Jan Narveson is one of the best contemporary moral and political philosophers, and it is not surprising that his introduction to political philosophy raises a vital issue that most people miss. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10812/you-and-the-state/
You and the State
Previous post: Carl Menger’s Theory of the Origin of Money
Next post: Tire Trade Tirade
{ 46 comments }
I bought this book after a talk by Narveson at the Libertarian Alliance in London, but sold it after reading just the first chapter. I found it badly written and patronising.
There are plenty of works of political theory from a libertarian and an anarchist perspective. This isn’t one of the best.
Tom:
Any recommendations?
Narveson attacks the straw-man version of morality as God-given. The social-contract theory of morals is interesting and appeals to many people, but it assumes that people care that others achieve their goals as well and that it is logical that people should care about others. There is no logical reason that anyone should care about the goals of any other person in order to be reasonable.
People naturally do care about others, as Adam Smith pointed out. We naturally have sympathy for others, which is a curious thing since animals don’t seem to have that sympathy for others. Atheists need to explain where that sympathy came from, but that’s another issue.
Still, we can care about some people achieving their goals and so have a social contract with them, without having one with everyone on the planet. If resources are scarce and insufficient to maintain the lives of everyone, then it would be reasonable to care about a limited number of people, say your own tribe, and have a contract with them, while not caring about anyone outside the tribe. And if fact that is how we see most of history playing out. Self-interest is rational and can include one’s offspring and even people you grew up with and consider the same as family. But concern for those outside of family is not necessarily rational if resources are limited.
You could argue that such an attitude leads to war and destruction, but history says it doesn’t always. Great Empires like Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome enjoyed long periods of peace and relative prosperity while crushing the outsiders of their worlds.
Of course, many will fall back on the non-aggression principle, but that principle applies to argument, not to all of life. Of course you can’t have a debate about something unless you agree to the non-aggression principle, but there is no logical reason that it should apply to all other areas of life.
Atheist ethical philosophers have pulled the old bait and switch con game by misusing the word “moral.†Throughout history and philosophy it meant rules that every person on the planet were bound to observe because they were right and good, whether or not you could see any practical benefit. The authority for those rules had to come from someone greater than mankind and with natural authority over mankind or they weren’t valid and had no authority. In fact, the great atheist philosophers of the 20th century kept to the traditional definition of morality and many still do. Ethical philosophers coveted the authority that the term “moral†carries with it, so they borrowed the word, emptied it of its traditional meaning, and inserted their fake definition. The result has been nothing but confusion. It’s much more difficult to talk about morals now because few people make clear that there are two definitions—the traditional one and the fake one. Of course, you could argue that atheists don’t want people to become aware of the two definitions of morality because it would sink their boat.
It would be much more honest and helpful for debate if “ethical†philosophers would stick to the term “social contract†and not call it a system or morality, which it is not and never will be. They should say that we can’t achieve what the old philosophers wanted in trying to create morals without God, but we have this social contract that we think is a good substitute. Then in order not to confuse people, they should never use the words ethics or morals.
“[T]he claim that we ought to do what god [sic] tells us makes no sense unless we assume that god will tell us the right things. But what will make those the right things?â€
What God tells us to do is right and good in Christianity because God is good and cares about his creation, so what he tells us to do is right and good for us. That’s not the case in the other major religions. In many religions god is capricious and unconcerned for humanity.
“Narveson answers that to press such claims inevitably involves an appeal to controversial values that are not universally shared. To command universal assent, or as close to it as it is possible to attain, the hypothetical agreement must be pared to a minimum.â€
That principle should exclude the rights to life and liberty, too. They have never been universally shared and are not today. They are Western concepts invented by Christians.
My suggestion to atheists would be to abandon the moral argument. I understand what Rothbard and Hoppe and others were trying to do, but I think it fails miserably. Mises and Hayek had the right idea: concentrate on utility. Socialists claim to be driven by concern for the poor. Take that ground from them. They have no right to it, while property and liberty have proven to help the poor more than anything else, especially socialism, but even charity. After all, China has lifted more people out of the worst poverty ever experienced by mankind and they did it with tiny concessions to property and liberty and no help from charity or socialism.
fundamentalist,
Very good post.
One of the biggest problems athiests have when taking about this issue is making a fallacious assumption that Christian necessarily want their principles of morality codified into law. The reason they have this problem is because those who do not know God believe that their own principles of morality should be codified into law.
It is not by accident that the systems of government that offer the greatest liberty are from societies with a Christian foundation. The Christian God is actually a God of freedom. When Jesus allowed the Rich Young Ruler to turn his back and walk away it was a reflection of the liberty in Christianity, as is the story of the woman caught in adultry, as when Jesus had the disciples pay taxes saying “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Government has only one purpose and that is to enforce contracts. Now, that implies that the government should never enter into contracts, supplying health care, social security, FDIC, or schools among so many more. If the government enters into a contract and is also the enforcer and the result it tyranny.
But the Founding Fathers understood another aspect of Christianity that atheists cannot grasp. This is most clearly understood when you read President Washington saying that no government can exist without a moral populace. This means that Christianity is not important because of its influence on the government but because of its influence on the people who choose the government and who participate in government.
Finally, central to Christianity is the law of love and that is also central to a moral populace. The law of love, which cannot be codified, is critical to the people not the government. For man to treat his fellow man honestly and with justice there is a need for love. Without the element of love the law in whatever form becomes a club we use to beat our fellow man.
It’s all well and good if Christians do not want their principles codified into law, but the argument that it takes God to have universal moral authority fails simply because this deity can only have “authority” over people that believe in it, thus provides no real, substantive reason for believing that this morality is indeed universal, and indeed, that any non-Christian religion is less moral in its views.
Christian morality cannot be justified by appeals to a mythical deity, but only by any other logical, non-religious argument.
And I find it strange for Christianity to be considered a religion of liberty when it asks people to believe in Original Sin.
I’m not really wanting to get into a big religious argument, but neither do I want to stand back and be bashed for not believing an unprovable belief system.
Michael,
You make the same error that I attributed to athiests – and probably should have made it much broader. The true Christian faith does not demand that anyone believe anything. It is totally up to you. Christians only believe that their teachings are truth but that does not preclude you from believing what you want and no real Christian would believe that you should be put in jail for not believing exactly as he believes or even what the Bible says.
One of the most powerful doctrines in Christianity is soul freedom. That means that each person has to “work out” their own belief system between them and God. Christian teachings are heavy in teaching that we are all parts of one body but do not necessarily have the same purpose. One is an eye, one is a foot, one is a hand, one is a leg. To quote the Bible, “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’”
If you don’t believe in Original Sin who cares? It does not change the freedom and liberty for you to make contracts with another person. Just as my belief in Original Sin does not change my ability to make a contract, even with you.
Your implied condemnation of belief, in this case the doctrine of Original Sin, seems to imply that you wish to control belief. A Christian would say you have the freedom to believe anything you want, but the Christian has the freedom to believe anything he wants. But the state should not have the power to limit the speech of the Christian to debate Original Sin just as it should not have the power to limit your speech to argue against it.
