tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post761635168228128141..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Modernism, postmodernism and ethicsLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-84670384825135229972007-09-03T17:14:00.000-06:002007-09-03T17:14:00.000-06:00What's important is that we attempt to derive a hu...<I>What's important is that we attempt to derive a human-centric ethics based on objective measures that remove human suffering and increase human prosperity.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Hasn't this already been multiply attempted?<BR/><BR/>Are you perhaps suggesting that what's important is to determine a canonical version?John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-86715696574033710222007-09-03T11:48:00.000-06:002007-09-03T11:48:00.000-06:00"I think you should be more specific about what yo..."I think you should be more specific about what you mean by "objective measures""<BR/><BR/>Increased HDI, life-expectancy, education levels, reduction in crime rates, rates of incarceration, reduction in disease, increase in numbers of people with access to health care, clean drinking water, adequate food, sustainable energy production, reduction in numbers of wars, increase in representative government...<BR/><BR/>All things I think can be said to be objectively ethical relative to humans. (Correct me if I'm wrong).BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-13168480279456822102007-09-03T11:36:00.000-06:002007-09-03T11:36:00.000-06:00How can you claim that killing off millions of one...<I>How can you claim that killing off millions of one's own people represents "Enlightenment values?"</I><BR/><BR/>It doesn't, not directly; one need not conclude that the Enlightenment philosophers would have personally approved. Still and all, the 19th and 20th century European and American societies were built on Enlightenment values, or so they said. They were empirical, pro-science, pro-technology; they were pretty secular and religiously tolerant, at least within Christianity, and it's arguable that antisemitism was and is primarily <I>racial</I> in nature and not religious.<BR/><BR/><I>Personally, I find any attempt to rescue postmodernism suspect. We should establish frames of reference (my personal favorite would be "relative to humans") and then try to objectify properties of that frame of reference.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a matter of preferred terminology. It will still be opposed to the "modernist" ideal of of the One True Anything.<BR/><BR/><I>I've had hardcore philosophers tell me that calling something "objective with regard to a certain frame of reference" is a contradiction. But I think there's such a thing as too much quibbling.</I><BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that "objective" is equivocal; it can mean non-minded things and their properties, determinable, or uniquely determinable. One suspects that it is the sense of "uniquely determinable" with which your hardcore philosophers are quibbling.<BR/><BR/><I>What's important is that we attempt to derive a human-centric ethics based on objective measures that remove human suffering and increase human prosperity.</I><BR/><BR/>Per above, I think you should be more specific about what you mean by "objective measures". I can determinably measure human happiness and suffering, but it'll still be a minded property, and probably not <I>uniquely</I> determinable.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-80490510594173961982007-09-03T10:07:00.000-06:002007-09-03T10:07:00.000-06:00"Two generations of killing off millions of one's ..."Two generations of killing off millions of one's own people, mostly children, pretty much demolished the naive notion that "Enlightenment values" were even close to the apex of ethics."<BR/><BR/>How can you claim that killing off millions of one's own people represents "Enlightenment values?"<BR/><BR/>Personally, I find any attempt to rescue postmodernism suspect. We should establish frames of reference (my personal favorite would be "relative to humans") and then try to objectify properties of that frame of reference.<BR/><BR/>I've had hardcore philosophers tell me that calling something "objective with regard to a certain frame of reference" is a contradiction. But I think there's such a thing as too much quibbling. What's important is that we attempt to derive a human-centric ethics based on objective measures that remove human suffering and increase human prosperity.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-41348937254852022002007-09-03T09:42:00.000-06:002007-09-03T09:42:00.000-06:00Is dualism lurking somewhere in my post or in mode...Is dualism lurking somewhere in my post or in modernism or bullshit postmodernism?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-43122838967269551872007-09-03T09:36:00.000-06:002007-09-03T09:36:00.000-06:00Somewhere in here is lurking the legacy of childho...Somewhere in here is lurking the legacy of childhood dualism. Do bonobos need a "net of truth"? They seem to do just fine with a bunch of game-theoretic instincts - see Axelrod on cooperation.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521391745343783288noreply@blogger.com