Ahh secularism...

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:09 pm

Seriously, have you ever met someone who doesn't like to consider himself a philosopher of some sort?

Me... I consider myself a scientist, not a philosopher.

with a crackpot theory that people are just like animals

Might be news to you, but humans are just animals... the cognitively most advanced animals on the planet, but still just animals.

All I can say is, it's obviously not true that humans are born with a genetic code that gives them their sense of right and wrong.

Ok, let me clarify. Most normal humans do have things like empathy and they have natural inhibitions to injuring other people. These inhibitions can be overruled by various things for sure (starvation, stress, anger, rage, etc). Some people have stronger inhibitions, some weaker ones. A few people also dont have any at all.
Anyway, morals are what society makes of these natural behavioural patterns that can be observed in humans. They dont always change them for the better either.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:21 pm

Since you avoided the question I'm going to repeat it O great ethics expert:

So GIT.

Care to explain to me the ethics of persecuting people whose habits you don't like? I'm sure those thousands of years of human ethics can provide ample insight.

What happens now that you have set the precedent and some folks decide they don't like your habits? There is no end to it. What if your enemies come to power here? You will have no legal or moral defense against them.

BTW studying the inherent ethics of animals is not a bad way to get insight into the ethics of the human animal. It at least sets a baseline.

===

In any case it looks like pot prohibition will be falling the way alcohol prohibition fell. States will stop enforcing it. Colorado looks to be the first.

Prohibition keeps a LOT of folks voting Democrat. Way to support your enemies. I can't wait 'til we get the subject off the table. We might then have a chance to deal with our real problem. Economics.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:26 pm

Skipjack wrote:
All I can say is, it's obviously not true that humans are born with a genetic code that gives them their sense of right and wrong.
Ok, let me clarify. Most normal humans do have things like empathy and they have natural inhibitions to injuring other people. These inhibitions can be overruled by various things for sure (starvation, stress, anger, rage, etc). Some people have stronger inhibitions, some weaker ones. A few people also dont have any at all.

Anyway, morals are what society makes of these natural behavioural patterns that can be observed in humans. They dont always change them for the better either.

Well Simon, you should really not be clarifying Skippy's point for him, especially when you do not agree with it. Skippy's point was that there is an innate sense of right and wrong inside all people just as inside animals, which is obviously not true because of the vast multitude of counter-exmples from all cultures throughout all history. Skippy was clear to say that this is genetic, which is silly.

Your contention, that morals are projections of society is what ethicists call "Cultural Relativism". This theory of ethics was very popular in the 60's and 70 and is responsible for things like the "Prime Directive" found on the original Star Trek. Unfortunately for cultural relativists, that theory suffers from many severe flaws that were uncovered quite early on and now only the least informed believe such stuff. If for example, you believe that all values, all morality, all ethics are derived culturally in an identical manner to conventions, then you have no moral basis to make the judgement that the Nazis were wrong to commit genocide against the jews. Obviously, we need a theory of ethics that can do better. That's why Cultural Relativism is dead.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:54 pm

Skippy's point was that there is an innate sense of right and wrong inside all people just as inside animals, which is obviously not true because of the vast multitude of counter-exmples from all cultures throughout all history. Skippy was clear to say that this is genetic, which is silly.

Oh yes, there is such a thing and it formed the basis for all subsequently refined moral codes. We get upset if something is stolen from us. We get upset if someone is killed. Many animals show the same behavioural patterns.

then you have no moral basis to make the judgement that the Nazis were wrong to commit genocide against the jews

That depends on the moral standards employed. It was not wrong by the moral standards employed by the Nazis, but it was wrong by the moral standards of pretty much everybody else. It DEFINITELY was ethically wrong.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:15 am

You're following about 1/2 the argument. Allow me to be more clear.

Cultural Relativism says that values have no absolute basis, but rather are mutually agreed upon conventions, much the same as which side of the plate to put the knife and fork. If you believe values ultimately come from social agreement, then you certainly don't believe they're imbedded in our DNA, and you likewise can't claim to judge one culture's values from the place of another--hence, the Prime Directive.