Understand that the state inhibits the speech of Christians using exactly this strawman argument – because Christians profess a particular belief contrary to the “morality” of the state, then the state believes that it has the right to inhibit speech. Punishment for thought crimes is prehaps the most insidious thing a state can do.
But understand just because you believe something, or disbelieve something, doesn’t make it either true or false.
Your implied condemnation of belief, in this case the doctrine of Original Sin, seems to imply that you wish to control belief.
I don’t see where I implied that I wish to control anyone’s beliefs except my own. An attempt at persuasion through argument is hardly “control”
But understand just because you believe something, or disbelieve something, doesn’t make it either true or false.
No, the truth of a belief is independent of the belief. It is our understanding or knowledge of a truth requires proof or justification. To believe something without justification is pure faith, although justification can vary in quality and degree.
But doesn’t that reinforce my view that God is a poor authority for universal morality? To quote Fundamentalist: “What God tells us to do is right and good in Christianity because God is good and cares about his creation, so what he tells us to do is right and good for us.” That looks like circular reasoning to me, especially when you look closer how you know “what God tells you”, and assumes God is good and caring, because, well, because you’re told that God is good and caring.
And I don’t know why you’re equating my mere arguments with state suppression of Christian free speech. Where am I claiming that Christians should be punished for their beliefs? I’m merely arguing that Christian belief provides a poor basis for universal morality.
Michael: “this deity can only have “authority” over people that believe in it…”
The social contract has the same problem. You have to convince people it’s reasonable and in their best interest to follow it. But we have to differentiate the logical system from the implementation. You’re talking about implementing the system, that is, selling it to people. I was referring only to the logical basis for the system. If you don’t have an authority outside of mankind providing morals, and that authority must have some claim of ownership over mankind, then you have no authority for your morality other than men. No man has moral authority over another man.
Of course, any system of behavior that we discover or invent has to be sold to other people. It should be an easier sell if it’s reasonable and logical. Still, some people won’t accept it. But if your system is to be based on reason, it needs to have God as the authority.
Michael: ” That looks like circular reasoning to me, especially when you look closer how you know “what God tells you”, and assumes God is good and caring, because, well, because you’re told that God is good and caring.
No. Those are the assumptions. It’s hard to start reasoning about morals if you assume that God is evil and intent on killing us all, or he is capricious. We assume that God created us and therefore he has an ownership claim to us and authority over us. And if he created us, it’s likely that he wants us to live and thrive, otherwise, why create people. Of course he could have created us just to toy with and kill us off, but I think his intent would be obvious by now.
The fundamental problem is that everyone, Narveson included, is assuming that values are a set of arbitrary judgements that each individual makes. This reveals a fundamental and deep-rooted confusion between “is” and “ought”. This confusion is what reveals itself in the understanding that morals are a set of arbitrary diktats plucked out of thin air, that the moral codes of different individuals are all equal as long as the individuals concerned accept those codes voluntarily and that we should therefore limit ourselves based on some arbitrary principle like “self-ownership” and other equally arbitrary principles like Rights to Life and Liberty. This is where Libertarianism is losing me.
I guess some would say “What do I care if I lose you?”. If the purpose of LvMI is education, that’s something you cannot say.
In essence, I am saying that while I agree with almost everything that Libertarians say, I find their moral foundation extremely weak and incapable of appealing to the average person. Narveson (as portrayed by the author of this blog) is just an example.
Bala wrote:
“In essence, I am saying that while I agree with almost everything that Libertarians say, I find their moral foundation extremely weak and incapable of appealing to the average person.”
I find the basic libertarian moral position (theft is wrong, slavery is wrong, murder is wrong) to be quite capable of appealing to the average person. I think it is much more appealing to the average person than, say, the basic Objectivist moral position (And it be selfish, do what thou wilt). The problem arises when you try to say that there is only one right way to get to the basic libertarian moral position. Then you turn off everybody who disagrees with you on what the “right” way is to get there, and perhaps turn them away from libertarianism. And to a great extent, I don’t care *why* they believe that theft, slavery and murder are wrong, as long as they do. This doesn’t mean I think values are “arbitrary”, it just means that I think peoples’ *rationalizations* or *justifications* for their belief that theft, slavery and murder are wrong are unimportant, as long as they do believe that. Then we can take our shared moral values as axioms, and go from there.
fundamentalist wrote:
“The social-contract theory of morals is interesting and appeals to many people, but it assumes that people care that others achieve their goals as well and that it is logical that people should care about others.”
This is not my understanding of social contract theory. My understanding is that the social contract is an implicit agreement that I will leave you alone as long as you do me the same favor. It doesn’t at all imply that I care about others; it is essentially very selfish. I agree to the contract because I want the benefits of it, and supposedly have to agree to it to get those benefits, not for any altruistic reason. Now, in fact, I could often get away with breaking the contract, and still get its benefits. But even if I don’t break the contract, that’s not necessarily because of altruism on my part; it could just be because I am naturally risk-averse.
I don’t really think that the “agreement” to the “contract” is conscious on the part of most people; probably it’s only conscious in sociopaths trying to pass as normal. I think it’s probably programmed into us in some way or another.
“Atheist ethical philosophers have pulled the old bait and switch con game by misusing the word “moral.†Throughout history and philosophy it meant rules that every person on the planet were bound to observe because they were right and good, whether or not you could see any practical benefit. The authority for those rules had to come from someone greater than mankind and with natural authority over mankind or they weren’t valid and had no authority.”
I’ve never understood this argument, which is probably part of the reason why I’m no longer a Christian. If the validity of the rules is due to them coming from some authority figure, how can you know that the authority is good? How do you really know that God is not “capricious” as other gods are? And if following the rules gives you access to Heaven, how can you be considered any better than the atheists who supposedly follow rules only because of the personal benefit?
Besides all this, atheists don’t perform a mental risk/benefit analysis in their heads every time they have the opportunity to steal something they want, for instance. At least I don’t. I don’t do it simply because my moral compass tells me not to. And if the little devil on my left shoulder whispers “Oh, go ahead, steal it! There’s no such thing as absolute right and wrong, and anyway, you won’t go to Hell, because it doesn’t exist!”, I just shrug it off and tell myself that stealing just isn’t my style; I’m better than that and can pay my own way in life. I certainly don’t reject stealing just because I think that is to my benefit. If I understand your view of atheist morality correctly, then I think it’s ludicrous.
Bala: “The fundamental problem is … This reveals a fundamental and deep-rooted confusion…”
I love it when people use the world “fundamental”!
Russ: “the social contract is an implicit agreement that I will leave you alone as long as you do me the same favor.”
I was addressing Narveson’s viewpoint as described in the article. Yours is a legit take on the social contract, and practically it’s a good idea, but it can’t be considered morals. In essence, it’s the Jewish version of the Golden Rule taught by Jesus. Before Jesus, Jews wrote “Don’t to to others what you don’t want done to yourself.” Jesus advanced it to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
But reason doesn’t dictate that we follow the Golden Rule. Self-interest in a world of scarcity reasons against it.
