Would you Punish, or Pray?

Dr Brasso-Kona- said:
...if you survive the first encounter, value well being, and are able to learn.....wanna bet yer life on it?

Doc

I wonder. My brother is reaching mid-life methinks because he is discovering God when he never did before. He has had a few near mishaps with his truck and his motorcycle and thinks "God is watching over him because he is still alive"

I told him quite honestly that if he would desist doing stupid things while driving, he would prolly have fewer, if any mishaps. Besides, if God were indeed watching over him, he'd not have any at all.
Sadly, I didn't convince him of anything except, I needed prayed for.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

lol...praise the lord

Doc

Wow, you guys who don't beleive in god just have everything so figured out! We're all a bunch of old-fashioned doofs i guess!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Okay... Well then they don't not deserve it when it happens to them.
Tracer said it quite well, I think. "If i take a risk and it comes back to bite me in the butt, I'm not gonna complain about it. So if the same happens to you, don't bother me with it."
I agree. If someone takes the risk of unprotected sex or sex with somoene they don't even know, then I think they should not be able to sue or press charges against the other person no matter WHAT they got from them, be it a baby or a disease.

Do you have people coming up to you bothering you with their STD problems?

Why shouldn't people be able to sue? It seems like you have huge issues with sex between consenting adults for whatever reason.

Enjoy your risk-free life.

TwoKnives said:
I was only asking because I've never heard of any religious folk completely substituting punishment for prayer.

Now, my experience with religion is basically restricted to the more barbaric forms like Baptist, Catholicism and Methodists but I have seen a few religious types that discourage punishment in any form. The Amish, and Mormons both discourage if I recall my legends about them.

As for knowing for certain, NO I have no real clue.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I think the problem with this is that some of you are trying to compare apples to oranges. There is a big difference between having sex with a girl you trust and have known for a long time and going out and having a one night stand with a hooker. Does the guy who has casual sex with a trusted friend deserve STDs as much as the guy who has sex with a hooker behind his wife's back? I say no. Of course there is a risk behind both. However the latter has a much much higher risk.

Blah I don't feel like carrying on with this argument.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting TwoKnives</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Okay... Well then they don't not deserve it when it happens to them.
Tracer said it quite well, I think. "If i take a risk and it comes back to bite me in the butt, I'm not gonna complain about it. So if the same happens to you, don't bother me with it."
I agree. If someone takes the risk of unprotected sex or sex with somoene they don't even know, then I think they should not be able to sue or press charges against the other person no matter WHAT they got from them, be it a baby or a disease.</DIV></DIV>

Do you have people coming up to you bothering you with their STD problems?

Why shouldn't people be able to sue? It seems like you have huge issues with sex between consenting adults for whatever reason.

Enjoy your risk-free life.

</DIV></DIV>

Two of my 3 brothers have f'd up thier lives because they decided to be "consenting adults" instead of waiting until they were married.

I would have HAD another brother who is now dead because of irresponsible "consenting adults" so yes I have a problem with it.

and YES, people bother me with thier STD problems more than you would think: I work at a school full of delinquent children and I have a lot of man-whore friends who are always having run-ins with nasty chicks.

Not only all that, but it's WRONG. It's against God's plan for our lives.

So if by "enjoy your risk-free life" you mean, "be safe, happy, and don't affect others adversely because you can muster up enough willpower to keep your pecker where it belongs." Then, thank you, I will.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

What about the guy who gets HIV from his wife? It's happened to someone somwehre.

i cant believe i missed this one ....

ya know what nickel, i am not trying to start s**t here, but it seems to me that if you were as God fearing as you claim to be, you sure as hell wouldnt be putting up a picture of hitler, and then justifying it....

i DO believe in god sir, sure as s**t SOMETHING did all there is....i just have changed my view of him/it through the years....i have a problem with people who use it as a means....and i think its safe to say, none of us think you folks are "dufus's" (sp) but, dont claim to have all the answers sir.....no one does, i dont give a flying s**t who he says hes seen "Him" in a vision.....

morality is a state of mind sir.....concience driven, and intellectually imposed, and i sure as hell dont want to derail this into a religious debate....

i too have f**ked up family members, and i too have some steadfast rules about sex and life etc.....some taught from my parents, some learned because i HAVE a conciense, and some are simple outright speculation....but im judicious, i am fair, and i dont impose my ideals on people...they are mine...if you ascribe to the same ones, then good for you.....if not, its your bed, lie in it....doesnt mean they are better than the rest, just mine...

