Heathen's Guide to Avoiding Nihilism?

My atheist and agnostic comrades, those who feel they lead rich and fulfilling lives without the need of gods, how do you go about avoiding nihilism knowing there is no objective morality, no absolute truth, no meaning to life? What keeps you going, instead of wasting away in your own mental sickness? Is there a good reason to keep going?

Who ever said that there's no meaning to life? or no objective morality?

Human reason and rational thought.

I may have misspoken. By "meaning" I meant "purpose". While I don't think that I exist in order to glorify some god, and I don't think that there's any metaphysical reason that any of us are alive, I do think that we must each give meaning/purpose to our own lives. But that's a topic that philosophers have been debating for centuries, isn't it? As someone who has a chemical imbalance that causes depression, I've had to work out why I bother to keep myself alive, and that reason is because life and the universe are really quite wonderful, and I want to be a positive influence on other people's lives. When I die, I want people to remember me as loving to learn, loving to teach others, and for being someone who has made others just a little bit happier or more content.

Morality, though, is a lot easier. Morality is about recognizing that other people have the same right to life and happiness as you do, and not doing anything to negatively impact that right (also to do things that make it easier for others to live and be happy). I think only sociopaths would disagree with that.

Giving your own meaning and purpose seems like empty instructions from an ideology that expects more from the world; life is wonderful, compared to what? Death? Pre-birth? And why should legacies be stressed?

Why is the Golden Rule so special? Where do you suppose people obtained some right to life and happiness? Rights imply someone has bestowed them on you, which we know is not true. That hardly makes me a sociopath, does it?

The issue I have with "When I die, I want people to remember me" is that for 99.999999999 percent of the people, that'll last 50 years, tops. No one now remembers my great great grandparents--not even me, beyond the obvious knowledge that I had to have had some. Not even their names, nothing.

So, the same will happen to me.

What to do? I'm a little on the Epicurean/Hedonistic/Ecclesiastes side of things.

Enjoy it while we can. It's a massive cosmic accident that we are here. I find solace in my curiosity. The universe is here, and we, as far as we know, are the only things that can look at it. I revel in that. I'm lucky. I don't feel there needs to be a purpose in that, it just is.

Why climb a mountain? Because it's there. Why live life to the fullest? Same reason.

To give in to nihililsm is a bit like going on a vacation, then staying in your hotel room the whole week saying "well, I know I have to go home in a week anyway, so what's the use?"

I love looking back into the past--the history of people, the earth, the universe. So much to discover--and so I recommend feeding that curiosity like a wild dog, it gives so much pleasure.

The only problem is, I wish I could see how the story continues, and one day, I will not, and it'll just go on. That gets to me sometime, but I'm no different than anyone else, we all just get our time and that's it. Afterwards, there won't be a "me" to care, so that'll be just fine.

Get up! Go for a walk! Read a book! Laugh! Look through a telescope! Go on a roller coaster! Read silly messages on the internet! Scratch!

That's my answer, simple I know, but there it is.

As for morality--that's a different question.

I believe our generalized morality has evolved in response to the pressures of our being social creatures. I believe it will continue to evolve.

And so, for better or worse, we're caught in the present soup.

I think that morality arises from empathy--the knowledge that we're all experiencing this together, and that massive amounts of chance contribute to the quality of our existence here. I feel fortunate today, but might get hit by a truck tomorrow and lose my legs or something. That knowledge makes me feel acutely about people with mobility problems. I'm not hungry--but can certainly feel for those that are.

And--given my aforementioned curiosity for life and the universe, I'd like to share that with others, maximize my ability to explore, learn, enjoy and grow, and do the same for others. To share passions, to teach, to learn, and to enable "us all" as a group to maximize what we have.

Everything seems to flow from that.

Now I'm sounding like "The Dude", I think . . . . :)

Richard Dawkins wrestled with the same issues. He would probably add to the above suggestions: "replicate your genes". That is the one and only purpose of life. I have done my bit, but I wish I had done more ;o)

"Is there a good reason to keep going?"

What? Are you telling me you don't have a tbr pile?

BWAHAHAHAAAA!

#9, thread win. And so early!

Perfect.

> 10 Agreed! :D

Phocion, you may also find of interest these essays by Adam Lee (Ebon Musings/Daylight Atheism):

A Cosmic Accident: Does life have ultimate purpose?

Cathedral of Suns: A Humanist Sermon

In Awe of Everything: An atheist's sense of spirituality

Miscellanea Agnostica also addresses these topics briefly (scroll down to "Anything Goes?" and "The Meaning of Life") in his/her Agnosticism FAQ.

IMO nihilism is a direct corollary of atheism. However, nihilism itself is purely theoretical and doesn't provide any direction or rationale for how one should live or whether on not one should live at all. Nihilism isn't something one should avoid, but rather a stage one should pass through.
Living as a nihilist is dishonest because actions taken and not taken both will have reasons. Even taking actions based upon randomness (if that's possible) or absurdity will still have reason, the individual's decision to live absurdly or randomly. Therefore, since we have already given up on objective morality, purpose, and/or reason, we should accept our own subjective morality/purpose/reason as inevitable and what we should concern ourselves with.
Our actions are due to our own causes although, being subjective, these causes are subject to change. We are free to accept or deny the golden rule, utilitarianism, self-interest, or any other precept or belief we feel like for as long as we wish. Likewise we can value and see purpose in whatever we chose.

At least that's how I see it.

8: Difficult, as I made a fairly solid decision to never procreate. If I have these many problems, imagine what I'll pass down to any theoretical children. It's best if my genes go with me.

9: Ha ha! I'm worried if I keep relying on books as an escapism on this level, I'll discover I'm actually the King of Spain.

12: I can agree that nihilism is a stage. One can hardly lead an honest nihilist lifestyle; or not a long one, anyways. But all of this discussion, including what I've read from the links Essa has posted, is that despite trying to be defenders of reason and logic, we must live a lie; we know there's no objective morality, but we pretend our subjective morals hold just as much weight (although that last article had the gall to suggest there is objective immorality we should stay away from). We don't allow that sort of nonsense from theists who hold a "better our God than no god" mentality. Why should we?

we must live a lie; we know there's no objective morality, but we pretend our subjective morals hold just as much weight

If we know that there is no such thing as objective morality than however much "weight" subjective morality has it's infinitely more than zero. Living a lie is believing in an objective morality.

I don't think of it as living a lie, I think of it as making the most of what we've got. What other choice is there?

This, of course, assumes that we have a choice, and the more I consider Naturalism, the less sure I am that we do, anyway.

Onward, Robots!

Oh, and as for passing on the genes, it's not whether they actually get passed on that counts . . . :)

#6: "To give in to nihililsm is a bit like going on a vacation, then staying in your hotel room the whole week saying "well, I know I have to go home in a week anyway, so what's the use?""

Ooh, I like that one.

For me this stuff happened in stages and each stage was always a lesson in humility. When I was persuaded by evolution that there's no divine plan for my afterlife, I only got their through reluctant vacillation over a couple of years. When I was persuaded by behaviorism that there's no unmoved mover sitting inside my head, I got there through stunned dejection lasting only a couple of months. When I was persuaded by anarchism that you cannot legislate reality, I got there through shock lasting just a couple of weeks. Each step made the next one easier. Now I'm fairly comfortable with not being a control freak of one kind or another.

It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure. (Epicurus)

As for nihilism - what's the point?

17: Study of nature. Sounds Romantic. Should we go dancing naked in the woods?

In the mid-seventies I hiked the north shore of Kauai naked. I returned much saner, which you may read as happier, than I was when I set out.

I should have gone back again sometime since. I don't know whether they still allow that though.

Robert

I'm not quite certain what you're asking - how do you stay happy without the illusion of purpose - or how does one persist in leading a "rich and fulfilling" life? (To me, the term "Nihilism" carries a sense of "destructive of society", not just a personal attitude toward life.)

I'm also not sure that "nihilism" is particularly a problem for non-believers; nominal believers seem to have at least as much trouble with the problem. At the extreme, devout believers have trouble placing ANY importance on This World, as their attention is so riveted upon the Next World.

I know a lot of non-believers, secularists, apatheticists, materialists, atheists, anti-theists, etc., and I can think of only one or two who have fallen into nihilism. Most of us seem to have organized pretty good lives.

On the other hand, it seems like a noticeably larger proportion of the "believers" that I know have fallen into various degrees of self-destructive behaviors, ranging right over to fairly breath-taking antinomianism.

That is, the people I know who have stable jobs and relationships ("lead rich and fulfilling lives") tend to be somewhat disproportionately non-believers.

On the other hand, the people I know whose lives have been a chaotic mess of failed careers, and substance abuse, and multiple divorces (etc.), tend to be somewhat disproportionately "born again" today.

(There are plenty of exceptions in both directions, Your Mileage May Vary, etc., etc.)

There's demographic data to support this observation - divorce rates, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, teen pregnancy, bankruptcy rates, all sorts of dysfunctional behaviors - are demonstrably higher in the more-religious red states than in less-religious blue states. And there's evidence to support the notion that non-believers are dramatically under-represented among the incarcerated.

(A minute's Googling:

Divorce rates: Arkansas 6.6, Massachusetts 2.5
Bankruptcy rates: Georgia 7.95, Vermont 2.74)

But my larger point is that all sorts of people with all sorts of personal philosophies have trouble finding "meaning" in life - but I wouldn't say that this is disproportionately a problem for non-believers. The evidence suggests the contrary, in fact.

That's very nice, but how is that supposed to help me?

(Oh. OK. I thought it was a more of a general question than a personal one. Sorry, my bad. But one way #20 might help is by pointing out that religious people have at least as much trouble with this issue as do the non-religious.)

Well, life builds its own meaning.

We find ourselves here in a razor-thin biosphere on a minor planet of a minor star among billions of other stars - and that in itself is miraculous. Much more miraculous than the stories told in Bronze Age mythologies.

And here we are - in a first-world culture, warm in the winter, with sufficient food and no large predators to worry about! Really, on that level, it's a pretty good deal we have.

And each of us is a descendent of ancestors who kept going: even when the food gave out, they kept putting one foot in front of the other, and made it over the ridge and into the next valley, where there was again enough to eat. The story of how we got here gives us meaning.

There's also the fact that "life has no purpose" is also tremendously liberating - since nothing 'matters', we might as well treat it all as a game, and see how it all plays out. To worry about "the lack of purpose" over-emphasizes the importance of the lack of purpose.

There's no purpose - and that's just fine. Just living can be enough.

>11 Essa:

Many thanks for the links.

> 12

I agree.

> 17

LOL.