Russ: “If the validity of the rules is due to them coming from some authority figure, how can you know that the authority is good?”
Good question. Natural law philosophers argued something like this: God created us and provided us with the means to not only continue living but to prosper. He gave us food and shelter, reason, the ability to work, etc. So he must care about our survival. That makes him good in terms of mankind’s interests. He’s not capricious because the world works according to regular rules. The sun doesn’t rise in the West some times.
Another philosophical line of reasoning by the Francis Schaeffer was about cause and effect: effects must have a cause greater than the effect in order to be reasonable. Mankind has many traits that animals don’t have, such as the ability to reason, love, morality, creativity, etc. Since these effects must have a cause greater than man, in order to obey the principles of cause and effect, people reasoned that they must have come from God and that we are like God in a small way. In other words, God, the creator, probably shares some of those human traits, but in a more perfect way.
Russ: “And if following the rules gives you access to Heaven…”
Well, of course in Christianity following the rules doesn’t get you to heaven. That’s what Jesus was all about.
Russ: “I don’t do it simply because my moral compass tells me not to.”
I think you misunderstand the Christian position on morality. Everyone has a conscience. It works better for some than for others. As you wrote, people tend to follow it. What Christianity says is that you have no logical explanation for that tendency toward morality that naturally exists in every human. Neither do you have any philisophical reason for obeying it, although you may have practical ones.
Russ,
” I think peoples’ *rationalizations* or *justifications* for their belief that theft, slavery and murder are wrong are unimportant, as long as they do believe that. Then we can take our shared moral values as axioms, and go from there. ”
With such axioms, you sure are going to need a lot of luck to get it working. All the best. When you eventually fail, just remember that there would be a lot of people (like me) around who would say “I told you so!!!”
It’s really weird how so many people (otherwise intelligent and sensible) fail to recognise that a self-contradictory moral framework is unsustainable. Any “success” built on such a self-contradictory moral framework is bound to be ephemeral. Individual actions are guided, above all, by their sense of right and wrong. When their morality finds as “wrong” that which their rationality finds to be “right”, I wonder how they will behave. Continue ignoring/evading this important question and I am sure you will get your success.
” I don’t care *why* they believe that theft, slavery and murder are wrong, as long as they do. ”
I guess you haven’t heard of the concept of package deals in philosophy. When you want to sell an abhorrent concept, package it along with a lot of good concepts that ordinary and even intelligent people will readily agree with. When push comes to shove, thrust that abhorrent concept in front of their eyes and give them a Hobson’s choice.
“I find the basic libertarian moral position (theft is wrong, slavery is wrong, murder is wrong) . . .” – Russ
Haha! One out of three is correct, tsk, tsk, tsk. Slavery isn’t automatically wrong per se – debt slavery is consistent with Libertarianism and “murder is wrong” is a tautology as murder is always defined as a wrong killing.
fundamentalist wrote:
“Yours is a legit take on the social contract, and practically it’s a good idea, but it can’t be considered morals. In essence, it’s the Jewish version of the Golden Rule taught by Jesus. Before Jesus, Jews wrote “Don’t to to others what you don’t want done to yourself.” Jesus advanced it to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”"
Hmmm… I’m not sure I agree. Granted that the social contract is often to one’s own advantage, it’s not always. There are times when breaching it would be advantageous, but people don’t anyway. I think this makes it morality, in your altruistic sense of the word (although an Objectivist would … object … strenuously to your usage *grin*).
I’m also not so sure that Jesus’ modification of the Jewish “Silver Rule” (it’s not as expensive as the Golden one *grin*) was an advance. I think it furthers the idea that charity is mandatory, not discretionary, which can foster socialism along Social Gospel lines.
“…God created us and provided us with the means to not only continue living but to prosper. He gave us food and shelter, reason, the ability to work, etc. So he must care about our survival….”
This all begs the problem of theodicy. If God is so good and cares so much about us, why is there evil and suffering in the world? It’s just as possible that God just created us because he was bored with being alone up there, and so creating life was his equivalent of puttering away like an old English lady in her greenhouse, just to have something to do.
“Another philosophical line of reasoning by the Francis Schaeffer was about cause and effect: effects must have a cause greater than the effect in order to be reasonable.”
This sounds suspiciously like a creationist’s (false) argument regarding the second law of thermodynamics to me.
“Well, of course in Christianity following the rules doesn’t get you to heaven. That’s what Jesus was all about.”
My understanding of Christianity is that Jesus’ sacrifice was what “bridged the gap”, so to speak, and allows humans to enter the Kingdom of God at all, yes. After that, it depends on whether one is Calvinist or Arminian in persuasion. A Calvinist supposes that one’s otherworldly fate is completely unaffected by one’s own actions. An Arminian believes that entry into the Pearly Gates is contingent on good works that one can freely choose or not choose to do.
“What Christianity says is that you have no logical explanation for that tendency toward morality that naturally exists in every human. Neither do you have any philosophical reason for obeying it, although you may have practical ones.”
Well, I believe that a lot of morality can be explained by evolution, whether biological or cultural (I believe a combination of the two); I think it’s a pretty good logical explanation for why we have morality. I do tend to agree with you about philosophy (I think). I don’t really find any good philosophical reasons for being moral. My take on it is that we all have certain moral *feelings* from the right side of the brain. The left side cannot understand those feelings, but sometimes tries to; it rationalizes those feelings. We call this rationalization “philosophy” or “theology”, depending on our tastes.
Russ,
” The problem arises when you try to say that there is only one right way to get to the basic libertarian moral position. Then you turn off everybody who disagrees with you on what the “right” way is to get there, and perhaps turn them away from libertarianism. ”
And I see pragmatism rearing its ugly head in your argument. Once again, more reasons to wish you a lot of luck.
Gil
“Haha! One out of three is correct, tsk, tsk, tsk. Slavery isn’t automatically wrong per se – debt slavery is consistent with Libertarianism …”
This is one person’s view. Many would disagree. Others would say that having to pay back any debt you freely agree to isn’t slavery by definition. Haha! *grin*
“…and “murder is wrong” is a tautology as murder is always defined as a wrong killing.”
Yeah, so? So saying “murder is wrong” is just another way of saying that an unjustified killing (not in self-defense, let’s say) is wrong. I don’t think most people would disagree with that.
Bala wrote:
“With such axioms, you sure are going to need a lot of luck to get it working.”
What? You don’t believe that theft, slavery and murder are wrong??? If all people followed these rules, and their corollaries, wouldn’t we have a libertarian society?
“Individual actions are guided, above all, by their sense of right and wrong. When their morality finds as “wrong” that which their rationality finds to be “right”, I wonder how they will behave.”
Maybe the problem is trying to use rationality to derive the fundamental axioms? I’ve never seen it work so far, attempts by people like Ayn Rand notwithstanding.
