the truth of mine is more easily observable to the casual watcher than the truth of yours, given that it requires your subjective revelation to give credence to the "objective evidence" of the "self-revealed Bible."<BR/><BR/><I>which posit a Moral Lawgiver who sets down laws that are not based on the preference of the created beings (ie, humans).</I><BR/><BR/>But this just brings you right back to the Euthyphro! How can they be objective laws <I>and</I> set in place by something? This makes them <I>whims</I>. If morals are objective laws, then they exist independent of, not because of, God. If they exist because of God, then they are not objective laws.<BR/><BR/><I>These kinds of complaints show that, deep down, your ethical standards are more far-reaching than you will admit to me. That's b/c you're a creation of God and know these things implicitly. </I><BR/><BR/>I've already explained why such standards are "far-reaching," and it had nothing to do with a god, and everything to do with our needs as evolved social creatures. Here you're relying on the Pathology Problem again.<BR/><BR/><I>You can't bear the thought of taking your views all the way to their logical conlusions, it appears.</I><BR/><BR/>And here's the "nihilism" canard. Read your Neitzsche more carefully. <BR/><BR/><I>Why not? It's all based on personal preference - what's the overriding factor.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, that's not a logical rebuttal. You're essentially saying "I prefer that (1+1)-1 = 0." You can <I>say</I> it, but it's contrary to physical reality. You're conflating "arbitrary" with "no physical dictate," and it undermines your position.<BR/><BR/><I>And all it answers is HOW people act. It doesn't address the question of OUGHT.</I><BR/><BR/>"Ought" is dependent on point of view. In the real world, how I "ought" to react is predicated on HOW others ARE IN FACT acting.<BR/><BR/><I>3) But only I have a justification to hold to those answers to which we both hold, beyond "I like" or "I don't like".</I><BR/><BR/>But that justification is clearly based on a preference for a faith in the Abrahamic God and the Bible as his revealed word. You are basing your entire argument on "I like the belief that the Bible is the revealed word of God." Thus proving my point!James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-86435192783861428592007-08-24T08:25:00.000-06:002007-08-24T08:25:00.000-06:00Hi James,Read the article - it was interesting, th...Hi James,<BR/><BR/>Read the article - it was interesting, thanks.<BR/><BR/><I>AFTER their menfolk have been killed and they were taken by force! Or is spousal rape not something that computes in your ethic?</I><BR/><BR/>1) Yes, they were taken by force. Cool, I've never denied that.<BR/>2) The text does not, however, say that they were raped nor forced. They got married. There is no mention of the terms under which sex took place. You are assuming it, and that's not fair.<BR/>3) Should I care about your personal distaste w/ the idea, even if they were raped? Why?<BR/><BR/><I>I know Christians make a habit of speaking for the long-dead</I><BR/><BR/>1) I'm not speaking for them, I'm <B>projecting</B> (as you mentioned), which you guys have been endorsing. <BR/>2) God mentions elsewhere that these societies are condemned b/c of their rank sin and so He judges them. <BR/>3) Should I care about your personal distaste w/ the idea, even if they were raped? Why?<BR/><BR/><I>Not saying you should care</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, you answered each #3. OK, I don't care. Can we move on?<BR/><BR/><I>(though it disturbs me that you don't seem to)</I><BR/><BR/>1) Here you act like a Christian again, implying that there's sthg wrong w/ me if I don't care like you care.<BR/>2) But again, why should I care?<BR/>Oh, wait: <I>Not saying you should care</I><BR/><BR/><I>You're relying on an ontological tautology to refute me</I><BR/><BR/>What, the fact that you have no basis on which to apply a moral judgment to anyone else's thoughts or behavior? The tautology is not my fault.<BR/><BR/><I>RHOLOGY: It is based on subjective revelation from TGOTB and objective external evidence.<BR/><BR/>JFE: Thank you for proving my point.</I><BR/><BR/>The careful reader will note what a cheap shot this is.<BR/><BR/><I>Did you not read or comprehend my responses to nobody.really?</I><BR/><BR/>Honestly, I had been skimm/pping them, but I just read thru them.<BR/>And I agree that most ethical systems do follow what you said. That is, all BESIDES theistic ones, which posit a Moral Lawgiver who sets down laws that are not based on the preference of the created beings (ie, humans).<BR/><BR/><I>What you're saying is that you find internal authority insufficient.</I><BR/><BR/>1) I find internal authority insufficient.<BR/>2) So do you, you just won't admit it. You keep trying to act like I'm evil if I say, for example, that I like torturing little girls for fun or I like capturing women from other societies and raping them. These kinds of complaints show that, deep down, your ethical standards are more far-reaching than you will admit to me. That's b/c you're a creation of God and know these things implicitly. You can't bear the thought of taking your views all the way to their logical conlusions, it appears. And I'm very glad for that!