By the time Star Trek: TNG came along, the many fatal flaws in Cultural Relativism had been made clear, so Roddenberry did not include them in the second series. In the first series he paints the picture of an utopia above all such judgements as well as above use of things like money. In the second series, he has Picard constantly butting up against the Prime Directive because the ethical theory it was based upon had shown itself to be hopelessly flawed. Late in the second series money likewise makes its reappearance and the last vestiges of the unworkable utopia in the first series is unquestionably washed away by the time ST: DS9 is aired.

The notion that all values are created by the people in various societies does not pass examination, so the theory is basically dead.

There are other problems with all other theories. The idea that values are generated individually, based upon genetics is a whimsical version of Subjectivism, that likewise fails miserably under scrutiny. It is as I've said, unable to explain the counter-examples. Why is betrayal considered a value in Irian Jaya? If people are born with an innate understanding of right and wrong, why do we find headhunting, cannibalism, human sacrifice and the like? If it's all subjective, how is it people ever change their minds about ethical issues? If these things are in our genes, how could I have believed for years that drug use was fine, and afterward one of the greatest tragedies of this life? That makes no sense and subjectivists have no answer. That's why Subjectivism is dead too.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:22 am

Since you still avoid the question I'm going to repeat it O great ethics expert:

So GIT.

Care to explain to me the ethics of persecuting people whose habits you don't like? I'm sure those thousands of years of human ethics can provide ample insight.

What happens now that you have set the precedent and some folks decide they don't like your habits? There is no end to it. What if your enemies come to power here? You will have no legal or moral defense against them.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:25 am

Cultural Relativism says that values have no absolute basis, but rather are mutually agreed upon conventions, much the same as which side of the plate to put the knife and fork. If you believe values ultimately come from social agreement, then you certainly don't believe they're imbedded in our DNA, and you likewise can't claim to judge one culture's values from the place of another--hence, the Prime Directive.

Again, something can be morally right (society) but ethically (dna) wrong.
Get it?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:27 am

MSimon wrote: Care to explain to me the ethics of persecuting people whose habits you don't like?

I'm sure that depends upon what it is you don't like about them. If you persecute murderers because you correctly apprehend the value that the innocent should be protected, more power to you. OTOH, if you persecute people simply because they're of another race, caste, sex, size, color, shape, etc., then I don't personally see a moral defense for such.

If drug use were not the cause of incomprehensible human suffering, I wouldn't have a thing against it.

I should note to you though, theories about what justifies persecution form a subset in ethics, and are better referred to as "theories of justice", or "theories of crime and punishment". There are only a handful of them. "Retributive Justice" says that justice is in retribution for a wrong suffered. "Social Contract" theory says crimes are all ultimately against the state, and justice is when a person pays for their crime to the state. "Utilitarianism" says that crime is impeded by consequences that mitigate against such. There are a small handful of others. They all have strengths and weaknesses and in a sense, are all correct on some points and silent or weak on others.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:14 am

Skipjack wrote: Again, something can be morally right (society) but ethically (dna) wrong.
Get it?

Yes. I get it. But murdering Jews is neither morally nor ethically correct behavior. It was held as such by a group of sadly mistaken people and there's no evidence that this mistake was the result of defective DNA.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:34 am

Yes. I get it. But murdering Jews is neither morally nor ethically correct behavior. It was held as such by a group of sadly mistaken people and there's no evidence that this mistake was the result of defective DNA.