“I guess you haven’t heard of the concept of package deals in philosophy. When you want to sell an abhorrent concept, package it along with a lot of good concepts that ordinary and even intelligent people will readily agree with. When push comes to shove, thrust that abhorrent concept in front of their eyes and give them a Hobson’s choice.”
Yes, I have read my Rand, and know about package deals. What horrible consequences do you foresee from the package deal of theft, slavery and murder being wrong?
“And I see pragmatism rearing its ugly head in your argument. Once again, more reasons to wish you a lot of luck.”
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
“I guess some would say “What do I care if I lose you?”.”
If you scoff at real-world results, you are in effect saying “What do I care if I lose the world, as long as I know I am right?” That’s not the kind of philosophizing I’m interested in. A realistic polity has to contend with the fact that the majority of people are never going to subscribe to one single worldview, whether that worldview is Christianity or Objectivism or what have you. Any political philosophy that is not, to some extent at least, “big tent”, will never even get off the ground.
fundamentalist
I think you are just annoyed that people with secular outlook and atheists in particular can be moral (meaning moral in your eyes) without believing in a god. Your argument basically is there is morality, so there is god. So atheists (or theists) who are moral proves god’s existence and theists who are immoral, well they are not following scripture properly.
Now I have conceded to you before that a God can logically exist, although the one with a high potential to be real is a deistic one, if at all.
Now there are confusions with words that I need to clear up. I am defining morality as your personal sense of right or wrong.
Rules that every person on the planet were bound to observe because they were right and good, whether or not you could see any practical benefit, that is called ethics. I suggest you don’t get stuck with words. Understand how the author is using the words and you can understand what argument they are trying to make. I mean where would Austrian economics be if scholars confused the liberals Mises referred to for modern day liberals?
So what does someone mean when they say that such and such a person is acting morally? It means they are acting in accordance with their personal sense of right or wrong (whether or not that personal sense conforms to any universal ethics).
So why do you find atheists act morally? (i.e in accordance with your sense of right and wrong). The simple answer to that question is not all of them do (and not all theists do either). But those that you are likely to come across do, atheists or otherwise. Because you have a lot in common with them and they with you. Which is part of the reason you stumble across them. People with similar tastes tend to bump in to each other.
If you don’t have an authority outside of mankind providing morals, and that authority must have some claim of ownership over mankind, then you have no authority for your morality other than men. No man has moral authority over another man.
So why is this a problem? Defensive force requires no authority, moral or otherwise, over other people. It sounds to me like you want authority over other people, but deflect tyrannical intentions and controls by taking it away from the state and giving that authority to God. But why should anyone have any authority over others without their consent? Why play a mind game instead of going straight to the heart of the issue?
=”But if your system is to be based on reason, it needs to have God as the authority.
Um, an appeal to irrationality is required for reason??
We assume that God created us and therefore he has an ownership claim to us and authority over us. And if he created us, it’s likely that he wants us to live and thrive, otherwise, why create people.
Exactly–you’re making unwarranted assumptions, not logical reasons that make any sense. You’re trying to bring God into the picture when there’s no point in doing so. God can’t have any intentions toward humanity unless God exists in the first place, and it is his existence that remains in question, whatever you reason as his intentions.
In short, I don’t see how bringing God into the argument helps with questions of morals, since it doesn’t really contribute anything meaningful. If I wished to engage in psychology, I might suggest that God is merely an anthropomorphication of human intentions and desires (the good ones, that is–the bad ones are bundled into the other guy). Men created deities to have authority over other men. If modern religious believers back off from this, great, but it doesn’t change the origins.
If you don’t have an authority outside of mankind providing morals, and that authority must have some claim of ownership over mankind, then you have no authority for your morality other than men. No man has moral authority over another man.
So why is this a problem? Defensive force requires no authority, moral or otherwise, over other people. It sounds to me like you want authority over other people, but deflect tyrannical intentions and controls by taking it away from the state and giving that authority to God. But why should anyone have any authority over others without their consent? Why play a mind game instead of going straight to the heart of the issue?
=”But if your system is to be based on reason, it needs to have God as the authority.
Um, an appeal to irrationality is required for reason??
We assume that God created us and therefore he has an ownership claim to us and authority over us. And if he created us, it’s likely that he wants us to live and thrive, otherwise, why create people.
Exactly–you’re making unwarranted assumptions, not logical reasons that make any sense. You’re trying to bring God into the picture when there’s no point in doing so. God can’t have any intentions toward humanity unless God exists in the first place, and it is his existence that remains in question, whatever you reason as his intentions.
In short, I don’t see how bringing God into the argument helps with questions of morals, since it doesn’t really contribute anything meaningful. If I wished to engage in psychology, I might suggest that God is merely an anthropomorphication of human intentions and desires (the good ones, that is–the bad ones are bundled into the other guy). Men created deities to have authority over other men. If modern religious believers back off from this, great, but it doesn’t change the origins.
Russ,
” What horrible consequences do you foresee from the package deal of theft, slavery and murder being wrong? ”
That’s not the package deal I am talking of. I am referring to stuff like “You are your brother’s keeper”, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven” and, even worse, the concept of Original Sin that gets packaged along with these very-nice-and-easy-to-agree-with concepts. It is not just Christianity. Every religion has its share of faith based morality that is incompatible with concepts like Liberty, Property and above all, Capitalism.
I am wonder how you will justify the concept of Capitalism to a person who considers selfishness evil, especially because his religion says so. That’s an example of the package deal I am referring to.
” If you scoff at real-world results, you are in effect saying “What do I care if I lose the world, as long as I know I am right?” That’s not the kind of philosophizing I’m interested in. ”
The real world results you are claiming neither exist, nor will they ever exist. That’s because failure is written into the genes of the approach you are talking of. The contradictions you are trying to evade when you choose a pragmatic approach will explode in your face when you least expect or want them to. Hope you enjoy that situation.
” Yes, I have read my Rand, and know about package deals. ”
But then you have clearly not read it well. For would you otherwise say this???
” Maybe the problem is trying to use rationality to derive the fundamental axioms? ”
This shows that like many others, you have completely failed to understand Rand.
Abhilash Nambiar: “I think you are just annoyed that people with secular outlook and atheists in particular can be moral (meaning moral in your eyes) without believing in a god.â€
Don’t pretend to be able to read my mind. You’re not any where near clever enough nor are you psychic.
Abhilash Nambiar: “So why do you find atheists act morally?â€
I don’t. I have written repeatedly that atheists are moral people for the most part, but they are acting inconsistently with what they claim to believe. That doesn’t take away from the fact the the greatest mass murderers in the history of mankind were atheists—Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It could be argued that those mass murderers were acting more consistently with atheism than the moral atheists.
Michael: “I don’t see how bringing God into the argument helps with questions of morals, since it doesn’t really contribute anything meaningful.â€
I feel like we’re going around in circles, so I’ll just make an appeal to authority here and bow out. Read one of the great atheist philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Foucald or Derrida. They’ll show you how bringing God into the argument helps.