After understanding the simple fact that myth is myth, and presuppositionally accepting the general worldview established by modern science, nihilism then becomes the merely starting point for me, as others have stated.

From there I reason that, life being a free lunch, why not chose to be an Epicurean? So I do.

I suppose I follow most laws most of the time as a matter of pragmatism but I actually am not a sociopath so I have no desire to use others as mere means to an end. That is the criminal mind - which I don’t happen to have. Those who are criminally-minded pretty much suffer far more negative consequences than I would ever wish to suffer - being an Epicurean and all.

Most of life is not a matter of our choice. But as to choice - I’m told there's an Spanish aphorism “Take what you want, and pay for it.” Restated my own words this is: “Life is a free lunch. Do as you choose and accept the consequences.”

> 22

I agree.

@#21

As far as practical advice goes I'd say to try to realize that once you're over the idea of objective values/purpose/morality reasoning in a traditional philosophical sense often becomes counterproductive. Trying to determine a general framework in a vacuum leads to no conclusions at all, or only very ephemeral ones. You can become stuck in a labyrinth of reasoning without end, suffering the so called "paralysis by analysis."

I've found that the best way, at least for myself, to get out of these funks is to just say **** it and embrace some hedonistic principles. Do what seems appealing in the moment without worrying about the why or the purpose or value of it. It could be bacchanalian, intellectual, mundane, charitable, or something unclassifiable depending on your whims. The important thing is that after finishing, you shouldn't judge or analyze yourself for your actions. You had an experience, hopefully a pleasurable one, and there's no point in trying to justify or account for it because it is meaningless to do so and will lead back to paragraph one.

24: That makes more sense and is the most honest advice I've heard. How, then, do we react when two conflicting principles collide? For instance, one person says torture is wrong; the other said torture is good. Each considers the other an immoral douche. What do we do? Fight it out for dominance?

Re. #24: "What do we do?"

Waterboard both of 'em and see who breaks first?

heh ...

 

#25: "For instance, one person says torture is wrong; the other said torture is good. Each considers the other an immoral douche. What do we do?"

Assuming the guy hasn't actually tortured anyone, agree to disagree.

27: That's very pretty, but when has that ever worked in history?

#28: Works every time. Again, assuming we're still talking about someone who hasn't actually tortured anyone. But I think you must have had some other kind of unstated scenario in mind when you first posted the question.

Not really, but that does bring up the next question: what makes one who tortures wrong? Why does torture bring out so much rage within people in a society where morality in subjective?

Well, we've spent about 500 years developing a society where the powerful can't arbitrarily torture the powerless. There are going to be all sorts of bad consequences for all sorts of people now that our society has thrown that progress away.

I'm not talking about progress. Morality =/= progress.

"The rules by which society organizes itself" pretty much IS the definition of "morality".

"Morality" is not often a single individual acting in isolation - it's how multiple people decide to interact with each other: how we set up rules for these interactions.

(Can you think of a counterexample where "morality" doesn't have a social component?)

I asked what would happen when two moralities collided. Let's consider Group Atheist thinks murdering in the name of God is wrong. Let's consider Group Christian thinks murdering in the name of God is right. When they collide, which is "correct"? What do you do in this situation?

For the past few hundred years in the West, that's been pretty much of a solved problem, until lately, anyway: we've agreed that "the Age of Miracles is over", and you're simply not allowed to bring your invisible friends into the public realm. There was a grudging consensus that their invisible friends could no longer be used to trump the secular arguments.

The problem today *IS* that some fringe of people are getting more and more insistent upon bringing their invisible friends back into the discussion.

It was a hard battle winning a secular space for these decisions, and we need to oppose any encroachments on the space that we've won for these questions.

But given that morality is completely subjective, why not hide behind an invisible friend? What makes that so terrible?

What makes that so terrible?

The fact that they could never agree whose invisible friend was right, and the West spent the better part of two centuries killing each other to settle the question.

Out of the ashes of the Thirty Years' War and of the English Civil War, there was forged a very reluctant agreement to leave religious questions OUT of the public realm.

Consider that our conscience is nothing but an invisible friend; and you rarely meet two people who share absolutely similar morality. Consider that removal of religious questions was removed from government; that still leaves our invisible friends, our conflicting consciences.

Does it matter that one person calls their invisible friend God and the other calls it their ego?

The point is that subjective, unverifiable claims are denied authority: people were grudgingly forced to accept Other People as having claims of comparable weight. The public realm is worked out publicly.

And yes, there are still people who think that their conscience is some sort of trump card. Usually, they're treated as lunatics. Occasionally, they persuade people in the public realm that their arguments make sense.

People who decide that "my conscience says I don't need to register with DMV, or need to honor a court that uses a fringed flag" quickly learn that their "conscience" alone carries little weight in the public realm.

People whose consciences tell them that "this war is illegal and must be stopped", or "these forms of discrimination are indefensible" usually have an uphill fight ahead of them - but they win only by persuading the rest of the community to change public policy, not by fiat.

What makes them lunatics? I can go out and say that all morality is lie, relative to the circumstances, and have everyone laugh at me by pointing out such a society that accepts that may never survive. I can say it; they don't have to accept it, but would that make me a lunatic?

So, to sum, might makes right?

... but would that make me a lunatic?

Well, it would make you out of step with your community until you convinced some critical mass of others. (See, e.g., anti-choice activists....)

So, to sum, might makes right?

Well (...being only somewhat flippant...) - of course it does. What else would?

The question backs up a step though, to "What determines 'might' "? Is political power derived from the will of one boss, or is it the from consensus of the entire community?

It seems to be from the entire community. A leader may take their country to war, even though only 31% support the war, but unless the community actively overthrows the actions of the boss, they endorse the boss's will; the boss just centralizes responsibility.

Or suggest I am the only agnostic in a community of zealous Christians. The law states everyone in the community must be Christian; even if it's only the leader who punishes me, it's clearly the community that powers the might.

But what if I am not interested in convincing a critical mass of others to follow me; just to think for themselves (which would require an acknowledgment of the absence of objective morality)? Would that not mean that the actions of Group Atheist and Group Christian, both of whom are more concerned with attracting as many people as possible to their positions, are both "right"? Or would it just boil down to that Group Atheist has 99 members and Group Christians has 81?

Personally I disagree with quite a bit of what ...Bob has been saying. Morality, ultimately, is an entirely subjective thing and ultimately any individual's morality is as valid (or invalid depending upon how one looks at it) as any other person's from an outside perspective. When judging between two moral systems outside myself there is no objective reason to choose one over the other. However there are two common misconceptions or slanders of this view, or at least my take on it, that I'd like to point out.

The first is that acknowledgement of the validity of multiple viewpoints doesn't imply that one has to accept or even tolerate the actions of holders of those viewpoints. If I witness my neighbor murdering a door-to-door salesman I don't have to conclude that "oh well, he's just acting on his moral principles, might as well let him go about his business." I might do nothing, or I might believe that one ought to uphold the law and report him to the police, or that an eye for an eye is the best policy and that it is my duty to exact retribution. Depending upon my own personal system of morals I will act accordingly. Subjectivity does not incline me toward a laissez-faire morality system.

The second is on the other extreme. Although I ultimately will only follow my own morality this morality isn't created in a vacuum. If faced with two choices that seem equally palatable to me both morally and by inclination I'll always chose the legal one. If my moral system is directly opposed by another person's system I'll try to weigh the two in my head and through some internal calculus come to a conclusion as to which of our two compasses to follow in this case.

Of course all these decisions mainly take place in my subconsciousness, so arguments are rarely presented in the fashion they are here. In these ways I can incorporate the morality of others into myself, although it isn't necessary in any universal objective sense to do so. My own system demands that other people have a place and a value.

43> The first is that acknowledgement of the validity of multiple viewpoints doesn't imply that one has to accept or even tolerate the actions of holders of those viewpoints.

In the rest of that paragraph you explain that you will act on your own morality even if you accept that the other person's morality is equally valid. I don't see the difference between that and someone who believes that his own morality is the only valid morality. In both cases their own actions, calling the police or exacting retribution, are based on their own moral system and do not take in consideration the other persons moral system.

That was more or less the point. That accepting the absolute subjectivity of morality doesn't require me as an individual to give equal weight to each person's morality or to avoid interfering with others. However I choose to act or not act from there is entirely up to me.

I could decide on a policy of noninterference, one where I act completely according to my own moral whims, or one where I consider multiple viewpoints with my own being given more weight (which I do in actuality, and believe that most other people do as well on many issues). Subjectivity does not require or incline me towards any of these, though.

My life has meaning - for me. I don't engage in trying to provide universal meaning. I enjoy my family, reading, eating, going to movies, playing on the internet, taking care of my dogs, feeding the birds. Should you do all those things? That's up to you. I also enjoy not being tortured. If you want to torture someone who wants to be tortured, well, I think it's icky, but it's up to you two. You don't have the right to decide for me that I should be tortured for your pleasure. Objectively, we are all here, for now. That's all we can be fairly sure of. The only way for me to have some confidence in my being able to live life as I like it is to believe that you have the right to do the same. It is difficult for me to believe that you are as important as I am, but in order for life to make sense to me I have to believe it. Also, in order for life to make sense to me you have to let me believe it. Agreeing with Automicmutant, I want to have fun while I'm on this vacation. Agreeing with Booksloth, what's the point of nothingness. That will come in its own time.

46: You could very well be more important than I am, and you probably are; why pretend you're not, lie to yourself? You would not allow that sort of behavior from faux theists, would you -- ones who know there is no God, but live like there is one, anyways? And why can I not decide if I should torture you for my pleasure? Outside of the man-made laws we've decided upon, there's no greater morality telling me I cannot; given that you're probably stronger than me, that would certainly be a deterrent, but what right?

The only way for me to be safe is for me to think we are all of equal importance therefore none of us has the right to inflict harm on the other. Thinking otherwise will allow great happiness for some of the strong and powerfu; but if I am not one of those strong and powerful, which I am not, it will allow great unhappiness for me. All men are created equal can be said to be a religious concept. Acknowledging that the only way to allow individual pursuit of happiness is to allow individuals some degree of personal freedom from the powerful is a practical, moral concept.

And given that the quote you provided came from a racist, xenophobic elitist who never practiced what he preached a day in his life, I don't think it's much of a leg to stand on. All men are not created equal; never have been, and never will be.

You seem to be purposely misunderstanding for some reason.

Outside of humor, I never purposely misunderstand; either I understand you, or I do not. I just think you have a weak argument for your sense of morality: "It makes me feel good." I expected something a bit more honest from a non-theist.

I can only have my morality, not yours. I can only want what will be the best for all, and thus for me.

@51 Objectively any moral argument is going to be weak. So "it makes me feel good" is as valid or invalid as any other rationale. It is only through interpersonal subjective conversations that we can have meaningful arguments.