Doc B...

A picture, of a stamp, with the likeness of a long-dead dictator as my avatar does not make me any less of a God-fearing man. Anyone who says such a thing is obviously searching very hard for a reason to disregard what I have to say.

Brasso, the truth is EVERYONE impresses thier ideals on everyone else, and it's my job as a christian to present biblical truth to everyone. In today's world that may be seen as judgemental or whatever, but I've got news for you: I may be in this world, but I am not of this world. Therefore anyone who tells me about this world's philosophy about morality being different for different people, is impressing THEIR philosophies upon me, because I don't buy it.

How is it fair for them to do that and then tell me to keep my beleifs to myself just because they are not popular anymore?

[Edit] Spartan, most times it's the woman who gets HIV from her husband because he cheats on her with someone who has it. Yet again, "consenting adults" just exercisin' thier God-given rights, yeah?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

ah well, here we go....

nickel, on a personal level, you dont know me at all...lets just agree to that shall we? and if we point out certain aspects of behavior that catch our eyes, ears, or whatever, then that is....impressing our ideals?....i dont agree, but we can agree to disagree on that too....for the sake of "textuality", i merely stated a few personal points....

i would never disregard what you have to say man....ever. you strike me as a very intelligent, but cocky (its cool...lol ) individual, and you are elloquent, studied (booksmart) and yet, you just sat there and said, for all intents and purposes, that YOU have the handle on it....faith. good for you. if it gets you through the day, and noone gets hurt, give em hell....i dont personally agree with the blanket philosophy of God as a single entity....i LOST faith. too much s**t has happened in the last 50 years that simply makes it.....unrealistic, imho.

and in no way did i say "keep your beliefs to yourself"....how the hell else am i gonna know whats on yer mind?? you have as much right to your opinion as i, or anyone else....just dont shove em donw my throat.

as for the hitler picture....are you f**king s**tting me?....hes about as close to a friggin antichrist as i can think of .....and simple logical deduction brought me to that conclusion sir, and i stand by it.

im thinking i have about thirty years on ya bud, and i have the moxy to NOT belittle you young un's, when at times it takes all my fortitude....we'll yak again in 30 years, if im alive, and we'll see how you feel then eh?

Doc B....

I'll agree that I don't know you from adam. TBH, you seem like an intelligent person, too. And I like the fact that we can disagree without getting all whiney and insulting about it.

I don't think that pointing out aspects of behavior is "impressing our ideals" either. It seemed to me that that is what YOU thought. That I why I said it that way. people in the world today take ANY sign of Christianity such as 10 commandments on the wall, as someone shoving it down thier throats so most times, I use thier definition because it works for my arguments against thier philosophies.

I don't want to disregard what you have to say, because what you've said is an opinion, which is something that EVERYONE should have and everyone should be able to express. But I disagree with some of the things you have to say. I don't think you can "lose your faith" and still truly beleive in God (God being Yahweh). I don't think you can reject monotheism and still truly beleive in God. If you truly beleive in God, then you beleive everything in his book. If you do not, then you beleive in A god but not The God.

Truth is, I DO have a handle on it. Because the basic tenets of what I beleive tells me that if I DO beleive, then I AM right, because I DO right. What I am saying is that I don't beleive that my Christianity is an opinion. True Christians beleive that it is a truth. Therefore, when I tell you about these things, it is not my opinion or my interpretation, I am telling it to you as the truth from a factual book not as my take on things from what i've heard from other people or the TV.

If my Hitler stamp avatar causes you to hate, or curse, or stumble in your faith, I will change it. Just tell me so, and don't try to make it an issue of my faith.

TBH, I think it'd be great to talk to you in 30 years. Just as it'd be nice to talk to you now. I don't see a need for such a long wait.