Bala wrote:
“I am wonder how you will justify the concept of Capitalism to a person who considers selfishness evil, especially because his religion says so. That’s an example of the package deal I am referring to.”
Simple. As long as the person finds theft, slavery and murder wrong (I suppose I should add things like assault and bearing false witness in a court of law, but you get the idea), then it doesn’t really matter if he thinks capitalism is evil. So I wouldn’t bother justifying that capitalism is not evil to him. By his own moral code, he wouldn’t be able to stop capitalism, even if he did think it was evil. Since I’m a libertarian, I wouldn’t force a person to participate in capitalism if he didn’t want to. As long as he is not violating anybody’s rights, then he can do what he wants, and I won’t stop him.
“”Maybe the problem is trying to use rationality to derive the fundamental axioms? ”
This shows that like many others, you have completely failed to understand Rand.”
It’s very rude and presumptious to assume that I don’t understand Rand. Maybe I understand, and don’t agree? And I hope that if you respond “If you truly understood, you would agree.”, that you understand how much of a religious fanatic that makes you sound like. Moral philosophy is not subject to mathematical proof or empirical falsification, no matter how much you might like it to be.
fundamentalist wrote:
“I have written repeatedly that atheists are moral people for the most part, but they are acting inconsistently with what they claim to believe.”
This is utter nonsense. Atheism just says that there is no supernatural being that created everything. It really has nothing to say about morality one way or the other, other than that God has nothing to do with it. (Atheist authors also make this error, and it pisses me off when they do it, too. Several times I have been reading a book on atheism, only to be confronted with the obnoxious and totally unfounded idea that atheism somehow implies socialism of one form or another. It does no such thing.) Just because we atheists don’t believe that God created fish, that doesn’t mean we can’t believe in fish. Likewise, just because we don’t believe that God determines right and wrong, that doesn’t mean we can’t believe in right and wrong. Belief in right and wrong certainly is not incompatible with religion, but on the other hand it certainly does not require religion either.
“I feel like we’re going around in circles, so I’ll just make an appeal to authority here and bow out. Read one of the great atheist philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Foucald or Derrida. They’ll show you how bringing God into the argument helps.”
It’s entirely consistent that you make an appeal to authority to try to bolster another appeal to authority, at least. *grin* I have to agree with Michael Clem. Bringing God into a moral argument really adds nothing. It is just a sort of veiled argumentum ad auctoritatem, an obvious logical fallacy, Nietzsche and company notwithstanding.
Russ: “Bringing God into a moral argument really adds nothing.”
You’re probably not aware of the rich irony of that statement. All of the atheist philosophers I mentioned above equated morality with God. So it’s like writing “bringing God into an argument about God really adds nothing.”
Thanks for confirming my suspicions fundamentalist. You are indeed annoyed. Which is why brought up Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Hitler remained a Roman Catholic. So I know when you say Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, you are reading a pre-packaged script. As for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot I neither condone nor am I answerable to their dogmas. In fact it could be argued that people fell under the sway of say Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot because they where conditioned for generations to submit to authority, which they where. And yet, that is what you are recommending yourself. You say other worldly authority, but it never works so in practice, except maybe in a libertarian society, but even there it is not guaranteed.
It is a very shameful thing to even consider the argument that Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot they where acting more consistently with my morality than I am and makes you immoral in my eyes. You do not even know me. Also do you realize the implications of what you are saying here? Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand and Walter Block must indulge in mass murderers to act more consistently with atheism.
You had refrained from doing this till now, which is why I showed the decency to not talk about the atrocities done in the name of religion, throughout history. Maybe I am being more considerate to you that you deserve.
Dare I say again that it exceedingly annoys you that atheists you meet are not like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot and this unsubstantiated claim that mass murderers were acting more consistently with atheism shows it. Atheism is a lack of belief, it is not a system of ethics or a moral code, both of which can exist independent of a belief in god and are practiced as such by various people. So what you said was not only immoral, it is also logically incoherent.
You say atheists do not act morally. Knowing morality is subjective, what it really means is that they do not live their life by your dictates of what is right or wrong. Sorry, the dictates of your god. Which means the same thing because to most people other people speak in the name of god. And there is enough freedom in the US for me to realize that you are not the puppet of some theocrat. The real authority figure is not otherworldly after all. It is a man that seeks to dominate and control other men in the name of God and invents reasons for it thereby undermining the whole concept of self-ownership. That is not moral or ethical.
So now you can ask me where does my morality come from? I made a claim on your morality did I not? The answer is I was born with it. We all are. We are born with our morality and it is shaped and molded by our experiences. There is no need to drag a god into any moral argument, but I see your necessity.
Your sense of morality unfortunately is too tightly tied to your belief in god that you cannot recognize the two as separate. Which is probably why you are clinging to it so tightly. Do not worry. If tomorrow your faith slips, falls and breaks; you will not go on a killing rampage unless you want to, which I hope you won’t, if ever the day comes. The sun will rise, the birds will sing, life will go on, almost exactly where you had left it the day before.
Peace.
I don’t want to act like I know more than these atheist philosophers you mention, but maybe, just maybe, they were wrong to equate morality with God? In any case, I see no reason to be bound by their arguments unless I agree with their arguments–there are different reasons one can have for being atheist.
I’d like to go into greater detail, but it’ll have to wait till later
fundamentalist wrote:
“Russ: “Bringing God into a moral argument really adds nothing.”
You’re probably not aware of the rich irony of that statement. All of the atheist philosophers I mentioned above equated morality with God. So it’s like writing “bringing God into an argument about God really adds nothing.”"
Well, I haven’t read much in the way of Nietzsche or Camus, and nothing of rest, they being commies and post-modernist deconstructionist types. So, no, I guess I wasn’t aware of the “rich irony”. But at any rate, if all of the atheist philosophers you mentioned equated morality with God, all that means is that all of the atheist philosophers you mentioned are/were very confused. When considering philosophers, you have to remember Sturgeon’s Law; “90% of everything is crud.” (I would say more like 99 and 44/100ths%, but that’s just me.)
Abhilash Nambiar wrote:
“Your sense of morality unfortunately is too tightly tied to your belief in god that you cannot recognize the two as separate. Which is probably why you are clinging to it so tightly. Do not worry. If tomorrow your faith slips, falls and breaks; you will not go on a killing rampage unless you want to, which I hope you won’t, if ever the day comes. The sun will rise, the birds will sing, life will go on, almost exactly where you had left it the day before.”
Or as Zen Buddhists say, “Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.” *grin*
When I lost my faith, 20 years ago or so, I wondered if I were going to become a Raskolnikov, or a Ted Bundy, or something. (The answer, of course, is no, I never did. Just in case you were wondering.)
Michael A. Clem
‘I don’t want to act like I know more than these atheist philosophers you mention, but maybe, just maybe, they were wrong to equate morality with God? In any case, I see no reason to be bound by their arguments unless I agree with their arguments–there are different reasons one can have for being atheist.’