Most people tend to have axiomatic beliefs, such as all men are created equal, the greatest good for the greatest number, do unto others..., thou shalt not.., etc. These beliefs are the result of our genetics and upbringing and have been internalized as things we reflexively believe to be right or wrong without the need or ability to prove them.

By appealing to mutually shared axioms we can then create logical arguments to try to convince others of our own viewpoints. These arguments will never be valid in a universal sense, but can be convincing or used to facilitate discussions between individuals or groups.

I would argue that the beliefs most people hold dear -- particularly in the democracies and republics of western Europe and North America -- are held because they fear what they see around them; namely the harshness of dictatorships. Namely, they just inherited it: much like how a child raised Christian will likely remain Christian, those raised in a society where they at least pay lip service to "all men are created equal" will want it to remain so.

But to genetics? Yes, humans are social creatures, likely because it set up the safest environment for survival and procreation; but a belief in equality did not come from it.

As for the need to prove them, well, we went for the longest time assuming we need not prove the existence of (insert god no. 72 here), but within the past couple hundred years, we've increasingly demanded it. Morals upheld for the sake of nostalgia seem dishonest now.

Group Christian does not have to treat Group Atheist as their equals; and Group Atheist does not have to take their abuse.

54> But to genetics? Yes, humans are social creatures, likely because it set up the safest environment for survival and procreation; but a belief in equality did not come from it.

Several recent experiments have shown that there an innate sense of fairness in humans. That's not too far off from a sense of equality.

Fairness? Define. Fairness in our ability to share food among each other?

#47: "And why can I not decide if I should torture you for my pleasure? Outside of the man-made laws we've decided upon, there's no greater morality telling me I cannot"

Of course there is (though I wouldn't call it "morality"). You're just not going to get very far in society if you're going to be torturing people. The law itself doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Society isn't an empty receptacle waiting for someone from on high, be it god or gov't, to tell them "thou shalt not kill." Even with all our relativistic morals, there are some anthropologically inevitable norms that arise about what behavior is tolerable (norms which may themselves be subject to change over time).

Not that the might of the mob makes right either. As a fan of the behaviorist school of thought, I prefer non-coercive remedies. See if you can get a job when it's known that you've tortured someone.

You're just not going to get very far in society if you're going to be torturing people.

There are plenty of societies that exist, some thrive even, in spite of torture. We let our poor and sick die slow, and often painful deaths every day while the privileged try not to think about them; yet we're considered a first-world country.

Even with all our relativistic morals, there are some anthropologically inevitable norms that arise about what behavior is tolerable (norms which may themselves be subject to change over time).

Yes, but these by no means constitute greater morality.

#58: "We let our poor and sick die slow, and often painful deaths every day while the privileged try not to think about them"

See what I mean about you saying one thing and meaning another? Enough of the unstated scenarios. Are you talking about actual torture or aren't you?

"Yes, but these by no means constitute greater morality."

What's "greater" morality if we admit that morality is subjective? I thought the original question was about how people with different moralities could resolve their differences, which that statement had given an answer to. If you want objective answers about how people should interact with eachother, crack open a behaviorism text and read about the pitfalls of using aversive methods like punishment. Applied to society, the lesson is pretty simple: No matter what your god or gov't tells you to do, don't kill, injure, or steal to achieve your goals or else there will be unintended consequences.

You're the one who suggested there was greater morality beyond that which is subjective:

Of course there is (though I wouldn't call it "morality").

Applied to society, the lesson is pretty simple: No matter what your god or gov't tells you to do, don't kill, injure, or steal to achieve your goals or else there will be unintended consequences.

Beyond the "every action produces a reaction," this statement still makes no sense. The only reason you're against killing, injuring, and stealing (all of which are vaguely defined: you don't think letting the poor starve constitutes as torture), is because you were raised to believe it; but that's certainly no different than "God told me this was bad."

Why can't someone kill, injure, or steal from you if you're a roadblock to their goals?

Just watching from the sidelines, here.

Phocion, how would you answer the question that you posed "Why can't someone kill, injure, or steal from you if you're a roadblock to their goals?"

I'm trying to get a better handle on your personal philosophy.

This is an interesting thread!

I would probably respond with, "They can." If Person B is a block to Person A's goal, then the block needs to be removed. It's in Person B's best interest to resolve it in the way that's best to their health; Person A may injure Person B, but Person B does not have to take it.

Ken MacLeod's "True Knowledge", as developed in The Cassini Division:

Life is a process of breaking down and using other matter, and if need be, other life. Therefore, life is aggression, and successful life is successful aggression. Life is the scum of matter, and people are the scum of life. There is nothing but matter, forces, space and time, which together make power. Nothing matters, except what matters to you. Might makes right, and power makes freedom. You are free to do whatever is in your power, and if you want to survive and thrive you had better do whatever is in your interests. If your interests conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against yours, everyone for theirselves. If your interests coincide with those of others, let them work together with you, and against the rest. We are what we eat, and we eat everything. All that you really value, and the goodness and truth and beauty of life, have their roots in this apparently barren soil.

This is the true knowledge.

We had founded our idealism on the most nihilistic implications of science, our socialism on crass self-interest, our peace on our capacity for mutual destruction, and our liberty on determinism. We had replaced morality with convention, bravery with safety, frugality with plenty, philosophy with science, stoicism with anaesthetics and piety with immortality. The universal acid of the true knowledge had burned away a world of words, and exposed a universe of things.

Things we could use.

(Thanks to LTer cshalizi for having the quote so ready-to-hand....)

#60: You're taking my quote out of context. Anyone can go back to #57 and see I said "of course there is" in response to you saying that there was nothing to stop you from torturing for your own pleasure. You wanted to call anything that could stop you "morality" and I rejected that term in the same statement. Cultural norms may sound like something ephemeral, but as I said before, try and get a job when it's known that you torture people. Such shunning poses very material challenges. It was only then that you changed your definition of torture to meaning anyone experiencing a state of deprivation and that every time I don't give my spare change to the guy standing outside the 7 Eleven, then I'm performing torture.

Do you actually mean that anyone who doesn't share their spare change is a roadblock to the goals of more needy people, or is this about some arbitrary distaste for those who have spare cars?

"Beyond the "every action produces a reaction," this statement still makes no sense."

Well, I did say to look to the behaviorists for an academic account of the results of coercion. But I can just direct you myself to an excellent summary of the literature by Dennis Delprato (2002). It's under 10 pages long, but feel free to skip to the concluding summary.

If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, go to page 183 (Does Punishment Work?) of BF Skinner's Science and Human Behavior which can be found for free here courtesy of the BF Skinner Foundation. Also, page 190 has an informative section called "Some Unfortunate By-Products of Punishment."

Violence just doesn't work. It doesn't matter if you're a part-time torturer getting your jollies or if you want to steal from the independently wealthy to "correct" whatever social ill you have defined. It only feels like it works because you only see its immediate effects, and even short-term "success" is enough for someone to adopt practices, even violent ones, into their repertoire. It's about reality, not morality.

#63: If your interests conflict with those of others, let the others pit their power against yours, everyone for theirselves.

Hundreds of millions of years of evolution have taught animals better, and should have taught us better. Sure, you might want the fish the other bear has, but even if you win, you may die from blood loss or infection. Or after you spend your energy and win that fish, a third rested bear may find this a perfect opportunity to take you down.

"The only winning move is not to play." That's true about unconstrained aggression of any type against someone not much weaker than you, not just nuclear war.

65: Evolution should have also taught the peacock those flashy feathers attract unwanted attention, but evolution can be a bitch because it's not about teaching; evolution is slow, random, and lazy.

In regards to the situation with the bears, if there's plenty of fish, the bears will leave one another alone. If that is the last fish, the bears will fight. That is the situation being set up with one person's interests conflicting with another, and their powers must be pitted amongst themselves when that happens.

>64 Lunar: this is nonsense. There is more to people than just the way they behave. Behaviourism has long been discredited and debunked. I am surprised to see it being taken seriously here.

Violence just doesn't work. also nonsense. Violence works every time. if it didn't work, people/states would never resort to it.

#67: Behaviorism is alive and well and doesn't need to justify its continued existence to anyone who thinks that there's anything about humans that goes beyond the material world.

And no, violence doesn't "work." If you consider the thesis of James L. Payne laid out in A History of Force: Exploring the Worldwide Movement Against Habits of Coercion, Bloodshed, and Mayhem, the use of violence by people/states is in general decline over the course of human history, as is the fate of any other stupid superstition.

well, I disagree on both counts.

The dichotomy of either 'behavourism' or 'something that goes beyond the material world' is a false one.

violence by people/states is in general decline over the course of human history. is incredibly simplistic. Measured how?

The population of the world has exploded over the course of our history, so have our wars, and so have our weapons of destruction, both in their number and their capability. Mr Payne may have a thesis, but that doesn't mean it isn't errant nonsense.

And just because it's in decline doesn't mean it isn't more effective.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the way out of nihilism is laughter.

A fellow camped on the grave of God told me: Since there is no never-has-been which could undo our lot, we are stuck with the always-was-and-will-be. The "natural" response to such unrelenting senselessness is terror and dismay. But the always-was-and-will-be is a chaos which can breed joy as easily as despair. Prefer vigorously the one you prefer, and your death will be lovely someday.

P.S. One must be an ironist to be able to spell hypocrisy.

P.P.S. As it is written (LXV, V:34-40),

Also I was in the spirit vision and beheld a parricidal pomp of atheists, coupled by two and by two in the supernal ecstasy of the stars. They did laugh and rejoice exceedingly, being clad in purple robes and drunken with purple wine, and their whole soul was one purple flower-flame of holiness. They beheld not God; they beheld not the Image of God; therefore were they arisen to the Palace of the Splendour Ineffable. A sharp sword smote out before them, and the worm Hope writhed in its death-agony under their feet. Even as their rapture shore asunder the visible Hope, so also the Fear Invisible fled away and was no more. O ye that are beyond Aormuzdi and Ahrimanes! blessèd are ye unto the ages. They shaped Doubt as a sickle, and reaped the flowers of Faith for their garlands. They shaped Ecstasy as a spear, and pierced the ancient dragon that sat upon the stagnant water. Then the fresh springs were unloosed, that the folk athirst might be at ease.

#69: The population of the world has exploded over the course of our history, so have our wars, and so have our weapons of destruction, both in their number and their capability. Mr Payne may have a thesis, but that doesn't mean it isn't errant nonsense.

The 20th century is the first century to worry about non-lethal weapons. It's also the first century to insist that war was not a legitimate means to acquire territory; if Israel had been created in the middle of the 19th century, there would be no question in anyone's minds that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were legitimately theirs.