P.S. I am cocky, sometimes, lol.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

i like this.....this gentlemen, is debate... :wink:

* quoting Nickelplate

don't think you can "lose your faith" and still truly beleive in God (God being Yahweh). I don't think you can reject monotheism and still truly beleive in God. If you truly beleive in God, then you beleive everything in his book. If you do not, then you beleive in A god but not The God.

ive lost my faith, but not my hope....i believe in the as stated "something did all this" personal tenant i have derived from years of searching....im not bashing your religion sir....you may when all is said and done be right, but at this juncture, i think differently. in my mind, the etherial sense is formed from hope....because literal and concrete explanation is unachievable....whatever it is, its a helluva lot bigger than me, or us, or all of it.....and thus, gets my respect....

i have tried for countless years since being a small fry to figure this one out, and i cant. but, i have tried to live my life as a good person, with moral fibre....and i send my kid to church. with my accompanyment, and bible class and every activity they have, simply so she can reach her own conclusions.....i will not stand in the way of what satiates her curiosities, allays her fears, and helps with her complete wellbeing....

* quoting Nickelplate

Truth is, I DO have a handle on it. Because the basic tenets of what I believe tells me that if I DO beleive, then I AM right, because I DO right. What I am saying is that I don't beleive that my Christianity is an opinion. True Christians beleive that it is a truth. Therefore, when I tell you about these things, it is not my opinion or my interpretation, I am telling it to you as the truth from a factual book not as my take on things from what i've heard from other people or the TV.

now, normally i would take these points one by one, but in a synopsis, this to me sounds like blind faith, which does not work for me at all.....its a borderline hypocrisy, and i see no real "truth" or "fact" about it....sorry......and ive tried...hard.

Doc B....

edit>>>>forgot this one... :heee:

* quoting Nickelplate

If my Hitler stamp avatar causes you to hate, or curse, or stumble in your faith, I will change it. Just tell me so, and don't try to make it an issue of my faith.

pppfffttt....it gags me....but dont change it on my account....in my mind, that just reinforces my hypocracy point, let alone the fact that it is ludicrous to be a man of faith, and all it entails, and still find it suitable....it looks like glorification to me, but i suppose thats just because i find it so offensive. id feel the same way if ya threw up a pic of idi amin, or saddam, or the devil himself.....and seeing as i play so much dod, i suppose if i took that statement/thought a step further, id realize im a bit of a hypocrite as well... :wink:

edit>>>> it just occured to me that our avatars are both about as far away from our percieved personalities that i about peed my pants laughing....

ahhh, ironic innit??...

Many people will cry "blind faith" when they don't understand the years upon years that I have spent studying the bible instead of going out and getting drunk or having sex like the rest of the kids. Blind faith is when you beleive something because you were told that it is true. My kind of faith is strong, because I've read the bible, and all the other religious texts and I know what makes sense and how things work in the world of religion and beliefs. I have enough college credit in religious studies to get a degree in it. I've spent my time making sure that I know WHAT i beleive and WHY I beleive it. I assure you, my faith is not blind, it is like a the house built upon the rock.

It is good that you have tried to live your life according to moral guidelines. I hope it has worked for you. But for me it's not enough. I don't beleive in salvation through works alone. Faith, not hope, is a requirement.

I don't see where anything I've said is anywhere CLOSE to hypocrisy. You may need to explain that some more. Just because my avatar on a website is of a hitler stamp does not mean that I glorify hitler or condone ANYTHING that he did. Just like I'm sure you don't think Satchmo is a satanist because he has a little devil head as his avatar. Gollum does not REALLY think he is the God of Boulders, Andrei is not a rollingpin-communist. Conversely, just because your avatar is a nun, doesn't make you a catholic, or a nun fetishist or anything else, but a guy who put a picture up on the internet.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

This is such a great discussion that I hesitate to speak up and get in
the way, but I just had to address something about your avatar Nickel.

Nickelplate said:
Just because my avatar on a website is of a
hitler stamp does not mean that I glorify hitler or condone ANYTHING
that he did. Just like I'm sure you don't think Satchmo is a satanist
because he has a little devil head as his avatar. Gollum does not
REALLY think he is the God of Boulders, Andrei is not a
rollingpin-communist. Conversely, just because your avatar is a nun,
doesn't make you a catholic, or a nun fetishist or anything else, but a
guy who put a picture up on the internet.

I see what you're saying, but none of those images carry as much
baggage/meaning/connotations as a picture of Hitler, at least in my
mind they don't.

