tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post114800676751191208..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Harsh WordsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148084559370945042006-05-19T18:22:00.000-06:002006-05-19T18:22:00.000-06:00ChrisWelcome.On the issue of "the system outlined ...<B>Chris</B><BR/><BR/>Welcome.<BR/><BR/>On the issue of "the system outlined in this post," I fear that it is a mistake to take this post as a complete outline of the theory.<BR/><BR/>Those readers who have been around for a while recognize that I have used several posts to address different aspects of this system, Those include posts that address the issues that you raise here.<BR/><BR/>The greatest mistake is in interpreting this system as one that says, "Do that act that fulfills the most desires." I have repeatedly rejected that system for reasons that include some of the reasons you give here.<BR/><BR/>Instead, I argue for "promote those desires that tend to fulfill other desires."<BR/><BR/>We can easily see how a person with two conflicting desires (e.g., a desire for strong drink and a desire to have a long and healthy life) would be better off to be rid of one of those desires.<BR/><BR/>Which one should he keep?<BR/><BR/>Answer: He should keep the desire that tends to fulfill other desires. There may be very rare exceptions, but chances are this will be the desire for a long and healthy life. Thus, reason suggests getting rid of the desire for strong drink.<BR/><BR/>There is no great mystery here. Nor does this form of reasoning require any type of mysterious properties.<BR/><BR/>There may be times in which it is difficult to determine which desires to get rid of. Yet, this is not an objection. The math in string theory is so complex that nobody yet knows how to solve it. Instead, they simply the equations and derive estimates. Yet, nobody argues that the complexity of the math means that string theory should be rejected -- not if its estimates are better than those we get from any other theory.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, for a more complete account of "the system outlined in this post," I would recommend the following:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.infidelguy.com/members/AlonzoFyfe/article_du.shtml" REL="nofollow">Desire Utilitarianism</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.infidelguy.com/members/AlonzoFyfe/desire_utilitarianism.shtml" REL="nofollow">Desire Utilitarianism: An Atheist's Quest for Moral Truth.</A>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148074390194492822006-05-19T15:33:00.000-06:002006-05-19T15:33:00.000-06:00This post wasn't made in a vacuum - if you look at...This post wasn't made in a vacuum - if you look at what the Civility Police are actually doing, they're attempting to shut down *all* criticism in the name of "civility". (Ironically, they do this in a very uncivil way.) In certain quarters, your "civil" alternative criticism would get you condemned for criticizing the president, and very likely, called names as bad as "nut" if not worse.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, if as you suggest civility can be a form of humility - what about when it's false humility, then? Should I be civil to proponents of the idea that a particular ethnic group should be exterminated? Wouldn't that give the impression that I'm not necessarily 100% right and that I, as well as third party observers of the discussion, should at least listen to what the other side has to say? How is being civil to proponents of the idea that torture of *suspects* without any attempt to establish their guilt is sometimes a good way to defend national security any different?<BR/><BR/><BR/>There are still some major flaws in the system outlined in this post, though. One is the difficulty of deciding between incompatible desires - it is very common for two people to have desires that can't be satisfied at the same time. Each desire can't be fulfilled without thwarting the other; which one is evil and why? To put it even more simply, *why* does my desire to possess my property take precedence over a thief's desire to possess the same property, since neither can be fulfilled without thwarting the other? Why does a lynching victim's desire to continue living take precedence over the equally sincere desires of the lynch mob to see him die? (Does it matter if the mob sincerely believes their victim is a murderer who got away with it? Does it matter if they're right?) Sometimes a person can even hold mutually incompatible desires with *himself* - e.g., desiring both to lose weight and to eat cheeseburgers and french fries frequently.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The second problem is empirical: do praise and condemnation *actually* change people's desires, or only their behavior? That's an empirical question to which the answer is just assumed with no evidence. If it doesn't work the way you need it to work, your whole moral justification for condemnation comes undone, because it isn't having the effect you want it to have. If the consequences of condemning Behavior X are that people who desire X stop doing it but feel frustrated because they can't do it, guilty because they *want* to do it, etc., then that's very different than if they stopped desiring X at all.<BR/><BR/>As an obvious example, lots of condemnation of homosexual acts and desires has not noticeably prevented people from desiring to have sex with people of the same sex. It has possibly prevented them from *doing* it, but not from *desiring* it and the difference is quite evident. It can of course be argued that homosexual desires aren't evil and we shouldn't condemn them in the first place, but this misses the point: if condemnation is really that ineffective at eradicating desires in that case, then why should we use it in other cases? Why should we believe that "evil" desires are somehow easier to extinguish? It almost seems like a Pollyannaish conviction that everyone wants to be good if they only knew how, which may be true of some people but is clearly not true of all people.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also, you seem to allude to an objective moral value of truth; does this mean that if a person wants to believe X, and you have evidence that X is actually false, it's moral to explain to them why X is false (and thwart their desire), and immoral to encourage them to continue believing X (and fulfill it)? Why? If satisfying desires is the fundamental measurement of good in your system, how can it be trumped by anything, including truth? If one person wants to find the truth and ten others want the orthodoxy to remain unchallenged (assuming fulfilling either desire will thwart the other), which is right and why?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't really want to be a moral nihilist, but I'm unwilling to accept a flawed justification for preordained conclusions, which pretty much describes every moral system I've ever seen proposed (or attempted to construct - I can't find a non-arbitrary way to break the symmetry of the problem of incompatible values). It seems that the most you can say for any moral system is that it is consistent; there's no way to establish that one is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1148044702808733822006-05-19T07:18:00.000-06:002006-05-19T07:18:00.000-06:00If, by civility, you mean dispassionate discourse,...If, by civility, you mean dispassionate discourse, striving above all to be inoffensive, then, yes, you're correct.<BR/><BR/>Civility, though, can mean using those tools of praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment in an effective fashion, leaving room for an enemy to become a friend, acknowledging with some humility that I'm not necessarily 100% right and so should at least listen to what the other person has to say.<BR/><BR/>Honesty demands we be open with our moral outrage over items. Civility, to my mind, is doing so in a way that -- if such is our goal -- we do not drive off or harden the positions of those who disagree with us. Incivility is "The president is nucking futs on trying to drill in ANWR, and all those Big Oil-loving idiots who agree with him are nucking futs, too." Civility is "The president's policy on drilling in ANWR is awful and shortsighted for a number of reasons. What I don't understand is why so many people seem to support that policy." Both are honest, but the latter invites discussion, possible illumination, and maybe the chance to make change some minds, whereas the former simply invites a retort of "frickin' tree lover" or "you go, boy!" and leaves it at that.<BR/><BR/>So I suppose the question is whether one wants to rally the troops, or change minds (possibly one's own). If the former, civility isn't necessary (though one needs to avoid descending into demogoguery). If the latter, civility isn't a tool in the tool box, but it's a way to use those other tools safely and effictively.***Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619750729726616568noreply@blogger.com