And just because it's in decline doesn't mean it isn't more effective.

The only nation that might claim that WWI was effective for them would be the US, and I don't know that it was, really. Both the US and the Soviet Union gained from WWII (though the average Russian didn't), but every other country on any side in the war lost. No side in any of the Afghanistan wars since 1980 has been particularly effective at achieving their goals, though the Taliban came closer than many. Part of this loss of effectiveness is distinctive to the post-WWII era, where unconditional warfare--nuking Afghanistan into submission--is a good way to get economic sanctions or even attacked by more powerful nations.

I read an article recently that pointed out that terrorist groups achieve less than 7% of their stated goals and that al-Qaeda has been absolutely ineffective at achieving any of its stated goals.

Of course violence is effective at certain times. But the history of the 20th and 21st centuries shows many, many cases where it was a complete failure and different tactics at the very least wouldn't have produced worse outcomes. Do you really think they couldn't have achieved the current state of Northern Ireland, or a better one, without 2,000 dead and hundreds of millions of bomb damage?

#69 agreed. Behaviorism, as a system of belief, has been blown out of the water by the clear evidence that nature vs nurture represents a false dichotomy. A lot of the research that came out of it, however, is perfectly valid, interesting, and relevant.

Phocion, my biggest problem with philosophers is that they pose questions with no answers and then never seem willing to investigate whether the problem is with the question. Also, they rarely seem to question the tools of their trade, the human brain.

Morality, like all behavior, has a basis in the brain. Culture has some influence on how it is expressed, but aside from the influences of genetic/neurodevelopmental abnormality or possibly extreme environmental influence, people have some basic morality, usually centered around some sense of fairness or empathy type construct.

As to the original question, Western culture and religion set you up to ask it in the first place. Why do you feel the need for objective morality or some kind of purpose in life and why do you mourn the loss of them? The original post presumed that those questions led to mental illness, but in my experience, the depression leads to the rumination, not the other way around. I only think about this stuff when depressed or when really, really bored.

The attempts of science to raise empathy as some kind of pillar of objective morality, while understandable, still falls flat -- psychopaths, the autistic, and differing levels of empathy among the cultures make it unreliable as compared to the false sense of morality the religions have set up.

I think about the human brain often; I've not studied as much psychology and biology as I'd hoped, and continually suspect all of my problems I create myself. Little on the outside is stopping me from being happy; but anti-depressants didn't help much, either.

And I suspect if I were happy, I would not be asking these questions in the first place. But doubt once placed is not easily subdued. And I mourn the loss of them for the same reason I mourn the loss of childhood and the passing of favorites: nostalgia.

#74 I don't think that first part is accurate, but explaining what empathy is in neurological terms is beyond the scope of my education (for now). And I don't think I ever claimed it was reliable. What happens after culture gets more involved makes it extremely inconsistent, and it is already variable.

Anti-depressants don't work all that well. I used to get extra jobs in college, because all the extra time made me feel depressed. Also, it forced me to regulate my sleep cycle.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the way out of nihilism is laughter.

Sounds familiar...

The first time an angel heard the devil’s laughter, he was dumbfounded. That happened at a feast in a crowded room, where the devil’s laughter, which is terribly contagious, spread from one person to another. The angel clearly understood that such laughter was directed against God and against the dignity of his works. He knew that he must react swiftly somehow, but felt weak and defenseless. Unable to come up with anything of his own, he aped his adversary. Opening his mouth, he emitted broken, spasmodic sounds in the higher reaches of his vocal range (a bit like the sound made on the street of a seaside town by Michelle and Gabrielle), but giving them an opposite meaning: whereas the devil’s laughter denoted the absurdity of things, the angel on the contrary meant to rejoice over how well ordered, wisely conceived, good, and meaningful everything here below was.

Thus the angel and the devil faced each other and, mouths wide open, emitted nearly the same sounds, but each one’s noise expressed the absolute opposite of the other’s. And seeing the angel laugh, the devil laughed all the more, all the harder, and all the more blatantly, because the laughing angel was infinitely comical.

Laughable laughter is disastrous. Even so, the angels have gained something from it. They have tricked us with a semantic imposture. Their imitation of laughter and (the devil’s) original laughter are both called by the same name. Nowadays we don’t even realize that the same external display serves two absolutely opposed internal attitudes. There are two laughters, and we have no word to tell one from the other.

Milan Kundera ~ The Book of Laughter and Forgetting

#69: "And just because it's in decline doesn't mean it isn't more effective."

You're the one who claimed that the fact that it's used by people/states means that violence works. I'm just telling you it's a superstition. Superstitions can be acquired for actual reasons and still be false. In the case of violence, there is an observable immediate effect in harming someone that makes the perpetrator perceive they are being successful at using violence, but the person or population being targetted doesn't actually learn with any great effectiveness what the perpetrator wanted them to learn. Instead they learn to circumvent the perpetrator's violence, the illegal alcohol trade during prohibition being a familiar example. Heck, the government can't even keep illegal drugs out of their own prisons, and we're supposed to believe that coercion works?

#73: "Behaviorism, as a system of belief, has been blown out of the water by the clear evidence that nature vs nurture represents a false dichotomy. A lot of the research that came out of it, however, is perfectly valid, interesting, and relevant."

I agree with the latter part, of course, but I think it's a strawman to say that behaviorism (specifically the Skinnerian branch of behaviorism still practiced today) represented a a strictly "nurture" position. Behaviorists have never really denied the role of biology as the reason behavioral processes like reinforcement work the way they do. The only aspect of behaviorism that was ever really in contention was some theoretical work Skinner did on language. But their experimental body of research remains unrefuted to this day.

#73: "people have some basic morality, usually centered around some sense of fairness or empathy type construct"

I agree that humans have a default disposition towards empathy rooted in biology, but human history has shown that such empathy is much more easily overwritten by environment than is generally conceded. Human sacrifice and genocide were prevalent to the point of general acceptance as a necessity during ancient times. Payne's text cites some interesting Bible verses praising the Hebrews for killing every last woman and child on the enemy side. Public executions were big crowd pleasers into relatively modern times. I do think that we are having a trend towards more inclusive empathy over the course of history that parallels the decline in violence which Payne attributes to increasing economic sophistication.

But what happens when our resources are depleted and the economic sophistication crumbles; or even presently, the suffering people of so-called third-world nations feel to feed first-world economic sophistication?

but the person or population being targetted doesn't actually learn with any great effectiveness what the perpetrator wanted them to learn.

I don't understand why you are assuming that the purpose of violence is to teach someone. usually it isn't. usually the purpose of violence is simply to remove or in someway deactivate someone who is an inconvenience or an obstacle. in that sense, a bullet through the head is always effective.

That violence is effective is not a superstition. It's a fact. That the purpose of violence is to teach people, now that is a superstition.

I do think that we are having a trend towards more inclusive empathy over the course of history that parallels the decline in violence which Payne attributes to increasing economic sophistication.

and again, I say unto you, nonsense.

#79: Surely you're not saying anything so absurd as to mean that violence is largely without purpose? When a person uses violence, it's usually because they want to modify the behavior of those around them. Obviously, one way to eliminate a person's behavior is to blow their brains out, but this is hardly a significant slice of the pie especially when outright killing is really being used to modify the behavior of others by example. And when states use violence, it's because they want to engender the obedience of foreign enemies or of their citizens. So whether it's gang rivalry or international aggression or domestic abuse, the intention of violence is to teach someone a lesson. But that doesn't make it effective at anything except in the eyes of the most short-sighted of people.

#79: usually the purpose of violence is simply to remove or in someway deactivate someone who is an inconvenience or an obstacle. in that sense, a bullet through the head is always effective.

Temporarily effective. In the modern world, a corpse with a bullet through the head is going to summon more people who will be inconvenient obstacles. Unless you're mobbed up or really acting in self-defense, you're going to be increasing your inconvenience level by putting a bullet through someone's head.

That violence is effective is not a superstition. It's a fact.

Again, al-Qaeda -- completely unsuccessful at their stated goals. 2,000 bodies later, the UK still rules Northern Ireland. 50,000 deaths and nine years later, the Taliban still mostly runs Afghanistan. Hitler: dead of a self-inflicted gun wound.

Can violence be effective? Of course. But it can and usually is countereffective; the richest and most powerful people in the US don't go around putting caps in other people's ass, and the people who do usually die young or spend a lot of their life in jail.

#81 - I am going to agree here. Unless the purpose is immediate self defense, violence is ineffective and even there, it can backfire. I think such phrases as "violence is the last resort of the incompetent" are maybe overstating it, but violence is a really unimaginative way to solve problems (I also like "war is a failure of politics").

#77 You probably know much more about behaviorism than I do. I have just always felt uncomfortable with Radical Behavioralists' insistence that mental states cannot be taken into account. It helped introduce much more scientific thinking into the field of psychology and was consistent with the technology of the time, but treating mental processes like a black box doesn't sit well with me; it creates an incomplete picture. Also, like geneticists in the 90's, a lot of them were overly optimistic about the implications of their findings for society and mental health. Then again, maybe I've been out of academia for too long.

And as far as morality being "overwritten," I kind of agree, but would be more comfortable saying that, unless it is conditioned to be otherwise, I think morality nearly always is the lesser of human impulses. The impulses that compel us to fit into a group are some of the strongest. That combined with the idea that punishment is a useful instrument of teaching seems to result in a lot of cruelty.

I have just always felt uncomfortable with Radical Behavioralists' insistence that mental states cannot be taken into account.

This could be a couple different things. It could be a common confusion with the earlier behaviorism of John Watson that cognition is merely an "epiphenomenon" or it could be Skinner's later formulation of congition as a form of behavior observable only to the individual, but still subject to the same behavioral laws as most any observable behavior and equally deserving of explanation. It was his view that cognition, though real, could not be taken for granted as the unmoved mover behind human behavior which prompted him to pejoratively refer to cognitive psychology as "creationism" during is 1990 acceptance speech for his APA lifetime achievement award.

I find it very difficult not to be nihilistic. Not so much because of my lack of belief (although that does play in), more so because I have a very difficult time seeing the world as not in a state of irreversible ruin.

I look around and the world seems like poison everywhere I look... trash, chemical waste, fumes, toxins, and many other destructive things spew out and coat our world... Problems face us which will have no real "solution".

As a species we seem to have so many problems which are almost hardwired into us... war, persecution for arbitrary reasons (race, religion, sexual orientation... just to name a few), poverty, and many other issues...