Personally I don't really see the point of keeping it up. I'm
sure there are better avatar images flloating around the internet
somewhere. Also, I just don't particularly like looking at
Hitler's face, but like Dr Brasso said, dont change it on my account. :smile:

Nickle, this is your new avatar:



Add a knife ... computer being smashed (dell or compaq will do) ... you know, make it yours.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

The topic seems to have exploded with new posts over night, but just a bit of info on this one:

Brasso, the truth is EVERYONE impresses thier ideals on everyone else

Interestingly, this is an ethical theory based on emotivism. Emotivism (for those that don't know) is the theory that all ethical language is meaningless and is only an expression of like or dislike. e.g. "Murder is wrong" = "Boo for murder" and "Giving to charity is good" = "Hurrah for giving to charity". (Incidentally, it is occasionally known as the "Boo-Hurrah" theory)

The development of this, prescriptivism, says that there is a persuasvie element, and all ethical statements are trying to command or persuade something to follow that ethical statement. e.g. "Murder is wrong" = "I think murder is wrong, and you should too".

Anyway, that's just one of my random sidenotes. Carry on! :smile:

As for the avatar, umm, I'm not really sure. I certainly wouldn't object to it being removed, since Hitler just seems to be naturally associated with evil etc, but I probably wouldn't have said anything had the topic not been brought up.

---

My site

Gollum does not REALLY think he is the God of Boulders

You dare to dispute my mastery of boulders? Foolish mortal.

triggers multi-boulder cascade with cunning sequence of obscure HL1 entities

Message submitted 10 minutes after original post:

Interestingly, this is an ethical theory based on emotivism.

No it's not. Your description of emotivism is accurate, but ascribing it to Nickelplate's view is not.

Nickelplate's assertion that "the truth is EVERYONE impresses thier ideals on everyone else" is potentially a defence of Christian evangelism (yes, I know it's a dirty word these days), or it could just be him saying "I'm entitled to my views even if you don't like them."

More generally, the statement can be seen as an assertion that ethical views are normative, in the sense that if you believe it is wrong to do X, then you also believe that other people who do X, no matter what THEIR beliefs about ethics, are doing something wrong.

The assertion that ethical views are normative must be accepted unless you desire a descent into ethical relativism (of which emotivism is a sub-theory).

I have some sympathy for Nickelplate here, because although I disagree with his views, and although they have been at times incoherently presented in this thread, yet he is still entitled to them. If he believes that it is morally wrong to have casual sex, and that anyone who does so deserves to suffer nasty consequences -- then fine. Let him.

Fair enough. I was aiming it more at the prescriptivism view which derived from emotivism, namely comparing:
"EVERYONE impresses thier ideals on everyone else"
with the idea of a persuasive element, but there we are. :smile:

Interesting that this is based on normative stuff. I'd say it is an assertion that everyone thinks their ideals are normative and the right onesand subsequently it supports relativist ideas, but I suppose in context you're completely right.

---

My site

You are, of course, correct that people may be mistaken in attributing normativity to their views.

On the other hand, it is a reasonable mistake to make. If you BELIEVE that your views on ethics are correct, and if you are not a relativist, then it follows that you must BELIEVE that your views are normative.

You may consistently and concurrently believe, however, that you are fallible. Which means:

• If I am right, then my views are normative.
• If I am wrong, then my views are not normative.

The idea that I'm pushing here is that normativity is a property commonly ascribed to ethical views, and we can believe in the normativity of ethics in abstract whilst recognising that our particular ethical beliefs may be mistaken.

On the other (third) hand, you can combine these attitudes consistently with a higher-order form of relativism. In this type of theory, normativity becomes relative to a culture or context, such that ethical propositions have no true objective basis, but are not entirely subjective either. In other words, although you can have good or bad reasons for holding an ethical view, you can never have truly objective reasons because all ethics is based upon assumptions about certain factors in human society. Generalise the situation sufficiently (try to apply the ethics to aliens, or humans who don't feel pain, or emotionless Vulcans) and your justification evaporates along with the circumstances upon which it depended.

So this type of higher-order relativism asserts that ethical properties are relational properties, rather than objective properties. But when the relations hold constant across a given subset of agents (people), then the relational laws take on the appearance and utility of objective laws.

This is my personal belief about meta-ethics -- a higher-order form of relativism, poised somewhere between unrealistic, lofty objectivity, and each-to-his own individual subjectivity. I have always been suspicious of the sharp philosophical division between objectivity and subjectivity; I think it probably dates back to Descartes' brilliant but mistaken ideas about the mind/body duality.