<BR/><BR/><I>Why is it a zero-sum game? </I><BR/><BR/>Why not? It's all based on personal preference - what's the overriding factor. Inconsistency again.<BR/><BR/><I>Please, read the damn article I linked to.</I><BR/><BR/>It was cool though I question anyone's ability to sufficiently take into acct all the factors that might influence any one person, let alone a group of people, to act a certain way closely enough to simulate it on a computer.<BR/>And all it answers is HOW people act. It doesn't address the question of OUGHT.<BR/><BR/><I>you and I are going to hold like-opinions on any number of moral questions, because we are both subject to similar environmental stimuli and socio-cultural schema</I><BR/><BR/>1) Agreed.<BR/>2) Which were shaped largely by Judeo-Christian ethics, but that's beside the point.<BR/>3) But only I have a justification to hold to those answers to which we both hold, beyond "I like" or "I don't like". And it has shown clearly in this comment.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-89126814230593270042007-08-23T14:47:00.000-06:002007-08-23T14:47:00.000-06:00Larry, Perhaps you are right.It does happen from t...<I>Larry, Perhaps you are right.</I><BR/><BR/>It does happen from time to time. :-DLarry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-57358976550219548342007-08-23T14:30:00.000-06:002007-08-23T14:30:00.000-06:00nobody,But then, Joseph Campbell argues that old s...nobody,<BR/><BR/><I>But then, Joseph Campbell argues that old stories are not entirely arbitrary. Rather, the mere fact that a story has been remembered and passed on, undergoing both selection and refinement in the process, suggests that the stories reflect something about the people who tell them.</I><BR/><BR/>Just because an ethic is a construction -- arbitrary or not -- certainly doesn't mean it doesn't have value, and if I implied it I am sorry. Myths are a wonderful source of ethical teachings; this is precisely the function the Old and New Testaments serve, and they are most assuredly wildly successful at it. The lack of "objective" truth certainly is no diminishment of utility, and indeed, can be necessary.<BR/><BR/><I>Where the folk stories differ from the text, arguably this would reflects a Campbellian selection and refinement process, revealing changes is western culture, and perhaps hinting at aspects of human nature.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you and I are in accord on this point. Thank you for articulating it so well.<BR/><BR/>Larry,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are right.<BR/><BR/>-JamesJames F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-51493753917109342732007-08-23T08:30:00.000-06:002007-08-23T08:30:00.000-06:00MESR: Meta-Ethical Subjective RelativismMESR: <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Meta-Ethical%20Subjective%20Relativism" REL="nofollow">Meta-Ethical Subjective Relativism</A>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14739039418956234392007-08-23T08:27:00.000-06:002007-08-23T08:27:00.000-06:00What's "MESR"? Master Enterprise Spiral Review?nob...What's "MESR"? Master Enterprise Spiral Review?<BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-86632907867005369312007-08-23T08:25:00.000-06:002007-08-23T08:25:00.000-06:00JFE:Well, sure, ethics derived from historic texts...JFE:<BR/><BR/>Well, sure, ethics derived from historic texts seem arbitrary. Ethics derived from reason seem elegant and more amenable to adoption by a broader range of people. <BR/><BR/>But then, Joseph Campbell argues that old stories are not entirely arbitrary. Rather, the mere fact that a story has been remembered and passed on, undergoing both selection and refinement in the process, suggests that the stories reflect something about the people who tell them. And when we identify common elements to the old stories of various cultures, we learn something common to them all – that is, something about human nature. <BR/><BR/>Ironically, the very mechanism that many people argue gives religion authenticity – an ancient text that has resisted changes over time – is the mechanism that frustrates the ongoing refinement lauded by Campbell. It is perhaps instructive to compare the “folk stories” people tell about the Bible to the text of the Bible itself. Where the folk stories differ from the text, arguably this would reflects a Campbellian selection and refinement process, revealing changes is western culture, and perhaps hinting at aspects of human nature.<BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-43602266414658567552007-08-22T23:40:00.000-06:002007-08-22T23:40:00.000-06:00Keep in mind, James, that you're talking about a s...Keep in mind, James, that you're talking about a <I>scientific</I> system of ethics, suitable for modern humans, based on the foundation of the actual subjective properties of existing human beings.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing at all I can see in your exposition that's contrary to the philosophical principles of MESR.