The problem with fundamentalist (an appropriate namesake) is that he/she categorizes atheist philosophers long the lines prophets which in religion are indeed authority figures not merely scholars with admirable scholarly contributions. He thinks we have to abide by what atheist philosophers proclaim, the same way he must adhere (or try) to abide by what Jesus proclaimed. That fallacy has its roots in mis-categorizing atheism as a religion.
Russ
‘Or as Zen Buddhists say, “Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.” *grin*’
Because of what you wrote, I will stay happy for the rest of today.
Abhilash,
Awesome, now I feel like I’ve done my good deed for the day!
Here’s another one I think I like even better:
“After enlightenment, the laundry.”
Abhilash: “Hitler remained a Roman Catholic.â€
Simply not true. Atheists always try to make the atheist mass murderers religious. Hitler was an atheist.
Abhilash: “It is a very shameful thing to even consider the argument that Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot they where acting more consistently with my morality than I am and makes you immoral in my eyes.â€
That’s not what I wrote. Go back and re-read.
Abhilash: “You say atheists do not act morally.â€
That’s not what I wrote. Go back and re-read.
Michael: “I don’t want to act like I know more than these atheist philosophers you mention, but maybe, just maybe, they were wrong to equate morality with God?â€
Could be, but how will you know unless you read them?
Michael: “In any case, I see no reason to be bound by their arguments unless I agree with their arguments…â€
Possibly, but you need to know their arguments before you can decide.
Michael: “…all that means is that all of the atheist philosophers you mentioned are/were very confused.â€
How can you say that when you haven’t read any of their writings?
Abhilash: “The problem with fundamentalist (an appropriate namesake) is that he/she categorizes atheist philosophers long the lines prophets which in religion are indeed authority figures…â€
Again, you put words in my mouth and twist what I have written to mean the opposite. Learning anything new requires a tiny bit of humility. I mentioned the atheist philosophers because they had dedicated their lives to understanding the world from an atheist perspective. They are considered great philosophers by other philosophers, not just me. For you and Michael to dismiss them without having read any of their writings is the heighth of arrogance. It only advertises your prejudices.
PS, Do you guys really want to be like the mainstream economists who dismiss Austrian econ without ever having read any of it? That’s what you’re doing by dismissing the great atheist philosophers without reading them, just to keep your prejudices intact.
fundamentalist
You have made too many factual errors, logical fallacies and spewed out right nonsense, that I do not feel compelled to take you seriously any more. You keep yourself misinformed and misinform others as well. That tells me that you are going probably through a crisis of faith. Of course I could be wrong. But you who keeps telling me that I am trying to keep my prejudices intact are obviously doing just that. Not the first time someone has accused me of what they indulge in themselves.
I know people who claim that a libertarian world view has affirmed their faith in god and there are those that are non-theistic or even atheistic because of their libertarian outlook and not to mention those that simply don’t care. But you my friend seem to be on some special evangelizing crusade.
Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Foucald and Derrida are all people whose work interest me greatly. I would have read them after I finished Human Action and Man, Economy and State and All the volumes of Conceived in Liberty plus several other important books by authors whose viewpoints you disagree with greatly, but played important role in advancing the Austrian understanding of economics. Now that would be better use of my time. And now after conversing with you, a person who during the course of the conversation has lost almost all credibility with me, I am more sure of my earlier decision. So thank you.
Oh and one more thing, there is no such thing as an ‘atheist perspective’. There are atheists with perspectives. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Foucald and Derrida had their own and those that read them their own. You must be familiar with the term methodological individualism.
Russ,
” It’s very rude and presumptious to assume that I don’t understand Rand. ”
I fail to see why it is either rude or presumptuous. I was making a logical inference based on a statement of yours. To even suggest that you do not act rationally in trying to establish your axioms is in complete contradiction with everything Rand said.
Just to give you a sample, she said things like
“Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of Objectivity”
“Axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man’s mind and the foundation of reason….if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.”
“Axiomatic concepts are not a matter of arbitrary choice; one ascertains whether a given concept is axiomatic or not by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it”
“Do you want to assess the rationality of a person, a theory or a philosophical system? Do not enquire about his or its stand on the validity of reason. Look for the stand on axiomatic concepts. It will tell the whole story.”
If you still have any doubts, I suggest that you read (or re-read) her “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, especially the chapter on “Axiomatic Concepts”. That will tell you that I am being neither rude nor presumptuous.
” So I wouldn’t bother justifying that capitalism is not evil to him. ”
You really need a lot of luck. Your world is sure to fall apart just when you feel you are almost there. You will suddenly find that your fellow travellers have left to seek their own path.
The reason I say this is simple. You are choosing a path of moral contradiction. Such a path can lead only to one outcome – abandonment or violation of the offending code of morality in favour of the one more fervently believed in. That means that if in his heart of hearts, the person (your current ally) believes that selfishness is evil, he is very likely to (some day) dump notions such as Liberty and Property Rights and act to destroy Capitalism. He will then be your worst enemy because he will hate you for what you are.
This is what I am (and Rand had been) cautioning against.
The best I can say for your argument is that it takes time for someone to accept the completely rational way of coming to your conclusions. So, if one is in the “business” of education, one should try to show altervative ways of agreeing. Once the person has agreed (for whatever reasons), a slow process of education can be adopted to ensure that he does not become a renegade. Yes…. You are right to that extent.
What I see as a problem is a denial of the possibility that Rand was right on this issue (not necessarily from you, but I have encountered many who do so on these fora). I am of the view that no path to Liberty and Capitalism is secure unless people at large understand and internalise Rand’s rational moral philosophy and epistemology.
fundamentalist wrote:
“I mentioned the atheist philosophers because they had dedicated their lives to understanding the world from an atheist perspective.”
“PS, Do you guys really want to be like the mainstream economists who dismiss Austrian econ without ever having read any of it? That’s what you’re doing by dismissing the great atheist philosophers without reading them, just to keep your prejudices intact. ”
Even Foucault (not “Foucald”) thought that Derrida’s writing style was that of “obscurantisme terroriste”, and Foucault’s own style is also considered by many (even philosophers) to be a prime example of “profundity” through obscurity. Camus was an absurdist. One of the basic ideas of existentialism is absurdity. Basically, all of the writers you named are famous for writing works where it’s incredibly hard to nail down exactly what they mean, and if you do, chances are, what they mean is absurd.
So why should I waste my time studying the abstruse works of “the great atheist philosophers” to learn what atheism is all about, when I already know what atheism is all about? It’s about not believing in the existence of God. It’s very simple, really.
Here’s a conversation that illustrates my view on God and morality:
Mr. X: Wealth redistribution is right.
Mr. Y: Well, that’s just your opinion.
X: No, it’s an objectively true statement, because Obama says so.
Y: Oh, really? How do you know that Obama is right?
X: Obama is always right.
Y: And how do you know that?
X: I just do.