I could go on and on... and I'm sure some of you will say that I should try to create solutions... but that's just it. I don't see that there are any real solutions to these kinds of problems. It's like one of those stupid whack-a-mole games. As soon as you fix one part of the problem, more and more issues with the problem will crop up. I look at people who try to solve parts of the problems (including myself) and I see that there is no possible way anyone can make enough of a difference to to even erase their own negative impacts upon the world and society.

I look at my own children (who I love deeply) and I feel immense guilt for even bringing them into the world. I feel guilty for adding to the world's over population and for creating 2 more people who help to create more poison to cover our planet. More importantly to me directly, I feel great guilt because I worry that I have brought them into this world to suffer... It seems so very unlikely to me that in their lives they won't see a very steep decline in the quality of living.

I hate feeling this way. I really hate it, but it's like not believing in god. Once I saw that I really couldn't keep the belief any longer, no matter how guilty I felt about it, I couldn't make myself believe in a divine being any longer. No matter how much i want feel like the world can improve and that people can change I just can't make myself truly believe that these things can be accomplished.

I'm sorry to lay out all of this very negative crap, but I felt almost compelled to get it out. I don't believe I've really told anyone any of this before.

84: You should not feel sorry for sharing, as it's obviously a problem for you.

I think our curse is that we're just as short-sighted as any other animal, although we consciously know the dangers of that. There's no reversing the damage done; we're going to have to adapt to the changes we made, or die. And the universe will not care either way.

Part of me wishes we would voluntarily wipe ourselves out in a grand extinction; but that's as much hopeless dreaming as wishing for world peace.

As I mentioned above, I have made a conscious decision to never voluntarily procreate during whatever remains of my life. As you mentioned, overpopulation is an issue (albeit more concerning resources than land); any children will have to inherit a world where "average" education is considered acceptable; a world where they are encouraged to consume by age two; a world where they are more means to government ends; a world where they are increasingly unwanted.

I cannot do it. But you already did bring children in. Prepare them for the difficulties ahead, for there is no progress ahead, but do remind them at a certain age, they can take the decision of life into their own hands.

I feel as though loving life cheapens the problems around us; but that's probably just my empathy talking.

#84, 85, a wise man once told me "you only get one spin on the ol' mudball".

This is why I'm more Epicurean. We do what we do, we contribute what we can, and we do the best that we can to enjoy our time and find things to appreciate. Yes, there is plenty to be on about on the negative side.

You have one chance, and limited time, to observe the wonders of the universe. I'm going to look for the wonder--without being naive to the reality--and continue.

Myth of Sisyphus, anyone?

Oh, and there's always this:

"I wish the ring had never come to me...I wish none of this had happened.

'So do I,' said Gandalf, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'"

Mark me down as another atheist who knows there is "objective morality, absolute truth, meaning to life." The opening post is full of it.

Please, feel free to enlightenment me as to the objective moralities, absolute truths, and meaning to life.

Heh. Well, I've written many long blog entries about it, so I'm not going to describe it in a few lines on a message board, especially since you're likely to dive into any omissions I make. Suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with divine obligation or any such nonsense. Morality and meaning come from the individual's own self-determinism and our higher faculties of conscience, empathy and cooperation, which come from evolution.

Well said, FrancoisTremblay. Now, crawl under your kitchen table and wrap your arms around your head. It's coming-------

90: I'm with you on self-determinism, but I'm conflicted over thinking our conscience as an extension of evolution; do sociopaths mutated in that they're lacking conscience and empathy for others? And what of people who possess empathy, but only for people like themselves at the expense of everyone who doesn't fit the white, hetero-normative mold?

@92: Check out Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals for, IMO, some pretty convincing observations and experiments supporting the evolutionary basis of morals through the presence of morality in animals. I think someone on this board recommended it but I forgot who it was.

Of course, even if we accept that morality is an evolutionary construct and we can go on to define these morals there is no reason why a person should necessarily accept and/or live by these morals. The axiom that what is natural is what is right is not one that we are forced to accept.

#92: "Sociopathy" comes right out of game theory: the community can tolerate/survive some low percentage of participants who game the system, so it's generally a viable strategy. (As long as not everybody tries it.)

So in Darwinian terms, some number of sociopaths can survive (even win) in any given community.

93: Thanks for the suggestion.

94: Would it be morally right to kill sociopaths upon discovering their defect?

Well, a lot of societies do. Exile and jail are more common.

Here in the modern West, we tend to make them CEOs.

96: Here in the modern West, we tend to make them CEOs.

Ba-zing!

#86
That's probably why I'm currently reading Gargantua and Pantagruel.

#97 Alas, he isn't really kidding. There is a book on it, Snakes in Suits. Robert Hare is a co-author and one of the foremost experts on psychopathy.

No, I believe him. I'm cynical enough to be able to joke about it, too. It's always been this way, though, so I really don't expect anything to change. Businessmen, politicians, etc. But to reach that level and maintain power, everyone must become a sociopath to some degree.

#98, how do you like it? I have recently looked into that and am considering adding it to the ol' TBR pile.

"90: I'm with you on self-determinism, but I'm conflicted over thinking our conscience as an extension of evolution; do sociopaths mutated in that they're lacking conscience and empathy for others?"

Yes. That is the definition of a sociopath.

"And what of people who possess empathy, but only for people like themselves at the expense of everyone who doesn't fit the white, hetero-normative mold?"

That's a more complex question. But yes, we are conditioned to hate people who are different, even though our awareness is now global. They are also defective human beings, although much less so than sociopaths. They are also easier to convert back. AFAIK, no sociopath has ever been changed.

So would it be in the best interest of the society to dispose of a sociopath before they commit a crime?

#103: Maybe we shouldn't prejudge sociopaths as criminals-in-waiting.

That doesn't answer my question. Would it not be in the best interest of the society to dispose of a sociopath before they commit a crime? All humans seem to be driven by selfish impulses, but as though through mutation the sociopath lacks empathy, the most basic ability to relate to another human being, and they are therefore in themselves threats to the community simply by existing.

Would it not be in the best interest of the society to dispose of a sociopath before they hurt the society?

In the end no. The immediate answer is, of course, yes. Where there is a clearcut danger, we restrict behavior -- drunks may not drive.

The trouble with condemning sociopathy, though, is that we can't predict the extent of the pathology and the resultant behavior. Society, many of us feel, is better for not prophylactically imprisoning citizens. Our duty in the making of the good society is to accept the risk.

We benefit more, despite our fears, from forbearance than from excess of caution.

Robert

#105: That doesn't answer my question.

Check your premises first.

107: We're talking about a mutated group that cannot function well within any society; autistic people do function well among other autistic people, whereas sociopaths cannot even function well among other sociopaths.

They also seem to assume too much. They live by mimicry. So does every other individual. The child learns from the parents and society how to act, and thus the child typically acts in the future, assigning the society with the self. The sociopath never makes this assumption; they are the chameleons of opportunism, and therefore a danger to the society.

Therefore, what's the loss? They understand well the will to power, so surely they can understand what a danger they present to the power of the society by merely existing.

106: Society, many of us feel, is better for not prophylactically imprisoning citizens. Our duty in the making of the good society is to accept the risk.

But why? Why does accepting the risk equate a good society?

#108: But why? Why does accepting the risk equate a good society?

Because we've found that tolerance makes for a peaceful, saner society. Protestants/Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Blacks/Indians/atheists have all been accused of being naturally amoral and dangerous, and we've basically decided that instead of entertaining those arguments, we'd treat everyone innocent until proven guilty, and found it works pretty well.

We have enough trouble arguing over what laws to have and how hard to punish them. These are hopefully clear rules that people have fair warning not to break. Arresting people for their personalities is a lot scarier; you can't avoid it and you can't control it. And if we start with sociopaths, what about people with anger control issues? What about people who are effectively sociopaths towards a limited part of the population, like women or Christians? Or Muslims or Scientologists? What about people with problems with authority? What about people associated with dangerous organizations, like the KKK? Or the Communists, the Anarchists, the Tea Party?

http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/deadly-speculation-misleading-texas-capit... is the summary of a report* about a Texas law, letting prosecutors in Texas ask for the death penalty based on whether the prisoner will be a danger to the community around him if given life without parole. The Texas Defender Service analyzed the evidence; James Randi can point to many psychics that give a more reliable cold reading then the experts the state used. The American Psychiatric Association says “the unreliability of psychiatric predictions of long-term future dangerousness is by now an established fact within the profession.” If we can't predict out of a small group of killers who's going to be dangerous or not, how can we look at society and tell who's going to be dangerous?

* The report has moved; try http://02f2fd4.netsolhost.com/tds/images/publications/DEADLYSP.pdf

You can make an argument that you can clearly identify sociopaths (I don't believe that) and that they pose enough danger to society that you can justify locking them up without them doing anything wrong (I don't really believe that, either) and that these are a special case and you're not going to try adding more people to this group (and for a third time, I do not believe.) But it's an uphill argument for many good reasons.

So once more this concludes that the only reason any forward-thinking person does not go out there and wipe out X is because we fear that we may be the next target, and decide the risk is not worth taking?

Is morality then what keeps us, the individual, from danger, and immorality what places us, the individual, out of danger either now or in the possible future? But even this does not fit.

110> I think it's more like we have empathy for that person and can put ourselves in their shoes that keeps us from taking them out. Empathy is an instinct that our species gained by evolving as a social species but it's also reinforced by our reasoning that we wouldn't want to live in a society where people blew each other away right and left.

Except our history is full of blowing each other away left and right. Wars seem to have existed for as long as we've been social animals, and probably will continue to for one reason or another. Plenty of other social animals show this behavior, too.

So, if Group Atheists was tired of being pushed around by Group Christians, obtaining so much abuse that their empathy is stunted, would it be wrong for Group Atheists to kill Group Christians?

#110: So once more this concludes that the only reason any forward-thinking person does not go out there and wipe out X is because we fear that we may be the next target, and decide the risk is not worth taking?

Did you read the article I pointed you to? There's no evidence that we can find people dangerous to our society reliably. Even brutal crimes don't necessarily mean anything; it mentioned a case of a rapist/cop murderer who escaped and spent the next 54 years as a fine upstanding citizen. Mere psychological evidence means little.

#111: we wouldn't want to live in a society where people blew each other away right and left.

Yeah. It's easy to say we'll just take out the bad guys, the dangerous guys, but there's always errors of commission. This has a strong likelihood of leading to a situation where many people worry about whether they could be disappeared any day, whether that fear is unfounded or not. And who will watch the watchers? q

#112: So, if Group Atheists was tired of being pushed around by Group Christians, obtaining so much abuse that their empathy is stunted, would it be wrong for Group Atheists to kill Group Christians?

The Thirty Years War sucked. So did the fight over Northern Ireland. And all the fighting achieved jack-squat in both cases. Empathy or no empathy, we can look at the history of sectarian wars and decide they're not worth fighting.