Of course, this meta-ethical theory does not specify a theory of ethics, but only describes a characteristic that any true theory of ethics must satisfy.

As you can see, I approach the problem as a true mathematician: don't bother finding the solution; just prove that a solution exists and determine its relevant properties. Finding the actual number is boring (and sometimes impossible!).

okay, i suppose i could take the points one by one....

*posted by Nickelplate

Many people will cry "blind faith" when they don't understand the years upon years that I have spent studying the bible instead of going out and getting drunk or having sex like the rest of the kids.

it is good to have questions and curiosities, as thats how they are quelled...you must have started your quest at an early age, as did i....i dont have the college credit for seminary, but i do have a ton of experience....pop was affiliated with the church for most of my formative years.....i digress...

the point here is, if you have questions, as you obviously did at at one point in yer life, then educating yourself is definately the way to go....having said that, this to me is one of the reasons i have a problem with organized religion in general....as an educated man, it would seem to me that the quest, at least in my case, has raised more questions than answers.....i would think it to be so in your case a well....please correct me if im wrong here....

*posted by Nickelplate

Blind faith is when you beleive something because you were told that it is true. My kind of faith is strong, because I've read the bible, and all the other religious texts and I know what makes sense and how things work in the world of religion and beliefs.

but in the end, it is still.....faith, not fact. not to be a turd, but how do you know for absolute certainty that the guys writing the bible were not eating peyote or some such concoction....it seems as plausible as alot of theories....it is still....faith......bourne by hope, because we want to believe.

*posted by Nickelplate

I've spent my time making sure that I know WHAT i beleive and WHY I beleive it. I assure you, my faith is not blind, it is like a the house built upon the rock.

i have built houses on rocks before....the foundation is usually great....solid, reliable, and secure.....but the structure above is only as stable as the person who built it.....so you must have "faith" that it will stand for eternity, or at least untill my kids decide to move back in....***groan :heee:

to be continued, i need to work for a spell....but nickel, i am thoroughly enjoying this conversation sir.... :wink:

Doc B... :dodgy:

You need to learn how to use quotes correctly doc :razz: Place the other person's text inside the start/end quote markers, then write your reply afterwards :wink:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

please tell me thats not all you could find to spank me with duncan..... :razz:

you know i want to say something to you sir.... ***chews toungue furiously

Doc B... :dodgy:

Gollum said:
On the other (third) hand, you can combine these attitudes consistently with a higher-order form of relativism. In this type of theory, normativity becomes relative to a culture or context, such that ethical propositions have no true objective basis, but are not entirely subjective either.

Now that seems really clever to me. I knew that there were problems with both normativity and relativism, but I hadn't come across this version before. sigh I have a fair bit to learn with this sort of thing :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'd assumed prescriptivism (but in a religious context) was applying here, but this normative/relativist stuff is a much better description. Cheers Gollum. :smile:

---

My site

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Loco</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Now that seems really clever to me. I knew that there were problems with both normativity and relativism, but I hadn't come across this version before. sigh I have a fair bit to learn with this sort of thing :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'd assumed prescriptivism (but in a religious context) was applying here, but this normative/relativist stuff is a much better description. Cheers Gollum. :smile: </DIV></DIV>

Be aware that my higher-order relativism is just my idea; I'm glad that you like it, but I'm not aware of any major school of philosophy that espouses this view. It may actually be original!

To me, after studying ethics, it seemed the obvious response. But I'm sure many of my old colleagues and tutors might argue that my attempt to find a middle ground, between objectivity and individualistic subjectivity, is fundamentally flawed. They would probably cite Kant at me :wink:

Normativity and relativism, however, are well recognised aspects of ethics. The higher-order relativism idea is my response to the conflict between normativity and relativism.

It sounds to me like you actually have a very good understanding of the issues :smile:

Concerning the Avatar:

I fully plan on changing it as soon as I find/make a good one. But for the time being, I'll just keep the hitlerstamp up. I don't personally LIKE hitler, In fact I think he was a butthead with only one ball. but it was the only picture that was the right size at the time that I had to emergency-change my avatar. It has nothing to do with my religion or my life philosophy. The guy is dead, the stamp is just filling space until something AWESOME comes up, or I make something good.