Y: That doesn’t make any sense. In order to know that Obama is always right, you’d have to compare everything Obama says against an independent measure of rightness that is always right. If you have that measure, then you don’t need Obama. If you don’t have that measure, then you can’t know that Obama is always right.
X: Ah, shut up!
Y: What’s more, if Obama goes away, then nothing changes. If you have a measure of right and wrong independent of Obama, then the fact that Obama is dead changes nothing. And if you don’t have an independent measure of right and wrong, then you’re no worse off than when Obama was alive.
X: Shut up shuttin’ up!
Y: And how do you know that the independent measure is always right?
X: *puts fingers in ears* La la la la la la la…
Now, substitute God for Obama, and you’re all set. *grin*
Bala wrote:
“I fail to see why it is either rude or presumptuous.”
Then you need to work on your social skills.
“Your world is sure to fall apart just when you feel you are almost there. You will suddenly find that your fellow travellers have left to seek their own path.”
I understand what you mean. You’re saying that I will be under the assumption that these people agree with my values, when really this is just a happy coincidence. They really have other values, which under some circumstances will lead them to act as if they have my values. But under other circumstances, they will act differently, and show that they do not share my values. Yes, this is always a danger, but I see nothing that can be done about it.
“So, if one is in the “business” of education, one should try to show alternative ways of agreeing.”
My view is that if one is in the “business” of libertarianism, then one cannot dictate how other people must get to libertarianism.
“Once the person has agreed (for whatever reasons), a slow process of education can be adopted to ensure that he does not become a renegade.”
That sounds like brain-washing to me.
“What I see as a problem is a denial of the possibility that Rand was right on this issue (not necessarily from you, but I have encountered many who do so on these fora). I am of the view that no path to Liberty and Capitalism is secure unless people at large understand and internalise Rand’s rational moral philosophy and epistemology.”
Firstly, I don’t think Rand is right. I don’t view values as something that can be rationally derived from facts; they can only be rationalized (in the Freudian sense) after the fact. Basically, I see facts (statements regarding the way things *are*) and values (statements regarding the way things *ought to be*) as intrinsically separate categories, that do not share the same identity. By trying to make facts into values, which they are not, you violate the axiom of identity (A=A).
Secondly, I think that whether you and Rand are right or not, the “people at large” will never become Randians. Objectivism has had its day in the sun; that day is no more. I don’t see that as a reason to stop trying to work towards libertarianism.
Fundamentalist wrote “…animals don’t seem to have that sympathy for others”.
Actually, I have seen a (male) cat showing kindness to an unrelated kitten.
‘Before Jesus, Jews wrote “Don’t to to others what you don’t want done to yourself.” Jesus advanced it to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”‘
Neither of those is true. For a start, neither teaching in relation to others was framed in terms of conduct, “doing”, but in terms of attitude, having a frame of mind (from which conduct would flow, of course). And, of course, in both cases that teaching was secondary to a similar but stronger teaching in relation to God.
Russ wrote “In order to know that Obama is always right, you’d have to compare everything Obama says against an independent measure of rightness that is always right”.
That does not happen to be the case, if certain philosophies are correct. Those suppose that faulty value systems will always reveal themselves by an inconsistency somewhere, and that consistent systems are “right”. That is, the test of a particular belief is against the wider system, but the test of the whole system is a test of its universality against itself, not against anything else. To put it another way, a universal system ipso facto cannot have anything independent to test against, because any candidates are themselves within the system because it has been made universal; but, because it is universal, it can only be wrong if there are counter-examples where it does not hold up, which must be within it, which means they indicate inconsistency. So don’t look for particular tests, say of particular things, look for inconsistencies among the rules. There is a serious flaw with this approach, but not one that can be cured, rather one that shows that value systems cannot be fully tested at all (though some faulty systems may still be rejected).
P.M. Lawrence,
If I understand you, and I’m not sure I do, wouldn’t that imply that two systems could both be internally consistent, but advise differently in particular cases? In that case, both pieces of advice would be “right”, according to this philosophy, even though they might say different, maybe even mutually exclusive, things.
If that is correct, then I don’t think this is what either fundamentalist or I mean by “right”, although for very different reasons.
Russ,
” I don’t view values as something that can be rationally derived from facts ”
That’s your view and you are obviously free to have it. My view is a little different and that, to me, explains the difference in our positions.
Firstly, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. All value is as is judged by the being of volitional consciousness that is making the judgement of value.
Secondly, there is no such thing as objective value either. All value is subjective. However, for a living being with a volitional consciousness whose only tool to understand the world around him is rationality (I guess that description fits man), all value originates from him – from his life. For every man, his life is his highest value. Every other value is judged in relation to his life. That which enhances his life is adjudged to be a value and that which diminishes it is of disvalue.
Different men could come to different value assessments of the same object. Indeed they would because their apparatus – sensory and cognitive – are not identical. We each form our own picture of reality (concepts) and base our valuations on that. To the extent that our concepts come close to reality, we shall be successful in attaining our values.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that values cannot be derived from facts. This is simply because the source of our values is our perception of reality, which in turn comes from the objective reality that exists. That reality is the same for all human beings. What differs is individual perceptions of reality. That is what accounts for the difference in value systems that will exist even among perfectly rational people.
The problem with your statement is that it permits sources of value other than reality. To me, one of the most important aspects of rationality is an unstinting effort to remain connected with reality. Accepting your statement would mean that you are opening the door to irrationality and arbitrary choice of values. To a rational person, that is tantamount to death. To make it obvious as to why it is so, let me take an example where you are asked to make a choice of what to eat from stuff placed on 2 plates. One contains food and the other poison. You are told which is food and which is poison. Would you consistently choose food or would you choose arbitrarily from one of the 2 plates? This is the difference between choosing a value system based on reality (a rational value system) and choosing one that is disconnected from reality (an irrational or arbitrary one). To make it clearer, let us assume that one contains that which you know as food and the other contains an substance unknown to you. Now how would you choose? If you choose arbitrarily, you run the risk of harming yourself. You may be ready to do that, but I would never be. I am very selfish.
” By trying to make facts into values, which they are not, you violate the axiom of identity (A=A). ”
I never confused the two. I am only saying that every “is” implies an “ought” for a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. I am just saying that you are failing to recognise the connection and are trying to say that “ought” has no necessary connection to the “is”.
” That sounds like brain-washing to me. ”
By that yardstick, all education, except that which involves communicating facts as they exist, is brain-washing. Just to take a simple example, to a religious person who firmly believes God created the universe as explained in Genesis, teaching evolution as explained by Darwin would be considered brain-washing. So, let’s not try to smear the words and obfuscate the real idea.
” Yes, this is always a danger, but I see nothing that can be done about it. ”
And that’s why I keep wishing you luck.
Bala wrote:
“Firstly, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. All value is as is judged by the being of volitional consciousness that is making the judgement of value.”
So far, so good.
“Secondly, there is no such thing as objective value either. All value is subjective. However, for a living being with a volitional consciousness whose only tool to understand the world around him is rationality (I guess that description fits man), all value originates from him – from his life.”