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-67123874519883425212007-08-22T23:32:00.000-06:002007-08-22T23:32:00.000-06:00Hi nobody,Thanks for the research tips. I appreci...Hi nobody,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the research tips. I appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>I think you’re confusing mechanism for foundation. Empathy and projection are the primary mechanisms we use to evaluate situations for moral salience. These in turn are influenced by our perceptive structure that colors how and when we use them, our schema – our ethics.<BR/><BR/>When I talk about “consensus,” I by no means am indicating a conscious deliberative process. But humans are naturally conditioned, with variation, to be successful social creatures, because man requires a collaborative environment to survive. (I’ll spare you my sub-theory on sociopathic individuals.) Take telling the truth, for example: For in-group survival, we need to be able to trust people to do and say what they mean; “artificial societies” research finds that people will increasingly tell the truth over time because it is easier to do so, as the negative costs of lying rise naturally.<BR/><BR/>When we speak of “free will,” we are referring to man’s ability to recognize and alter his schema. This is crucial, because it allows us to consciously expand our “in-group.” Let’s use democracy as an example:<BR/><BR/>Take the U.S. Constitution. Our system of government was created by men whose schema would have included, among other things, tales from their fathers and grandfathers about England’s struggles between Catholics and Protestants. Cromwell’s Roundheads, William of Orange, all of those divisive religious and political struggles would have been recent, still-traumatic group experiences that would have colored their learning. Recognizing that their fledgling nation would, by its nature, involve different religious and political in-groups working, living, and competing in close proximity, they needed a new schema that would bind them together and give them a non-violent way to mediate and mitigate disputes. And so, a new ethic, adapted from proposed schemas by other thinkers, was born. The U.S. Constitutional Order is a new type of schema designed to help people learn how to think and evaluate when confronted with multiple differing ethics.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, this needs a good deal of fleshing out and is largely incomplete, as it is a work in progress. It meshes well with our knowledge of psychology and anthropology, and makes a certain amount of intuitive sense. And I could be totally wrong. I’m open to that possibility; I just feel, quite intuitively and with a nagging sense of certainty, that “objective” constructions like the Judeo-Christian ethic just don’t seem right. That being the case, I am compelled to come up with alternative explanations, which I am developing here.<BR/><BR/>Many thanks to yourself and Rhology, who have helped immensely in forcing me to articulate and begin to solidify much of my thinking from piecemeal to more coherence.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-38697246199452547352007-08-22T15:45:00.000-06:002007-08-22T15:45:00.000-06:00JFE again:>Are appeals to empathy the sole bulwark...JFE again:<BR/><BR/><I>>Are appeals to empathy the sole bulwark against demagoguery?<BR/><BR/>Well, yes, aren't they? That and pointy sticks. Isn't that the whole point of a Constitutional system like ours? When another's empathy fails, the empathy of another, with more authority, steps in. A religious ethic is simply the imposition of an external authority's empathic rule: "I (God, Borneo Monkey-Devil, the U.S. Constitution, etc.) find this offensive, and you shall not do it" and since "you" (generic you) are subject to My authority, you won't.</I><BR/><BR/>If you’re saying that those with more authority trump those with less, I agree. If you’re saying that those with more authority act on the basis of greater empathy, I’m not quite there.<BR/><BR/>I understand that commentors on democracy, from the Greeks through the framers of the US Constitution, have expressed reservations about populism. The framers took a number of steps to ensure that many matters, including First Amendment personal freedoms and the selection of the Executive, would be left to the elite, not the direct vote of the people. Thus in the US, the elite (judges with lifetime tenure) get to decide First Amendment and Equal Protection cases. <BR/><BR/>In sum, I see a number of mechanism established in the US that do not rely solely on consensus empathy. When the US government decided that blacks have the right to attend the same public schools as whites, it did not act on the basis of a national consensus, and it did not implement the decision on the basis of appeals for empathy. Rather, the decision was made by nine elite individuals largely insulated from public opinion, and the decision was implemented by guys with pointy sticks. Consensus and empathy would have to come later.<BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-32623922129230480712007-08-22T15:44:00.000-06:002007-08-22T15:44:00.000-06:00JFE:Humans are subject to "rules" -- the types of ...JFE:<BR/><BR/><I>Humans are subject to "rules" -- the types of actions that best insure social cohesion and success -- and that is expressed in our moral valuations and ethical systems, because a propensity for such behaviors is baseline coded in to us (to varying degrees) by generations of successful breeding. Ethical systems, the schema by which we intergenerationally encapsulate such rules, last longer the more successful they are at creating intra-group harmony. The Judeo-Christian ethic, for example, is very, very good at this, so long as you belong to the "in" group.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you acquainted with the 2004 work of <A HREF="http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=00021DCA-9949-116D-8FBC83414B7F0000" REL="nofollow">Joshua D. Greene</A> at Princeton’s Center for the Study of Brain, Mind and Behavior? The conclusion I draw is that evolved rules are fundamentally irrational, driven by visceral emotion rather than any real coherence or strategy for optimizing social welfare. Sure, they’ve proven adequate for most of history; so has the fight-or-flight response. But the strategy of punching my boss in the nose during stressful situations has proven oddly maladaptive to my current environment. Similarly, I suspect that racism is a kind of evolved rule, wherein we reflexively promote the welfare of those who look like us at the expense of others. I suspect this strategy was quite adaptive for many millennia. Yet I fear I’m prone to encounter trouble in precisely the circumstances for which evolution has least prepared me. <BR/><BR/>Today I believe we need very explicit ethical injunctions to challenge our natural instincts. Love of your “in” group, to the exclusion of the out group, is toxic.<BR/><BR/><I>Research shows that individually acting members behave in proximately beneficial fashions (game theory, for example). It's related to the "rational actor" theory of economics: we will act in our best interest, and often find that frank, cooperative behavior allows us to be most successful for minimal cost. This translates directly over to moral behavior -- our behavior towards others.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you acquainted with cross-cultural studies of the Ultimatum Game? “I gave another guy $100 on the condition that he offer some to you. He agreed to offer you $40. If you accept, you get $40 and he gets $60. If you reject, you both get nothing. What’s your choice?”<BR/><BR/>Classical economics says it’s a no-brainer: a rational actor will take the free money. Yet experiments show that most Americans reject any offers below 45%. On the other hand, people in remote areas without market economies tend to offer, and to accept, down to 25%. One interpretation of this result (and there are many interpretations) is that people in more cosmopolitan areas are accustomed to dealing with strangers, and both demand and give equitable treatment. By rejecting lower offers, they sacrifice money in order to punish someone who violated social norms of empathy and equity. People living in less cosmopolitan areas are accustomed to dealing mainly with their own clans, and both give and expect inequitable treatment where strangers are concerned. <BR/><BR/>Again, traditional received “rules” of behavior often strike me as undesirable. And often strike me as contrary to principles of empathy. <BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-5149307125659834942007-08-22T15:28:00.000-06:002007-08-22T15:28:00.000-06:00James: I already noted that I don't subscribe to M...<B>James:</B> <I>I already noted that I don't subscribe to MESR. That's Larry's bag.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, if you hold that the foundation of ethics is personal preference (including the personal preference not to be poked by pointy sticks) then you hold to MESR.<BR/><BR/>And, in fact, you're handily showing that Rhology <I>also</I> holds MESR.<BR/><BR/>After that, you're describing your own personal preferences. Of course, we can see that <B>Rhology personally prefers to lie</B> when he feels like it.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-35995104480771220622007-08-22T15:20:00.000-06:002007-08-22T15:20:00.000-06:00Rhology,2) These captive women are going to be the...Rhology,<BR/><BR/><I>2) These captive women are going to be the Israelites' wives. I've explained this already.</I><BR/><BR/>AFTER their menfolk have been killed and they were taken by force! Or is spousal rape not something that computes in your ethic? (Actually, as I continue down your comment, I see that it doesn't...) Again, not rocket science to draw this conclusion: it's an <I>implicit</I> condoning of rape! Just because a priest "sanctifies" their relationship before it occurs doesn't diminish my point; in fact quite the opposite.<BR/><BR/><I>I'd be willing to bet a lot of shekels that these girls would prefer to be wives in a non-decadent society, w/ full legal protection and rights, than to be killed w/ the rest of their people group.