Concerning all else:

ah crud, I have to go I'm still at work. I will address all your good stuff later. The servers went down...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>[quote=Gollum]you can never have truly objective reasons because all ethics is based upon assumptions about certain factors in human society.[/quote]</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
It is a sticky problem, but I take issue with this statement. I am a moral relativist, but a strange one. You might call it "mechanistic relativism". The only purpose of ethics is to govern the interaction of agents (people) within a large ensemble (society) with the objective of competing successfully with other ensembles. By this definition, all that defines right and wrong is what works. If all agents are taken to be identical, then all that differentiates one ensemble form another is it's rule set. Over time the "rules" are continually tested, and the good (competitively advantageous) ones are kept, while the bad (competitively deleterious) are discarded. Thus, the basis of ethics is absolute, if empirical in nature. There are many possible solutions to the problem of survival, but each of them is based on the absolute doctrine of success, and the validity or normative nature of that solution is based on it's viability.

To bring this back to concrete reality, western culture has been wildly successful, which to me provides plenty of reason to respect traditions of the past. It is important to test them, think on them, and try to figure out which are still viable and important. That is part of the process, but I think it is a mistake to change them too rapidly.

Tracer Bullet said:
Over time the "rules" are continually tested, and the good (competitively advantageous) ones are kept, while the bad (competitively deleterious) are discarded

Interesting point - sounds like a sort of ethical evolution. However, there are still certain conflicts between developed societies. For example, in one country it may be perfectly legal and considered acceptable to take drugs, whilst in another it may be illegal and considered morally wrong. Similarly the death penalty is allowed in some countries and not used in others. Are these issues which are still being developed and part of the process?

If so, then surely during this "development" they are still relative rather than absolute, and the absolute nature of the rules is only determined out of relativism, so the basis of ethics is actually a relativism which develops into a mutual agreement.

I take your point though that what works defines some of our rules. For example, going round killing people would probably not work as a principle for society. The only question is raised with qualifying the statements for excessive punishment or discrimination. Societies have sadly proved that dictatorships and discriminatory regions have the potential to function reasonably well (e.g. "Mussolini made the trains run on time"), but what they do is certainly not "right" (or am I only judging this from my standard? In which case relativism defeats my point).

Anyways, that might just be me being pedantic. Apologies for derailing the thread completely with this topic!

---

My site

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>It is a sticky problem, but I take issue with this statement. I am a moral relativist, but a strange one. You might call it "mechanistic relativism". The only purpose of ethics is to govern the interaction of agents (people) within a large ensemble (society) with the objective of competing successfully with other ensembles. By this definition, all that defines right and wrong is what works. If all agents are taken to be identical, then all that differentiates one ensemble form another is it's rule set. Over time the "rules" are continually tested, and the good (competitively advantageous) ones are kept, while the bad (competitively deleterious) are discarded. Thus, the basis of ethics is absolute, if empirical in nature. There are many possible solutions to the problem of survival, but each of them is based on the absolute doctrine of success, and the validity or normative nature of that solution is based on it's viability.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
To bring this back to concrete reality, western culture has been wildly successful, which to me provides plenty of reason to respect traditions of the past. It is important to test them, think on them, and try to figure out which are still viable and important. That is part of the process, but I think it is a mistake to change them too rapidly.

</DIV></DIV>

That's an interesting theory, and one I've come across before in various guises.
I have both general (methodological) objections to these theories, and specific objections to what you said.

The methodological objection

Evolutionary arguments are often attractive in philosophy, but they are rarely correct. Indeed, such arguments are perhaps the most seductive modern form of an invalid argument.

The problem with evolutionary arguments is that you almost always end up assuming what you want to prove. The general structure of an evolutionary argument goes thus:

• Premise 1: property X, of which P is a possible instantiating mechanism, is a survival-pressured characteristic.
• Premise 2: survival-pressured characteristics are always optimised due to evolution.
• Premise 3: P is survival-advantageous over other possible mechanisms.
• Conclusion: By evolution, P is the actual mechanism that instantiates the survival-pressured characteristic X.

There are several problems with this. First, premise 2 is incorrect. Evolutionary pressure finds, at best, local maxima, not global maxima. Moreover, evolution is a continuing process. It follows that survival-pressured characteristics are not always optimised. A process of evolution may indeed reach a dead-end, unless sufficient survival pressures are added to the system to inculcate a temporary evolutionary regress (you need to take one step backward before you can take two forwards).