And problem 2 is that the instant Group Christians or Group Atheists gain power, the illusion of grouphood is going to disappear. If Group Atheists start a huge battle and gain power, I'm not going to trust Lunar's segment to put down their weapons before they try and gain power in the new power structure. And since I'm not putting down my weapons, Lunar's group won't put down theirs. The instant American officially becomes a "Christian nation", there will be a huge movement to exclude the Papists from that consensus. Revolutions frequently fail bloody after succeeding.

I'm not always against revolutions, but there's a lot to be said for the status quo compared to getting shot at. In the modern world, if you can manage to leave the blood on the hands of your enemies, you can win a lot of powerful support.

#114: Just to be clear, I'm an atheist, not a christian.

But yes, the elegance of backpedaling from violence is that it caters to mutual self-interest regardless of empathy. It's a matter of weighing long-term self-interest against short-term self-interest. And humans, sociopath or otherwise, have a default preference for the short-term that only maturity (within multiple areas) can overcome.

Phocion, looks like you've gone down the humanist deep end. Humanists all seem to believe that because something happens in nature, it is therefore good. I think you need to forget about that BS.

Killing is wrong.
Collectivism is wrong.
You are an individual. Just like everyone else.

Welcome back to reality.

Killing is wrong.

I imagine, except in self-defense, the protection of your children, war, etc.

You are an individual. Just like everyone else.

Yes, and I'm also the King of Spain. If I'm going to be a special snowflake, let me at least have free choice.

#116: Humanists all seem to believe that because something happens in nature, it is therefore good.

I can't think of a single humanist that believes that, or anything like that. It's a position that the humanist Voltaire blew out of the water with Candide. And the answer to no position is blind assertion.

Killing is wrong.

Meat is bad? Or are we just talking humans? So a cop can't shoot a spree killer who's reloading his M-16? What about abortion?

Killing is an enormously hard question. Almost everyone agrees on a subset of the question, that you need a pretty darn good reason to justify killing of a human being after birth, and that because they're crying, because they're rude, because they stole your wallet, etc. is not a good enough reason. But what exactly is a pretty darn good reason, and whether anything after post-birth humans is wrong to kill, is a hard question.

Collectivism is wrong.

And why you pick on one economic system here is beyond me. There are many arguments against communism as an economic system from a purely humanist viewpoint; the core one, in my opinion, is that every test, from the small to the large, has fallen apart, and over a certain size, the tests have been disastrous.

#118: Collectivism is not an economic system. FrancoisTremblay is just saying that you can't eliminate "undesireable" people just because you can contruct an argument that it benefits the "collective good." Aggression never works for the collective good.

Aggression never works for the collective good.

I would not say that. If the Native American tribes had come together to kill the Europeans when they first came to the New World, the future may not have been so bleak for them.

#119: FrancoisTremblay is just saying that you can't eliminate "undesireable" people just because you can contruct an argument that it benefits the "collective good."

Then how do you justify eliminating "undesireable" serial killers? (No, they have done nothing against any living person, and the dead don't have rights. Let's say that everyone they killed is an orphan without family and friends. How?) Again, this is proof by assertion, and you're ignoring the fine points.

#121: Yes, assertions ignore the fine points, but in the case of serial killers they're points we already know.

#112: Plenty of other social animals show this behavior, too.

Just to double back for a second when it comes to drawing naturalist-based conclusions, plenty of social animals actually do show a propensity for minimizing physical violence when a confrontation occurs, such as putting on a display as a substitute for actual combat. There's even a fascinating study of nonviolent stump-tailed monkeys teaching aggressive rhesus monkeys to use the kind of nonviolence practiced by Gandhi (which is described here in a video of Berkeley nonviolence professor Michael Nagler).

Free choice, to a certain extent, is an illusion. You can't dispel human nature by appealing to humanism or other artificial concepts.

"I can't think of a single humanist that believes that, or anything like that."

Believe me, I've met plenty. The naturalistic fallacy is still very much kicking.

"Meat is bad? Or are we just talking humans? So a cop can't shoot a spree killer who's reloading his M-16? What about abortion?"

You know very well what's right and what's wrong. Stop acting as if you didn't.

"And why you pick on one economic system here is beyond me. There are many arguments against communism as an economic system"

Whaaaat? I didn't say anything against communism. I have nothing against communism, as long as it's the anarchist kind.

I think you have some misapprehensions about the word "collectivism." It's an ethical term, not an economic term.

#122: In the case of taxes, the fact that they're okay is a point we already know. You can't espouse radical positions and then assert that other things are okay because everyone knows them to be true.

#123: "Wrong" is an artificial concept. Certainly "killing is wrong" is an artificial concept; if you look at the natural world, many creatures won't hesitate to kill members of their own species.* I don't know how you dismiss humanism as an artificial concept without universally dismissing all philosophy and all morality.

* Not that I'm dismissing the statement in #122 about monkeys; reality is complex.

#124: Believe me, I've met plenty. The naturalistic fallacy is still very much kicking.

The mathematical fallacy seems to be in play here, too; "I've met plenty" does not mean that "Humanists all seem to believe".

You know very well what's right and what's wrong. Stop acting as if you didn't.

Morality is not universal. I fail to appreciate how you can argue about ethics and then claim that everyone knows right and wrong. In particular on killing, 18% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, 16% of Americans think it should always be illegal, and the rest are split evenly between "sometimes" and "usually". Who's ignoring their knowledge of right and wrong there, and how come it's so hard to prove to them what they already really know?

I think you have some misapprehensions about the word "collectivism."

I looked in my dictionary, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collectivism , and it calls collectivism an economic system. The first page of Google Books hits shows "THE difficulty of making a critical examination of the doctrines of "Collectivism" or "Socialism" is greatly increased by the fact that they have never been formulated with precision by any well-known socialist writer" and "Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals." (Emphasis mine.) Frankly, you honestly thought "collective" + "ism" had not been reinvented time and time again for similar but distinct things?

Collectivism is nontrivial. For all my love of individuality, I can't look around my society and think the failure to form tight-knit social groups whose members consider themselves beholden to each other is a good thing. People are trying to individually optimize personal happiness and failing because they don't accept that Homo sapiens evolved to work in tribes.

#125: "Wrong" is an artificial concept.

Sometimes.

Other times it's just a shorthand for every argument on why something is not to be tolerated. For example, if I were to compare taxation to theft, you would rapidly feel the need to object because you want to make a special exemption for taxation from a category of behavior which you assert is "wrong."

#127: if I were to compare taxation to theft, you would rapidly feel the need to object because you want to make a special exemption for taxation from a category of behavior which you assert is "wrong."

And if I were to compare slaughtering cattle to murder, you would rapidly feel the need to object, because of your special exemptions. Morality is all about where you generalize and where you don't.

#128: Morality is all about where you generalize and where you don't.

It's a little more than that. It's also about having a goal that you're generalizing towards. I think it's great for PETA to set up a kind of X-prize for the development of lab grown meat and I hope it is successful. I'll also happily accept you for your word when you voice your support for eliminating taxation.

"For example, if I were to compare taxation to theft, you would rapidly feel the need to object because you want to make a special exemption for taxation from a category of behavior which you assert is "wrong.""

As an Anarchist, I have no problem with comparing taxation to theft, although I would compare it more to extortion than theft.

"Morality is not universal. I fail to appreciate how you can argue about ethics and then claim that everyone knows right and wrong. In particular on killing, 18% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, 16% of Americans think it should always be illegal, and the rest are split evenly between "sometimes" and "usually"."

I never said "people's expressed beliefs about right and wrong are all the same." I said that we all know what is right and what is wrong. But religion, in the case of abortion, is a strong suppressor of morality. Once again, this has to do with COLLECTIVISM- a belief system overwriting what a person already knows and indoctrinating them to believe otherwise. The best proof that abortion is right is that when a person abandons religion, they also abandon their false belief that abortion is wrong.

"Who's ignoring their knowledge of right and wrong there, and how come it's so hard to prove to them what they already really know?"

Not hard at all. If they look into themselves, they know the answer.

"the priority of group goals over individual goals."

Precisely. That is collectivism. Collectivism is the overwriting of individual values for group values- generally, favouring the leaders of the group or the survival of the group. Look at religion and reproduction, homosexuality, abortion, etc.

"Collectivism is nontrivial. For all my love of individuality, I can't look around my society and think the failure to form tight-knit social groups whose members consider themselves beholden to each other is a good thing."

I'm sorry, but if you don't realize that our problems come EXACTLY from tight-knit social groups that are based on a strong sense of belonging trumping individual values (like love), exclusion and supremacy, then you are completely missing the point. You are deluded. The way out of this disaster is not to keep indoctrinating people with the desire to be puppets for more group values. The way out is by being ourselves again. Atheism is just the first step.

Not hard at all. If they look into themselves, they know the answer.

That's adorable. It's almost as cute as "God is love."

"That's adorable. It's almost as cute as "God is love.""

The main difference being that God is a fairy tale, while human nature is not (although many people still play make-believe about it too).

I know you think you're being insulting by saying it's "adorable" because like everyone else you've bought into the dissociation of personal love and conceptual love, but thank you for the compliment anyway.

I should not have been as patronizing; I've been anxious for the past week, and too many have been caught in the crossfire of my derangement.

But, I have a difficult time believing we "know the answer" by looking into ourselves. I can believe we evolved empathy; I don't believe we evolved a completed sense of right and wrong. Whether we consider an action good or evil depends entirely on our interactions with the group.

I have a difficult time believing we "know the answer" by looking into ourselves.

Why so?

If we had inherent morality, I suspect we'd have less problems in the world.

"I can believe we evolved empathy; I don't believe we evolved a completed sense of right and wrong."

Not sure what you mean by "completed." If you mean an explicit set of rules, then your point is trivially correct, since evolution does not provide us with the language itself (although the basic structure of language is evolved, if Chomsky is correct) , let alone sentences. So no, I don't believe we are born with a set of grammatically-correct commandments written in neurons.

But I have never claimed it either, so... if that's not what you meant, please be more specific.

"If we had inherent morality, I suspect we'd have less problems in the world."

And yet here we are. We have inherent morality, but thanks to the collectivist institutions that indoctrinate us from the day we're born, we're in a heap of trouble, as we've been for most of history, although as individuals we're still better off than at most points in history.

#136: There are a lot fewer problems actually in the world once you take things like sex, drugs, and rock and roll off the list. Much of politics in general is the art of manufacturing problems. Humanity will outlast its critics.

138: And yet here we are. We have inherent morality, but thanks to the collectivist institutions that indoctrinate us from the day we're born, we're in a heap of trouble, as we've been for most of history, although as individuals we're still better off than at most points in history.