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a post-hoc rationalization, projecting <I>your</I> interpretation. I know Christians make a habit of speaking for the long-dead, but COME ON. You've behaved in a reasonably intelligent manner; I can't believe this point actually continues to escape you. Golly, I can be slaughtered with everyone else, or be raped. That's one hell of a choice to force on someone.<BR/><BR/><I>Again, why should I care?</I><BR/><BR/>Not saying you should care (though it disturbs me that you don't seem to), just that your argument that it's inconceivable that God would engage in the hypothetical I posited is on ever more tenuous ground. You're relying on an ontological tautology to refute me; the very kind of argumentation you lambasted Larry for. Hence the irony and your continued inability to actually refute me.<BR/><BR/><I>Where has He commanded rape? Either produce the goods or concede the point.</I><BR/><BR/>I am completely out of patience with you. SEE ABOVE. Shit or get off the pot, Rho.<BR/><BR/><I>No, unlike you, I deny that my faith is arbitrary. It is based on <B>subjective revelation</B> from TGOTB and objective external evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for proving my point.<BR/><BR/><I>What's your argument for that?</I><BR/><BR/>Did you not read or comprehend my responses to nobody.really?<BR/><BR/><I>The only reason I claim you do is b/c you keep acting like you need one. On the one hand you'll say that it's personal preference. Then you get all bent out of shape over alleging that TGOTB ordered women to be raped. You're being inconsistent w/ your own position.</I><BR/><BR/>How is that inconsistent? I get bent out of shape when someone/thing's actions don't conform to my ethic. JUST LIKE YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE. What you're saying is that you find internal authority <I>insufficient</I>. Just come out and say it!<BR/><BR/><I>But since James' and the victim's ethics are based on personal preference, the personal preference of the torturer cancels their wills out.</I><BR/><BR/>Where do you get that? Why is it a zero-sum game? (And even if it is, aren't you mathematically wrong anyways?) You're assuming facts not otherwise in evidence. It's not a binary equation (yay, Derrida!). Please, read the damn article I linked to. It's life-changing, really.<BR/><BR/><I> I affirm its objective truth. I affirm also that His commands are objectively true and objectively binding upon all people.</I><BR/><BR/>On what grounds? And if I find the evidence for those grounds insufficient, what is it that makes me wrong other than you <I>want</I> me to be wrong? If they flowed from Him, they'd be laws we are all subject to, like gravity or physics. But they're NOT; I can, if I so choose, abrogate any or all of them (and frequently do -- the first commandment leaps to mind). They logically can't be OBJECTIVE law; only prohibitions!<BR/><BR/><I>You may believe I'm wrong, but my basis for ethics is wholly different from yours. </I><BR/><BR/>That's damn straight. I for one have a conscience. You apparently think it's fine and dandy to slaughter and rape if God says so, but refuse to acknowledge YOUR OWN "OBJECTIVE" SOURCE when it indicates that He has. One of us inconsistent, and it isn't me.<BR/><BR/><I>Part of the proof is that you keep acting like you hold to my ethics but then are quick to bait-'n'-switch to MESR when someone's looking.</I><BR/><BR/>1) I already noted that I don't subscribe to MESR. That's Larry's bag. My theory is different, and if you read my responses to nobody.really, fairly well-articulated.<BR/><BR/>2) Further, I noted that, living in the same society, you and I are going to hold like-opinions on any number of moral questions, because we are both subject to similar environmental stimuli and socio-cultural schema. Nothing in my theory <I>precludes</I> my reaching the same conclusions you do on any individual question of morality. My only conclusion from your continued obstinance is that you're simply uncomfortable with that.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-45619245506910485592007-08-22T14:46:00.000-06:002007-08-22T14:46:00.000-06:00Notice: Rhology has proven himself a liar.<B>Notice: Rhology has <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/08/my-ethics.html#comment-6249699103875444802" REL="nofollow">proven himself a liar</A>.</B>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-38961463784515938132007-08-22T14:09:00.000-06:002007-08-22T14:09:00.000-06:00hi BB,That is both a lie and a canard. You are—lik...hi BB,<BR/><BR/><I>That is both a lie and a canard. You are—like most Christians I talk to—a liar. I never refuse evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, see it from my end, BB. You suppress the truth about TGOTB's existence already, so why would I expect you to say anythg other than this? <BR/>I'd add this comes across as shrill and childish, accusing me of being a liar and all. One won't find such cheap insults from my pen.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hi James,<BR/><BR/><I>The irony contained in this statement could power the engines of satire for at least six months.