Second, premise 3 is sneaking an old-fashioned essentialist argument into a "modern" evolutionary argument, which is totally wrong-headed. The whole point of any evolutionary argument is that the process of evolution will judge which possibilities are the most functional; premise 3 is assuming that the philosopher can make this judgement!

If the philosopher is going to make an essentialist judgement (X is essentially better than Y because of my reasons....), then he should not hide it in an evolutionary argument. How does he KNOW that P is survival-advantageous? He's assuming that P "fits the job" better than the alternatives, but that requires that he know the "essential requirements" of the job. But this requires that he sneaks a sort of functional essentialism into his evolutionary argument.

So you can see that premise 3 is the point where the argument effectively assumes what it intends to prove.

For these reasons, the only good evolutionary arguments are those that back up their assertions with reference to the fossil record. Without this, anyone can make a vague essentialist claim and dress it up in Darwin's coat.



The specific objections

Now, your argument does not appear to be of exactly this form, which is a good sign. I think, however, that there are other fundamental problems with your assessment of ethics:

You see the purpose of ethics as promoting successful behaviour in a group. I agree that this is probably how ethical behaviour arose: cooperating groups were more successful than selfish individuals, so they tended to survive to pass on the cooperative characteristics.

These characteristics may be passed on by genes or by learned behaviour. I think the latter, but note that this question is independent of our other considerations here.

The main problem with your theory is that it only deals with the objective side of ethics, and does not address the subjective concerns. By failing to address the subjective concerns, I believe it fails in the major task of an ethical theory: to reconcile an objective understanding with our subjective ethical perspectives.

What does it mean to be successful? If you are talking about survival, what kind of survival do you mean? Purely numbers? Supporting the largest possible population? Does it matter at all whether the individuals are miserable throughout their lives?

Incidentally, what makes you think Western culture is successful? On an analysis based on population size and growth, China and India seem to be the star performers.

I think that your notion of success in Western culture includes, at least tacitly, ideas about quality of life. But quality of life has no causally necessary links to survival chances, and in practice a high quality of life tends to reduce the chances of producing many children and passing on your genes.

Unless there is a necessary correspondance between quality of life and prospects of passing of passing on your genes, then your theory occupies a dubious position. The burden of proof is on you either to demonstrate such a necessary connection, or to demonstrate that it would not be possible to produce a biologically successful society that has appalling quality of life.

I do think there's something to be said for your theory -- it gives a refreshingly practical perspective, and I believe it contains important truthful elements. But, in its present form, I think it makes a category error by asserting that this facet of ethical theory -- the evolutionary element -- is in fact the WHOLE of ethical theory.

Clearly biological competition was the generative influence of what we now call ethical behaviour; but the human race has developed beyond the crude need for survival. We are now a species that look for meaning, not just meals. Ethics is about our society and how we relate to one another, and issues that do not affect survival can still be ethically relevant.

There are many ways in which we could continue to develop as a biologically successful species. But some of them involve greater cruelty towards each other, or widepread misery in our daily lives. Others involve the opposite.

It may well be that the most biologically successful possible future is one in which humanity develops into a cruel militaristic species, which seeks to dominate other forms of life while at the same time actually lowering the quality of life for individual humans.

Some people would say this has already happened. I am more sanguine.

Now that humanity is no longer under the evolutionary pressure it once was, we require measures of success that are not purely based on survival numbers. Ethics is not merely the rules of maximal survival of groups; it concerns the quality of life of individuals within those groups, and how that quality of life is affected by the actions of others.

looks around

My, I feel so small.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
looks around

My, I feel so small.

Sorry Jon, I have pumped this thread full of quite a lot of pretty high-level philosophy :sad:

In my defence, it's been a long time since I touched the stuff, and it's hard to resist bingeing once you taste an old drug :wink:
Besides, the quality of discussion at the Snarkpit is truly uplifting. Not, of course, that I judge the quality of discussion only on philosophy, but it's refreshing to find such intelligent discussion of my much-maligned, ignored, and ridiculed subject :smile:

Nah, don't apologize Mike. I had a very bad day, and its showing up in here.

I had one of those days where you feel like an experiment gone badly. Nothing I did went right, and it was as if, it were supposed to be that way.

sighs

I am royally bitchy right now, and.. I need to go away before I do something stupid. It seems, I get into the most trouble here, whenever I show up pissed.

