tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post5878647678217483076..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: What makes altruism good?Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-30116265215827065202008-12-16T15:23:00.000-07:002008-12-16T15:23:00.000-07:00May have to reread a couple times to get the full ...May have to reread a couple times to get the full extent of what you're saying, but I love the point that theists don't have any advantage by adding a magic middle man.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-84265651250664740762008-12-15T18:12:00.000-07:002008-12-15T18:12:00.000-07:00... it boggles my mind it's such a wildly held bel...<I>... it boggles my mind it's such a wildly held belief.</I><BR/><BR/>It boggles my mind that objective morality is a widely held belief among atheist professional philosophers.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-5678144871739086072008-12-15T16:51:00.000-07:002008-12-15T16:51:00.000-07:00Great post. It seems so self-evident that I find ...Great post. It seems so self-evident that I find it exasperating when any religious debate goes off into that sort of territory, as they tend to do regularly.<BR/><BR/>The idea of that there is an objective morality that we have access to seems so divorced from how we actually behave, and have behaved through history, that it boggles my mind it's such a wildly held belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-75014311763481416422008-12-15T11:39:00.000-07:002008-12-15T11:39:00.000-07:00We have to be careful, James, to differentiate bet...We have to be careful, James, to differentiate between the <I>complexity</I> of our ethical systems and their ontological foundation.<BR/><BR/>Modern physics, for example, is very complex, and we have made gazillions of "after-the-fact" modifications, if you count obsolete theories falsified by more sophisticated experiments.<BR/><BR/>Complexity per se does not differentiate a fundamentally objective from a fundamentally subjective ontological account of ethics. The difference is rather in the structure of how we account for the phenomenology of our ethical intuitions.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-38015569674248796522008-12-15T09:34:00.000-07:002008-12-15T09:34:00.000-07:00This is precisely right. When someone -- theist, ...This is precisely right. When someone -- theist, non-theist, Marxist, Borneo Monkey Devil Worshiper, whatever -- creates an "objective" ethic, it must, buy its very nature, be filled with caveats. We must not kill -- except when god, the state, or Dear Leader tells us too. We must not steal -- except as the spoils of conquest when God tells us to. We must not rape -- except when God tells us to. We must not harm children -- except when God tells us to.<BR/><BR/>It's all hogwash. We can come up with all kinds of high-falutin' logical reasons for our ethics and morals, but they exist as after-the-fact justifications.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-48093160247108141942008-12-15T05:05:00.000-07:002008-12-15T05:05:00.000-07:00Villain: Certainly not the former. I would phrase ...Villain: Certainly not the former. I would phrase the latter more precisely, but you have the right idea.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-8244509123391751042008-12-15T01:46:00.000-07:002008-12-15T01:46:00.000-07:00So are you arguing against an objective reality in...So are you arguing against an objective reality in general or just that the study of ethics doesn't necessarily depend on objective truths?The Villainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982651571978108960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-10030046848634911232008-12-14T10:10:00.000-07:002008-12-14T10:10:00.000-07:00Let me be more precise: There is "no such thing" a...Let me be more precise: There is "no such thing" as ethics, to the extent that we construe "ethics" as some sort of objective property.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-42100913520666167242008-12-14T10:09:00.000-07:002008-12-14T10:09:00.000-07:00[Y]ou are basically reaching the point where there...<I>[Y]ou are basically reaching the point where there is no such thing as "ethics" at all. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, at least to the extent that we construe "ethics" as some sort of objective (non-mind-related) property, as a matter of truth that it is meaningful to say that someone, or everyone -- can be correct or mistaken about.<BR/><BR/>To the extent that we construe "ethics" as <I>fundamentally</I> subjective (mind-related) property, a matter of individual and social psychology, of course individual minds actually exist, and their states actually exist, so ethics exist in this sense.<BR/><BR/>And I'm not really "reaching" this point here. It's a fundamental component of <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Meta-Ethical%20Subjective%20Relativism" REL="nofollow">meta-ethical subjective relativism</A>, a position I've been advocating for a couple of years.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-7811562107408216862008-12-14T09:55:00.000-07:002008-12-14T09:55:00.000-07:00Hmm. So relating this back to your earlier post on...Hmm. So relating this back to your earlier post on the co-extensivity of "wrong" and "illegal", it sounds like you are basically reaching the point where there is no such thing as "ethics" at all. There are just desires concerning human behavior, some of which we hold strongly enough to choose as a society to enforce through law.<BR/><BR/>Am I understanding you correctly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-21575201561110211832008-12-14T09:30:00.000-07:002008-12-14T09:30:00.000-07:00What happened to the footnote?I forgot to include ...<I>What happened to the footnote?</I><BR/><BR/>I forgot to include it. It should read:<BR/><BR/>*Although a lot of evolutionary psychology is pseudo-scientific bullshit, I think good science can be done in the field.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-36734844210089664152008-12-13T11:34:00.000-07:002008-12-13T11:34:00.000-07:00This is wonderfully put. I liked this part especi...This is wonderfully put. I liked this part especially:<BR/><BR/>"We no longer need ask that evolutionary psychology* give us a philosophical justification for our ethics, we need only ask this science to give us a causal explanation of why we actually have some of the desires we do in fact have."<BR/><BR/>(What happened to the footnote?) I really dislike how people tend to think evolution is a sufficient answer to "Why be moral?" My usual response has to do with evolved diets conflicting with junk food, but I like your response better, because it gets to the heart of the problem. We <I>first</I> need to argue that a philosophical justification is unnecessary and a causal explanation of ethics is sufficient. Which you did well.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.com