</I><BR/><BR/>From your perspective, I can see why. <BR/><BR/><I>You do realize that you're engaging in precisely what you accuse Larry of?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and it comes across as bizarre b/c we are not operating according to the same presuppositions. But it is to my interest to make the distinction quite clear. Mission accomplished, wouldn't you say? ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>They take only the virgins -- the unwed -- who have not given birth yet to children of the offending tribe, following God's instructions to sweep the land clear of those who choose not to join the covenant.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, which is possible only AFTER most of the people group are killed. Anyway, I see what you're saying. It's fine.<BR/><BR/><I>In Numbers 31, Moses is clearly following the Lord's command in giving his instructions.</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. <BR/>1) But where is the rape you keep alleging? This is getting silly.<BR/>2) These captive women are going to be the Israelites' wives. I've explained this already.<BR/>3) Why should anyone care? This is just an irritation against your personal preference, which does not necessarily extend to anyone else, nor do you posit an obligation that it extend to anyone else. You keep acting like a Christian in your moral outrage.<BR/><BR/><I>make them wives against their will. Forcible intercourse = rape. </I><BR/><BR/>1) They're going to be the Israelites' wives.<BR/>2) Arranged marriage = the norm for everyone in ANE society, and the norm alot of the time in the modern world.<BR/>3) I'd be willing to bet a lot of shekels that these girls would prefer to be wives in a non-decadent society, w/ full legal protection and rights, than to be killed w/ the rest of their people group. Besides, they were probably objectively treated better among the Hebrews than in their own culture.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you know that? </I><BR/><BR/>1) B/c TGOTB is love.<BR/>2) B/c He never DID command it. <BR/><BR/><I>The OT is chock-full of instances of the Lord commanding the Israelites to slaughter opposing tribes unto the last man, woman, and child.</I><BR/><BR/>Which offends your personal preference. Again, why should I care?<BR/><BR/><I>It's not like there isn't precedent; it's totally within the realm of probability given past actions</I><BR/><BR/>You keep making bare assertions. You're losing a lot of respect in my eyes.<BR/>Yes, agreed, TGOTB commands the slaughter of whole societies at times. Cool. Where has He commanded rape? Either produce the goods or concede the point.<BR/><BR/><I>And you accept His judgment based on faith, which is equally arbitrary. </I><BR/><BR/>No, unlike you, I deny that my faith is arbitrary. It is based on subjective revelation from TGOTB and objective external evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>everyone bases their moral judgments on personal preference in the end...it's an integral and instinctive part of moral evaluations! </I><BR/><BR/>What's your argument for that?<BR/><BR/><I>What do we need external authority for? You're not just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, you're using a piece that doesn't belong on the board.</I><BR/><BR/>The only reason I claim you do is b/c you keep acting like you need one. On the one hand you'll say that it's personal preference. Then you get all bent out of shape over alleging that TGOTB ordered women to be raped. You're being inconsistent w/ your own position.<BR/><BR/><I>I do, and presumably the little girl, which is all the authority I need.</I><BR/><BR/>But the torturer LIKES to do it. It's his personal preference. There you go, talking like a Christian again. <BR/>So, what we see is:<BR/>1) It's not morally wrong to torture little girls for fun, it just disgusts James and the victim.<BR/>2) But since James' and the victim's ethics are based on personal preference, the personal preference of the torturer cancels their wills out.<BR/>How could we create a society w/ laws of equity and so forth based on this bankrupt system?<BR/><BR/><I>Yours, on your personal preference for faith in the Christian God and what you have been taught are His commands. </I><BR/><BR/>I deny, however, that my faith in Christ is based solely on subjectivity. I affirm its objective truth. I affirm also that His commands are objectively true and objectively binding upon all people.<BR/>You may believe I'm wrong, but my basis for ethics is wholly different from yours. Part of the proof is that you keep acting like you hold to my ethics but then are quick to bait-'n'-switch to MESR when someone's looking.<BR/><BR/><I>I like it that way.</I><BR/><BR/>Cool, but I don't. Uh oh, we have a dilemma.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-82296869735325223922007-08-22T13:15:00.001-06:002007-08-22T13:15:00.001-06:00JFE emphasizes the role of consensus views.Not qui...<I>JFE emphasizes the role of consensus views.