/ goes and sits in a corner and contemplates my exact place in this world.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

ok......very nicely stated mike, i surely have missed this kind of ....banter....now, "would you punish, or pray?" ////runs

relax jon, thou art as miniscule as i... :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

oh, and btw, in the big picture, none of us really amount to dry s**t anyway....but, ya might as well enjoy it....hows that for an "ethical" stance??... :wink:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Dr Brasso</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>ok......very nicely stated mike, i surely have missed this kind of ....banter....now, "would you punish, or pray?" ////runs </DIV></DIV>
Neither; I would pity.

polishes halo

....needs Brasso... :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Good points. I'll reply when my Quantum final is turned in...

To finish my big part in the discussion from earlier, I don't truly think that EVERYONE pushes thier views on everyone else. I think that anyone who expresses an opinion publicly is only doing that. But it seems that anytime I express my views as a Christian, people tell me that I am pushing my philosophy off on them. Now, granted, strict Christian values such as mine do require a certain amount of "pushiness" but I really don't think it is any more of an instance of pushing than atheism or anything else, if you truly beleive it.

Now for the new twist on the thread, I just think that you can't beleive that something is the right way to be, and yet tell people that when they do the opposite, that it is okay.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Ok. The exam isn't done, but my brain has been thoroughly curdled for now...

The premises:

On Premise 2, I did not intend for my opinion to come off as "we are perfect and evolution is finished". I take it for granted that such a process of optimization is ongoing, and by nature prone to reach local rather than global maxima.

On Premise 3, I disagree that it is fundamentally flawed. What is history if not the the "fossil record" of human society? Do you think it is invalid to examine historical trends and events as a way of evaluating the success of a particular culture? My argument in favor of ethical code X is merely that it has historically been correlated with the success of society Y, which uses it. Obviously correlation is not causation, but I think sufficiently plausible mechanisms exist to make the conclusion of at least partial causality a good one.

Defining "Success"

I would not define the success of an ensemble as the simple quantity of agents it has amassed. This is a key point in my theory which I neglected to define before, and to be honest, had not fully formulated. I define the key fitness criteria for a society as:

• The ability of the ensemble to compete with others for resources, both natural materials and valuable agents.
• The ability of the ensemble to provide for the well-being (resources per agent) of the individual agents.

These two goals are deceptively simple, but the fact that they are mutually conflicting in certain circumstances gives rise to a vast array of complex behavior. Take the population example. One way to get more resources is to produce more agents (China), but in doing so you defeat criteria 2. Likewise, one way to increase the well-being (resources per agent) of the individual agents would be to decrease their total number (Scandinavia), but likewise, this would be to the detriment of criteria 1. I stated before as a fundamental premise that all agents are alike. Let me restate that: all agents are alike on average. Thus, one mechanism by which both criteria 1 and 2 might be maximized is through the selections of especially valuable agents.

These two rules are a statement of the basic conflict in all evolutionary systems: the survival of the agent vs. the survival of the ensemble. Certain ensembles go very far in one direction or another... Tigers in contrast to mosquitoes. Anarchy in contrast to Communism.

Do not confuse my ideas of cultural evolution with biological evolution. It is in fact crucial to my theory that "society" is a learned set of rules, not a genetic hand-me-down. It is not critical that the individual agents be biologically successful for the culture to achieve it's goals. High levels of immigration are totally equivalent to a high birth rate so long as the perturbation to the society caused by the influx of foreign agents is not so grate as to cause it to loose it's identity. This mode of societal "reproduction" could indeed be thought of as a sort of abstract sexual mechanism, mixing aspects of multiple cultures, thus making it a potentially more healthy mode of propagation than the "asexual" sort you would get from simple biological success of the agents within a single society.

I'm not sure what you mean about the subjective vs. the objective components of ethics. Perhaps you could provide an example? Off the cuff though, I would suggest that any ambiguity could be ascribed to the conflict between ensemble level and agent level success.

I voted other.. I would have them Branded. Across the forehead, on both hands, on both feet and across there buttocks.. If you still sleep with that person and get what ever it is they have.. then you deserve it, and shall be branded.

MoneyShot: don't say that they "deserve it" because people will get on to you about it. That is actually the way I feel, only on a "rougher" level. Everyone should be as careful as if the person they are sleeping with IS branded. Since we don't have that system.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com