So how do you separate our inherent morality from the morality imposed on us by the social groups? Have you unlocked the grand absolute morality?

#140: Is there something you missed or found unsatisfactory the first time we went through about how such morality arises? 'Cause it sounds like you're asking the same questions again.

I'm trying to understand Francois's argument; if we were born with inherent morality to the level they are suggesting, then there should be no conflict in the first place.

#135: Because both now, and historically, good honest people have disagreed on what is moral. Because there's an absolute lack of evidence that of all the introspective people in ancient Greece and ancient Egypt and ancient Israel and ancient China, that any of them comes forth with the standard of morality that an introspective person would come up with today. There is no evidence any Ancient Greek ever sat down and said "I've looked into myself, and found that slavery and sexism is wrong". If morality is within ourselves, why are we so much more moral than the ancients? If we aren't so much more moral, why are good honest introspective people not recommending that we go back to beating our wives when they don't obey?

And because I've looked into myself, and I frequently trust my rational sense more than my irrational sense. My insides say that the only thing wrong with the murder and kidnapping of Hanns-Martin Schleyer was the killing of bystanders. My rational sense says that just because a man used to be a Nazi, and continues to be a powerful fascist, does not give you the right in a free democratic society to kidnap and murder him.

#138: thanks to the collectivist institutions that indoctrinate us from the day we're born, we're in a heap of trouble, as we've been for most of history,

A single parent seems to be pretty good at indoctrinating us from the day we're born, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. And those raised without human parents seem to have pretty appalling skills for a human.

Not only that, humans are happier creatures when they engage in face to face interaction with other humans, when they have a social support group of like-minded people. Those are well-studied properties of humans. Humans that behave in anticollectivist ways don't live as long and are less happy.

If morality is within ourselves, why are we so much more moral than the ancients?

There's nothing to suggest we're more moral than the Ancients; the groups past and present have different priorities. It's Moral Dissonance at work.

"So how do you separate our inherent morality from the morality imposed on us by the social groups?"

I gave you some examples already as related to Christianity. Do you quarrel with them? The passage from Christian to atheist is actually a very good case study, although not complete, as atheists can still remain indoctrinated about any number of other things.

"Have you unlocked the grand absolute morality?"

No, science has; Piotr Kropotkin was the first in his book "Mutual Aid," but his discoveries have been "rediscovered" by scientists pretty much every year.

I did not "unlock" anything, I am just reporting the facts. I am sorry you do not like this.

"A single parent seems to be pretty good at indoctrinating us from the day we're born, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. And those raised without human parents seem to have pretty appalling skills for a human."

Yes? Was there a point to this paragraph? I am not against raising children, and our views on parenting are not relevant to this topic anyhow.

"Not only that, humans are happier creatures when they engage in face to face interaction with other humans, when they have a social support group of like-minded people. Those are well-studied properties of humans."

... again, yes?

"Humans that behave in anticollectivist ways don't live as long and are less happy."

And your scientific evidence for this is?

Since collectivists sacrifice their own values- including their own survival- for the group, I'd say that you are probably wrong. Suicide bombers are collectivists. Soldiers are collectivists. Those kinds of people don't tend to have a long lifespan.

Since our lifespan is primarily determined by where we live (first world/third world), I'd say there's probably no general relation between the two. But collectivists are the ones who keep the third world poor (hooray racist neo-liberalist policies!), so the issue is definitely determinant.

#144: Even if we have different priorities, our moral sets are still different from theirs. Our good honest people disagree with their good honest people about what's right and wrong.

That aside, what do you mean by different priorities? As I see it, we (meaning the First World) are more interested in giving equal rights to all groups of people then every before. Our sins are the sins of our fathers; our colonialism is a shadow of what the British, Romans, or King Leopold did. Cartago delenda est... and he would have used nukes if he had them at hand. Where do you see us going wrong that our forefathers went right?

#146 "...our views on parenting are not relevant to this topic anyhow. seems to rather miss the point of #143.

No, rather the point is that your "rugged individualist" is entirely dependent upon a human community for its survival out of infancy; and so "collectivist institutions that indoctrinate us from the day we're born" are entirely necessary for human survival.

#146: Was there a point to this paragraph?

That you will never escape "indoctrination" of children. That what you describe as indoctrination is no different then raising a child, and will always go on in childhood; your U-topia will have to indoctrinate the children like all other cultures have.

Since collectivists sacrifice their own values- including their own survival- for the group

The sensei called his five students to him. To each of them did he give a stick of bamboo, and asked them to break it. Despite the bamboo being stout and strong, this request was quickly done. He then handed five sticks of bamboo to the first student, and told him to break them as a group; the student failed, as did the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth. So the sensei told his students not to go forth as the one stick, to be easily broken, but to go forth as the five together, and be unbreakable.

Yes? Was there a point to this paragraph? I am not against raising children, and our views on parenting are not relevant to this topic anyhow.


I think that the idea that a family is a collective is extremely relevant.

I did not "unlock" anything, I am just reporting the facts. I am sorry you do not like this.

I have said nothing about liking or disliking anything you've said. You're looking into something in my words I have not intended.

You're suggesting we, the individuals, are born with an inherent sense of right and wrong. I've asked you for solid evidence, and you've supplied none outside of your problem with how the individuals are shaped (or misshaped) by the group. I see no reason to think I am born knowing right and wrong.

If you're correct, and we know right and wrong from birth, then why not try kids as adults in court?

That aside, what do you mean by different priorities?

The Ancients were just as moral/immoral as we are, in my thinking. For the Spartans, it was a good thing to kill off the defective children who would be a hindrance to the group, as they were a warlike nation; most people nowadays, save the American "pre-existing condition" health care system, would consider wiping out unhealthy children immoral.

Neither of these belief systems are right; they're not wrong, either. Because there is no inherent right and wrong, each group arbitrarily picks which behaviors are moral and immoral.

"No, rather the point is that your "rugged individualist""

Who are you talking to? I'm no "rugged individualist," if by that you mean the right-wing capitalist type. I'm a socialist through and through, and a pretty fanatical believer in equality. I'm just not a collectivist. The belief that equality can be achieved by some people controlling others is self-contradictory and absurd, and the failure of Marxism to bring about equality within a command economy is proof of that.

"so "collectivist institutions that indoctrinate us from the day we're born" are entirely necessary for human survival."

No they are not. SOME institutions are necessary for human survival, of course; but not collectivist institutions. It is entirely possible to live your life without imposing your values on someone else. There is nothing in the structure of modern industrial human life- or any other form of human life- that dictates hierarchical dominance.

"I have said nothing about liking or disliking anything you've said. You're looking into something in my words I have not intended."

Sorry if I misinterpreted, but you don't seem to like it. Maybe that is just what I expect.

"You're suggesting we, the individuals, are born with an inherent sense of right and wrong. I've asked you for solid evidence"

Science has been providing the evidence for more than a century. It's called the evolution of species. Cooperation is a powerful motivator of that evolution, and sociability and benevolence are part and parcel of human instinct. All the studies done, be it on little children (even babies as old as 18 months), on related species, on more "primitive" societies, on adult societies which were freer from collectivist institutions, on the subject are all evidence to that conclusion. Together they form incontrovertible proof. I would invite you to read, for instance, Why We Cooperate, by Michael Tomasello, which is a review of many lines of evidence on the subject. There are other books out there dedicated to the topic (including, of course, the founding text Mutual Aid by Kropotkin).

It is also true for yourself, if you are ready to introspect. When I look at all the hateful or controlling beliefs that I have, I observe that they were indoctrinated into me. But my feelings of kindness or desires to cooperate are not the result of indoctrination. We are not indoctrinated to help each other; we are indoctrinated to resent, compete and hate each other, and overall to believe that man is born evil. Because it is much easier to control people if those people believe that everyone else is evil (at least, I have never met anyone committed to freedom and equality who also believed that man is inherently evil, so I doubt that it's possible).

"If you're correct, and we know right and wrong from birth, then why not try kids as adults in court?"

Actually, kids ARE tried as adults in many cases, in our court system. Either way, I am against the court system as it exists, so I see no point in giving answer. I don't believe ANYONE should be tried in our evil "justice" system. For my FAQ on the subject, see: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/faqs/faq-against-the-court-system/

If the underlying point behind your question is "are kids as responsible for their actions as adults," then I'd have to answer yes and no; while I believe in individual responsibility, it is also true that their parents are a much greater influence on their actions than their own thoughts or reasoning. But by that logic, the parents should also be put on trial, so you might not like that either.

#148: "No, rather the point is that your "rugged individualist" is entirely dependent upon a human community for its survival out of infancy"

But that's not collectivism. Collectivism is when the interests of the individual are subsumed to that of the "group" (or, more often, the authority that claims to act on behalf of the group). That's different from individuals forming mutually beneficial arrangements. One case has individuals sacrificing their self-interest. The other case has individuals achieving their self-interest via freedom of association.

#151: You're suggesting we, the individuals, are born with an inherent sense of right and wrong.

What logically follows from the kind of mutual self-interest I described above is the tendency to follow the golden rule. I wouldn't say that it's "inherent" in the sense of it being in a fixed state, only that humans have an inherent preference towards such an axiom barring intervening factors that undermine long-term self-interest (such as the short-term benefits of violence and exclusion).

It's called the evolution of species.

So when the other social species of the wild commit acts the general person considers immoral (say, dolphins killing porpoises for fun), it's their collectivism that led them away from the true, inherent goodness?

We are not indoctrinated to help each other; we are indoctrinated to resent, compete and hate each other, and overall to believe that man is born evil. Because it is much easier to control people if those people believe that everyone else is evil (at least, I have never met anyone committed to freedom and equality who also believed that man is inherently evil, so I doubt that it's possible).

Suddenly I've been overpowered by a feeling of deja Rousseau.

I don't think we're born evil, nor do I think we're born good. "Good" and "evil" come from the group; you cannot escape that.

"So when the other social species of the wild commit acts the general person considers immoral (say, dolphins killing porpoises for fun), it's their collectivism that led them away from the true, inherent goodness?"

First, when I talk about ethics, I am talking strictly about relations within species. I am not talking about relations between individuals of one species towards individuals of another. So your example is not relevant to what I am saying.

Second, I never claimed that no organism on this planet ever commits any evil. I'm afraid that's your idea, not mine. I never even claimed that other species had inherent goodness, and we shouldn't expect that to be the case because of the lower complexity of their brains: nevertheless, on the whole, we observe more cooperation than competition in the animal kingdom.

"Suddenly I've been overpowered by a feeling of deja Rousseau."