</I><BR/><BR/>Not quite accurate: Humans, in order to survive, require communal and cooperative societies (to a varying degree among individuals). Research shows that individually acting members behave in proximately beneficial fashions (game theory, for example). It's related to the "rational actor" theory of economics: we will act in our best interest, and often find that frank, cooperative behavior allows us to be most successful for minimal cost. This translates directly over to moral behavior -- our behavior towards others.<BR/><BR/>It's not a utilitarian "whatever benefits the most people" kind of rule, and it's not predicated on "pleasure or pain." Humans are subject to "rules" -- the types of actions that best insure social cohesion and success -- and that is expressed in our moral valuations and ethical systems, because a propensity for such behaviors is baseline coded in to us (to varying degrees) by generations of successful breeding. Ethical systems, the schema by which we intergenerationally encapsulate such rules, last longer the more successful they are at creating intra-group harmony. The Judeo-Christian ethic, for example, is very, very good at this, so long as you belong to the "in" group.<BR/><BR/>By emphasizing consensus, you are casting this as a conscious system, when it is most profoundly not. However...<BR/><BR/><I>Are appeals to empathy the sole bulwark against demagoguery?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, yes, aren't they? That and pointy sticks. Isn't that the whole point of a Consitutional system like ours? When another's empathy fails, the empathy of another, with more authority, steps in. A religious ethic is simply the imposition of an external authority's empathic rule: "<I>I</I> (God, Borneo Monkey-Devil, the U.S. Constitution, etc.) find this offensive, and you shall not do it" and since "you" (generic you) are subject to My authority, you won't.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-24579750666272487482007-08-22T13:15:00.000-06:002007-08-22T13:15:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-27815645138658997732007-08-22T13:02:00.000-06:002007-08-22T13:02:00.000-06:00I may sincerely hate Brussel sprouts, to the point...<I>I may sincerely hate Brussel sprouts, to the point where I can’t stand the thought of other people eating them.</I><BR/><BR/>Well then, you would indeed probably try to discourage people from eating them.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you seem like a smart person, and it's not impossible to imagine that you might consider the issue at a more general level of abstraction: Do you want to control what other people eat in general?<BR/><BR/><I>This is a recurring theme, yet I haven’t seen how the proffered ethic requires any sort of Equal Protection-type treatment.</I><BR/><BR/>This is again simply ethical reasoning at a more general level of abstraction. It is a physical fact that people have the ability coerce each other; unilateral coercion is not physically possible. Note that the king coercing his subjects depends on the majority of the subjects agreeing with the king; the coercion in this case is not unilateral.<BR/><BR/>Again, it comes down to what you yourself will agree or submit to: Do you yourself <I>want</I> equal protection under the law?<BR/><BR/><I>Yet if put to a vote, there are plenty of places in the world that would adopt a state religion and would impose all manner of discrimination against, say, homosexuals. (Indeed, many places already have.)</I><BR/><BR/>As you note, indeed many places already have. That an hypothesis is confirmed by observation is usually an argument <I>in favor</I> of the hypothesis, not against it.<BR/><BR/><I>Are appeals to empathy the sole bulwark against demagoguery? </I><BR/><BR/>That and physical and social evolution.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-30558586304785329662007-08-22T12:57:00.000-06:002007-08-22T12:57:00.000-06:00Hi nobody,Ok, I’m getting the idea that the proffe...Hi nobody,<BR/><BR/><I>Ok, I’m getting the idea that the proffered ethic focuses on other’s pain, pleasure and emotions as a basis for guiding decisions...</I><BR/><BR/>You’ll have to be more specific who this is addressed to; I don’t see how it applies to the system I’ve outlined above, since nowhere do I indicate that physical pain or pleasure is the proximate cause of our action/reaction (also, I think, if you are addressing Larry, that you are not allowing for the fact that he allows for existential perceptions of pain and happiness as well). For example, my projection of my not willing to have my autonomy violated, along with my empathy of being able to feel the pain of another whose volition is, is sufficient spur for me to act (see my response to your “dog fighting” question above). Similarly, a focus on “sentience” is simply not necessary: my subjective response is sufficient, the target’s sapience notwithstanding.<BR/><BR/>In both your “Painless Joe” and “Sleeping Susan” examples, the simple answer would be: I wouldn’t want to be killed unless I specifically requested it, so I would say that there <I>is</I> such a prohibition. There are others who would disagree (psychopaths, for example), and might act in such a manner, but given my judgment, I would move to prevent them from doing so. Of such things are moral struggles built from. Similarly, I would be moved by the pain others might experience at such a loss, but is not necessary in order to make that judgment.