Firstly, I don’t think that the conclusion of the last sentence follows logically from the first part. It seems a non sequitur to me.
“For every man, his life is his highest value.”
Secondly, the above is not true. Many men value their wives, children, etc., higher than their own lives. According to a purely selfish philosophy, this shouldn’t be the case.
“Therefore, it is incorrect to say that values cannot be derived from facts. This is simply because the source of our values is our perception of reality, which in turn comes from the objective reality that exists. That reality is the same for all human beings. What differs is individual perceptions of reality.”
There’s more to it than this. Again, one man might value his own life. Another man might value the lives of his children or his wife or his country higher than that of his own life. One man might sacrifice his life to further an outcome, and another man would see that sacrifice and pointless and silly. There is much more to this than a difference in perceptions of reality (in the simple sensory sense of the word “perception”). There is also a difference in *valuations* of reality.
“The problem with your statement is that it permits sources of value other than reality.”
No, the source of the value is real; it is the mind of the valuer. Unless you think minds are not part of reality?
“To make it obvious as to why it is so, let me take an example where you are asked to make a choice of what to eat from stuff placed on 2 plates…”
My choice would depend on the circumstances of my life. Normally I would not choose the poison, of course. But let’s say I have been diagnosed with an inoperable cancer, and I have 6 months left to live, much of which will be pure agony. In that case, the poison would start to look good. Or say that the Joker has my children and says that if I eat the plate with poison, my children will be released. In that case, I might eat the poison as well. Another man might decide to tough out the cancer, or might decide that his ungrateful little rugrats aren’t worth dying for. This is subjective, and it’s not just based on differences in sensory perception.
“I never confused the two. I am only saying that every “is” implies an “ought” for a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. I am just saying that you are failing to recognise the connection and are trying to say that “ought” has no necessary connection to the “is”.”
Let’s say that the “is” is that I am faced with choosing poison or food. If I eat the food, my child dies. If I eat the poison, my child lives. Then the situation is “IF I want my child to live THEN I should eat the poison”. So given this situation, *if* I want the child to live, it is rational that I eat the poison, because that will achieve the outcome I desire. Otherwise, *if* I want to live and don’t care about my child, then it is rational that I eat the food, because that will achieve the outcome I desire. But there is no way that rationality and the raw facts of this situation can tell me whether I *ought* to want my child to live or not. I *cannot* derive that “ought” from the “is” using rationality.
“By that yardstick, all education, except that which involves communicating facts as they exist, is brain-washing. Just to take a simple example, to a religious person who firmly believes God created the universe as explained in Genesis, teaching evolution as explained by Darwin would be considered brain-washing.”
No, teaching ideas such as Darwin’s theory, and letting the pupil make up his own mind on the matter, is not the same as teaching them in such a way as to make certain the pupil does not go “renegade”.
No, Russ, that philosophical view wouldn’t accept that there could be two separate value systems that could produce different views on what is right. The thing is, that perspective rests on universality and completeness, so there could only be “different” systems at all in the sense of different formulations or descriptions of one reality, like maps using different projections or scientific works wriiten in different languages. If different answers came up, that would be an inconsistency in the (single) larger system which the two formulations were describing.
No, Russ, that philosophical view wouldn’t accept that there could be two separate value systems that could produce different views on what is right. The thing is, that perspective rests on universality and completeness, so there could only be “different” systems at all in the sense of different formulations or descriptions of one reality, like maps using different projections or scientific works written in different languages. If different answers came up, that would be an inconsistency in the (single) larger system which the two formulations were describing.
Russ,
I don’t know if you realised it, but a common thread across all the examples you chose to show a person valuing something else over his own life is that there is only one result – his death. This concept – the death premise as Rand called it – is common to all philosophies that recommend that you be prepared to value a lot of other things above your own life. In effect, you accept death as an alternative before you are ready to value anything at all above your own life.
There are many ways to show the fallaciousness inherent in your argument. One is to just look around and see how many people choose death as the way to donate badly required organs for their family members who need them and do not see an alternative emerging. If this does not happen commonly, your claim that people value the life of others higher than their own shall stands clearly false.
Another way is to take the example of a person risking death (and maybe even dying) to save his son from the swirling waters of a river in spate. That man is not valuing his life below that of his son’s. He acts with the knowledge of his options
1. Not acting to save his son but then living with the full knowledge that he failed to even try to save his son – a life filled with guilt and pain
2. Acting to save his son and taking the risk of dying – high probability of death
In this case, the choice is not between life and death but between a life full of unbearable pain and death. The same goes for a person with a terminal illness.
A soldier who dies defending his country is probably of the opinion that life as a slave (which is what he will face if the invaders have their way) is better than the death he will face in battle. The choice here is not between life and death but between a life of slavery and death. In the case of soldiers fighting for a dictatorial regime, they have all accepted the death premise – that dying to further the glory of your country is more valuable than your life.
It is easy to drop the context and then pretend like you have proved a point, but put the context back and all your errors will become obvious.
In summary, to a person who has chosen to live, his life is the highest value of all. Conversely, not valuing ones life above all else means that one is choosing death and not life.
In my argument, I was talking of people who choose life over death. What kind of people are you referring to?
“…all that means is that all of the atheist philosophers you mentioned are/were very confused.â€
For the record, I didn’t say that one, Russ did. The others are attributed correctly, though.
If we’re going to resort to “read this” or “read that”, fine, but let’s not assume some valid argument has been made by doing so. You claim that they equated God with morality, but can you argue the point yourself? Or can you at least point us to a certain reference or section to narrow it down, or do you expect us to read every word that Kant, Sartre, Camus, Foucault, and Derrida wrote?
In any case, atheists do act in moral ways–why is it not incumbent upon the theist to explain this, instead of simply asserting that atheists are inconsistent with their beliefs? If you can’t explain the inconsistency, why should we assume that there is an inconsistency?
In short, we have reached an impasse unless further actual arguments are made.
Russ,
Specifically on your example to refute the “is”-”ought” correlation, why do you choose a life-boat situation to explain normal, day-to-day choices? Do you spend every day of your life deciding whether you will consume poison or condemn your child to death? Ordinary people face much simpler choices on a daily basis. Your example is inappropriate to the “is-ought” problem. You need to choose a better one.
Frankly, Fundamentalist, I thought you were going for another approach, especially when you mentioned Sartre and Camus: that life would be meaningless or absurd without God, and thus acting within a morality is meaningless or absurd. This, needless to say, I think is untrue.
Russ,
You said
” It’s about not believing in the existence of God. ”
You are absolutely correct. What the theists miss out is that the statement “God exists” (and everything that follows it) is a hypothesis made by the theist. The onus of proving that claim lies with the theist, but theists love to place the burden on those who refuse to accept their hypothesis. No theist has ever presented concrete proof that God exists. To make matters worse, they alwys define their God in terms that are not amenable to rational analysis with reference to reality. So, atheists (a-theists) refuse to accept the hypothesis and live their respective lives on different premises.
Comments on this entry are closed.