Whose morals?
In the 16th century it was morally acceptable to burn people at the stake for "witchcraft".
100 years ago it was morally acceptable for a noble English man to hunt aboriginees in Australia and collect a bounty for every ear he brought to the post office.
Less then 70 years ago it was morally acceptable for americans that an american citizen of african heritage was not allowed in certain restaurants.
Less than 20 years ago it was morally acceptable for a religious mob in Topeca Kansas to beat up people on the open street because they were gay, punks or simply different one way or the other.
You see morals are not universaly the same for everyone everywhere.
Ethics however are different. They are very universal for humans everywhere. They are much simpler, much less tangible set of behavioural rules that have been ingrained into our brains over millions of years of evolution. This is why it makes sense to look into the behavioural patterns of animals to understand human ethics.
There are some really simple things like the universal message of a kiss being friendly and loving or the staring at someone being hostile and threatening.
Take wolfs, e.g. They fight for hirarchy in the pack and those fights can be very violent, but there is the ethical (!) rule that if the inferior fighter admits defeat, rols on his back and exposes his throat to the superior, the superior will accept the defeat and will NOT kill the inferior of the two.
A superior fighter who kills the inferior anyway, will be expelled from the pack. He would be a danger to the survival of the group and has to go.
This is a genetically determined behavioral pattern. We humans do have simillar genetic behavioral patterns that are part of our nature. We despise those that violate these and will expell them from the society(the pack) by sending them to prison. Back in the days when humans were far and inbetween, violators were banned from the tribe.
Morals are what society builds on top of these basic ethics. These morals can be quite different from ethics and at times be unethical as well. This is because our brains have the capacity to overrule our genetically determined instinctual behaviours.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:44 am

Btw, this is why I believe that drug abuse is such a controversial topic. It is very hard to find an ethical justification for either side of the issue.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:12 am

Your making a lot of strong claims about genetics, and DNA and science, none of which have any evidence. This is what is known as "scientism" or the religious belief that the dictates of science are ________ (fill the blank) when in fact, science has said no such thing and is completely silent on the subject.

How are we supposed to have a rational conversation when your positions all appeal to the authority of "science" and have no scientific support? I honestly have no idea where to go with this discussion. I can start objecting to the many thinking errors you're committed to, but I have the strong sense that it won't make a difference. You're going to continue right on making judgements with no reason in support, making claims about facts that have no observations in support. I mean really, what is the point?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:26 am

GIThruster wrote:
MSimon wrote: Care to explain to me the ethics of persecuting people whose habits you don't like?
I'm sure that depends upon what it is you don't like about them. If you persecute murderers because you correctly apprehend the value that the innocent should be protected, more power to you. OTOH, if you persecute people simply because they're of another race, caste, sex, size, color, shape, etc., then I don't personally see a moral defense for such.

If drug use were not the cause of incomprehensible human suffering, I wouldn't have a thing against it.

I should note to you though, theories about what justifies persecution form a subset in ethics, and are better referred to as "theories of justice", or "theories of crime and punishment". There are only a handful of them. "Retributive Justice" says that justice is in retribution for a wrong suffered. "Social Contract" theory says crimes are all ultimately against the state, and justice is when a person pays for their crime to the state. "Utilitarianism" says that crime is impeded by consequences that mitigate against such. There are a small handful of others. They all have strengths and weaknesses and in a sense, are all correct on some points and silent or weak on others.

Uh. I said nothing about harming others. Which I agree deserves some kind of corrective action.

So let me ask again Mr Ethics Expert.

Care to explain to me the ethics of persecuting people whose habits you don't like?

Question make you uncomfortable Mr Ethics?

I hardly ever go for a glancing blow off the forearm. I prefer the knife to the gut. Metaphorically of course.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:29 am

Let me dispose of crimes against the State:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

Care to explain to me the ethics of persecuting people whose habits you don't like?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:37 am

I answered your question. It's a foolish question to ask that has no direct answer because of the way you phrased it, and we all know you phrased it the way you did to support your obsession. Persecuting anyone based upon habits one doesn't like, depends entirely upon the habits. When their habits are things like drug addiction, and all the lying, cheating, stealing, murder and other morally reprehensible and mutually destructive things that go along with, then it's easy to support persecution of such people on any/all theory of justice.

Druggies need to be persecuted because they take actions that require reciprocity by the theory of retributive justice. Druggies need to be persecuted because they are violating the law of the land and hence our social contracts. Druggies need to be persecuted because incarcerating them reduces crime of all sorts, in support of utilitarian justice. Etc. ad nauseam.