<BR/><BR/>I guess the ultimate answer to your question, for my part, would be that I do impart value to other humans (and creatures) based simply on their status as such, because that is what I would wish for myself, and so I act accordingly. The best I can hope for is reciprocity, and am willing to defend or react as appropriate when it is not forthcoming.<BR/><BR/>I do not object to “religious” schema at all, unless they teach or command action based on a valuation I find wrong; I object to the contention that there is anything <I>more</I> factual about such a schema than any other. It’s not the “religious” part I would ever object to; it’s the “holier than thou” post-hoc justifications. We can only act as we think best, and accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions and judgments.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-46636389833884931862007-08-22T12:37:00.000-06:002007-08-22T12:37:00.000-06:00Close, but not exactly correct. My ethical system ...<I>Close, but not exactly correct. My ethical system focuses on my own pain, pleasure and emotions. It also happens to be the case that other people's pain and pleasure causes me pain and pleasure; but it is on my own emotions that I base my ethics.</I><BR/><BR/>But now we’re back to the empathy/projection problem. I may sincerely hate Brussel sprouts, to the point where I can’t stand the thought of other people eating them. If my own emotions guide my decisions, then I vote to ban Brussel sprouts for everyone. <BR/><BR/><I>Assuming everyone were equally subject to its provisions....</I><BR/><BR/>This is a recurring theme, yet I haven’t seen how the proffered ethic requires any sort of Equal Protection-type treatment. <BR/><BR/>I sense you mean that we appeal to empathy as a basis for protecting minorities. My reading of history suggests that this is a pretty weak thread upon which to hang the protection of minorities. JFE emphasizes the role of consensus views. Yet if put to a vote, there are plenty of places in the world that would adopt a state religion and would impose all manner of discrimination against, say, homosexuals. (Indeed, many places already have.) First Amendment and Equal Protection arguments are fundamentally not populist arguments. Are appeals to empathy the sole bulwark against demagoguery? <BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-39904727909738233082007-08-22T12:12:00.000-06:002007-08-22T12:12:00.000-06:00nobody.really:Ok, I’m getting the idea that the pr...<B>nobody.really</B>:<BR/><BR/><I>Ok, I’m getting the idea that the proffered ethic focuses on other’s pain, pleasure and emotions as a basis for guiding decisions.</I><BR/><BR/>Close, but not exactly correct. My ethical system focuses on <I>my own</I> pain, pleasure and emotions. It also happens to be the case that other people's pain and pleasure causes <I>me</I> pain and pleasure; but it is on my own emotions that I base my ethics.<BR/><BR/>All of your questions reduce to the question: How do <I>you yourself</I> feel about killing someone, killing someone in their sleep, killing a loner, etc.?<BR/><BR/>All of your questions can also reduce to the question: What law or other social agreement would you yourself vote for or otherwise endorse? Assuming everyone were equally subject to its provisions, would <I>you yourself</I> endorse a law which strongly discouraged the killing of sleeping loners?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-7090766436195550642007-08-22T11:59:00.000-06:002007-08-22T11:59:00.000-06:00Ok, I’m getting the idea that the proffered ethic ...Ok, I’m getting the idea that the proffered ethic focuses on other’s pain, pleasure and emotions as a basis for guiding decisions. <BR/><BR/>1. Is the focus on pleasure, pain and emotions a substitute for a focus on sentience? For example, what duties/discretion do I have toward Joe, a sentient guy with a neurological condition that limits his ability to feel pain or have affect? Any limitations on my killing Joe? <BR/><BR/>2. Any limitations on killing people painlessly in their sleep? I guess so; I might not cause my victim fear or pain, but I’d cause fear to people who learned about it and started worrying for their own safety. But any limitations on killing people painlessly in their sleep if I could avoid causing fear to others? (Concealing the nature of the crime; killing the only other person on Earth; etc.) <BR/><BR/>3. Should my thinking be influenced by the pain that would be experienced by the loved ones of a potential murder victim? And conversely, should my thinking be influenced by the fact that a potential victim is a loner, and no one would miss him? (“I’ve got them on my list; they’d none of them be missed!”) In short, does the proffered ethic impute some value to a human simply for having the status of human, independent of pleasure, pain or social role? Or would such an imputation be too “religious” for this ethic?<BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com