Not quite; Rousseau had an unrealistic view of "primitive" societies, but he had the right answer. He was right in believing that the concept of property was the "original sin," so to speak. Proudhon came to the same conclusion as well in his book What is Property?.

"I don't think we're born evil, nor do I think we're born good. "Good" and "evil" come from the group; you cannot escape that."

Sorry, but you're going against a century's worth of science. We are born sociable and cooperative, and we work best when we are in a sociable and cooperative system. These are biological, sociological, and introspective facts which are pointless to deny.

Besides, if ethical evaluations "come from the group," as you say you believe, how did the first group form? On what basis did people form this group, if not on an ethical basis? Your position is self-contradictory and silly.

Morality comes from human nature. Any attempt to argue for some exterior determinism must necessarily omit the fatal fact that the individual still had to agree with, or adopt, that exterior determinism through some inner standard. For instance, when Christians say the Bible is the standard of morality, this is easily disproven by showing them that the individual must accept the truth of the Bible first, and that acceptance must have been made on the basis of some internal, non-Biblical standard, disproving the assertion. The same is true for any other such exterior standard, including "the group." Your "group" morality is not relevant, since I still have to accept it on the basis of some non-group standard.

#153: It is entirely possible to live your life without imposing your values on someone else.

But the reverse is not possible; someone will come along to impose their values on you. Historically, the more insular and non-evangelical a group is, the more likely it is just to disappear. The exceptions have had forcefully imposed their values on their children.

The memes that win are the ones that have a way of propagating themselves. Many of the very successful memes explain that force is completely justified to propagate themselves, and because they are successful, they will arise in any society.

There is nothing in the structure of modern industrial human life- or any other form of human life- that dictates hierarchical dominance.

Er? Modern industrial human life is built around hierarchical systems; the worker, the manager, the VP and the CEO. Maybe one could design a system that work and didn't have that, but it wouldn't be our system.

#155: Science has been providing the evidence for more than a century.

Yes, evidence that hatred of the foreigner and alien is in our genes. There's a lot of real positive stuff, but by no means are they telling us that our instincts are pure good. Yes, we cooperate, we even trade with the people over the hill. But it's in our genes that that's fragile, that if and when things get hard, it's okay to kill them and take their stuff, because if we won't do it to them, they will to us.

It is also true for yourself, if you are ready to introspect.

I get the feeling a thousand people telling you otherwise wouldn't change your mind. Again, if you meet me in a dark alley, you want it to be rational humanist me, not the subrational internal me.

#158: Fine, then switch it out for lions killing lion cubs so they can have sex with the mothers.

"But the reverse is not possible; someone will come along to impose their values on you."
"The memes that win are the ones that have a way of propagating themselves. Many of the very successful memes explain that force is completely justified to propagate themselves, and because they are successful, they will arise in any society."

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Whether you are correct or not on these points does not disprove what I am saying.

"Er? Modern industrial human life is built around hierarchical systems"

You did not read what I said. I said nothing "dictates" it. I did not say that wasn't the case in our societies. I said nothing in the nature of such a society dictates that it should be this way.

Don't confuse the normative and the prescriptive, please.

"I get the feeling a thousand people telling you otherwise wouldn't change your mind."

To change my mind, I require evidence, not a chorus. I will not yield to your imaginary "thousand people," but I will yield to you if you have good arguments. Do you?

"Again, if you meet me in a dark alley, you want it to be rational humanist me, not the subrational internal me."

What difference does it make? And rather bizarre of you to associate introspection with "subrationality." Are you one of those people who have a rationality fetish and tar everything that is not logical linear reasoning with "subrational" or "irrational"?

158: I never said we were not social animals; I've agreed that we evolved behaviors that allowed us to live together most productively (we would not be here if we did not). I've simply asked you to explain how this is inherently "good."

On what basis did people form this group, if not on an ethical basis?

I don't know, survival?

If I'm born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, and as a child tormented my cat, seeing no problem with that, must that not indicate I'm not wrong in hurting the cat? My parents certainly did not agree with my behavior, but I know how you feel about parenting.

If I'm born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, and I think the earth is too overpopulated, surely it's natural, and ergo moral, for me to wipe out as many competitors for resources as I can, n'est pas?

"I never said we were not social animals; I've agreed that we evolved behaviors that allowed us to live together most productively (we would not be here if we did not). I've simply asked you to explain how this is inherently "good.""

Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that cooperation is better for the individual and for a society than a war of all against all? Or are you asking me something else? Because the question seems incredibly absurd to me.

"I don't know, survival?"

Precisely- an ethical basis. That was my point.

"If I'm born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, and as a child tormented my cat, seeing no problem with that, must that not indicate I'm not wrong in hurting the cat?"

Again, I am not addressing the issue of inter-species relations. I don't consider this to be within the purview of ethics. Furthermore, the alternate and more likely explanation is that you are a sociopath (I believe the topic of sociopathy was already addressed, so I won't pursue this further).

"My parents certainly did not agree with my behavior, but I know how you feel about parenting."

You must have seen that post before I deleted it, then. Just to be clear, I am not going to address the issue of parenting. I don't really think it's relevant to the topic anyhow.

"If I'm born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, and I think the earth is too overpopulated, surely it's natural, and ergo moral, for me to wipe out as many competitors for resources as I can, n'est pas?"

Well, is it? Are you a murderer?

If you are, how many people have you killed in your "competition for resources" so far?
If you are not, then why do you assume it is "natural" and "moral" for you to do so, since you're not, you know, actually doing it?

Do you seriously believe it is moral for you to murder people, or are you just fucking with me? My guess is, you're just wasting my damn time. Is that correct? If so, please stop this nonsense. What is this, the Randian Variety Hour?

If you were really just trying to make a hypothetical as a challenge to my views, it's a pretty piss-poor one. No one naturally believes that they should kill people in the name of overpopulation. People who hold to these kinds of genocidal beliefs are usually academic Greenies and hold those beliefs on the basis of their ideology (i.e. that nature is superior to man and that therefore man must be wiped out). That pseudo-scientific nonsense has nothing whatsoever to do with ethics.

Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that cooperation is better for the individual and for a society than a war of all against all? Or are you asking me something else? Because the question seems incredibly absurd to me.


I'm not asking you to prove it's better. I'm asking you to prove that it's inherently good, moral. We're discussing Ethics.

Furthermore, the alternate and more likely explanation is that you are a sociopath

I somehow doubt that's the explanation.

If you are not, then why do you assume it is "natural" for you to do so, since you're not actually doing it?

Collectivism is stopping me?

"I'm not asking you to prove it's better. I'm asking you to prove that it's inherently good, moral. We're discussing Ethics."

Yes, that's what I said. Better "for the individual or for society," in the sense of "more good than."

And no, I am not going to demonstrate to you why cooperation is more moral than a dog eat dog society. If you don't understand already why having people kill each other is bad for those people and for society, you're beyond help.

"I somehow doubt that's the explanation."

Why? Because you don't want it to be the explanation?

"Collectivism is stopping me?"

All right, wise guy, which belief system or authoritarian structure is stopping you from going on a murderous rampage?

Funny, that's what the Christians say too- but when they deconvert they don't become raging murderers. They're full of it, and so are you. You are bullshitting me and wasting my time. This is my last post to you unless you stop this nonsense.

Yes, that's what I said. Better "for the individual or for society," in the sense of "more good than."

You're conflicting "evolutionarily advantageous" with Ethics. In our current surroundings, not going on murderous rampages is good for the society -- though this is not always the case -- but that does not make murder inherently wrong, which is what you're suggesting without backing the assertion with evidence.

Why? Because you don't want it to be the explanation?

No, because I don't meet the qualifications.

All right, wise guy, which belief system or authoritarian structure is stopping you from going on a murderous rampage?

Because my parents and society taught me murder was wrong (except in self-defense, war, etc.), and despite my existential problems I'd rather err on the side of caution -- but that hesitation does not mean I'm right. And you've just said that parents and the society -- collectivism -- is responsible for everything wrong in my conditions. How do I know this is not one of them?

All right, you're a joker, and I'm done wasting my time.

Actually, everything in the previous post was said in complete seriousness.

#160: Whether you are correct or not on these points does not disprove what I am saying.

They do disprove the existence of your society.

I said nothing in the nature of such a society dictates that it should be this way.

One of the defining structures of a modern industrial society is corporate hierarchy. If you don't have that, you don't have a modern industrial society. You may have a 24th century industrial society, but it won't look anything like a modern industrial society.

To change my mind, I require evidence, not a chorus. I will not yield to your imaginary "thousand people," but I will yield to you if you have good arguments.

You're making claims about universal properties of humanity that can't be observed from the outside. The only way to prove that is to talk to a lot of people and find out what they say about their introspective self. Arguing from pure logic here is wrong, and doesn't work; that's not how we find out about the world.

What difference does it make?

Guess.

tar everything that is not logical linear reasoning with "subrational" or "irrational"?

Just like I tar things that aren't living with "dead". I'm failing to see the point in discussing this with you, if you'll take offense at using words like "irrational" and "subrational" to describe things that aren't "rational".

Are you one of those people who have a rationality fetish

That makes no sense. If you don't have a "rationality fetish", why would you care that I was describing something as not being rational?

In any case, this link sums up why evolution doesn't equal good.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1955

"They do disprove the existence of your society."

What are you talking about? I live in North America. "My society" is this society in North America. Of course it exists. Stop saying nonsense.

"One of the defining structures of a modern industrial society is corporate hierarchy. If you don't have that, you don't have a modern industrial society. You may have a 24th century industrial society, but it won't look anything like a modern industrial society."

You're nitpicking. A society being industrial or modern does not hinge upon it being hierarchical. Either way, my point is still that hierarchies are not necessary for the operation of society.

"You're making claims about universal properties of humanity that can't be observed from the outside."

False. I am talking about claims that are proven by scientific experiments and study. Introspection merely confirms it for myself. On that basis, I assume that anyone else who does the same exercise will come to the same conclusion.

"Arguing from pure logic here is wrong, and doesn't work; that's not how we find out about the world."

Agreed; since that's not what I am doing, who are you talking to?

"Just like I tar things that aren't living with "dead". I'm failing to see the point in discussing this with you, if you'll take offense at using words like "irrational" and "subrational" to describe things that aren't "rational"."

I am not taking offense. I am merely noting that you have strong misleading epistemic biases.

"That makes no sense. If you don't have a "rationality fetish", why would you care that I was describing something as not being rational?"

Because I assume that you associate anything "pre-rational" or "non-rational" as being useless, like all such fetishists. I only care insofar as it shows your approach to the issue. Linear logic "tells us" that "man has evil impulses," and therefore must be "controlled." Anyone who fetishizes linear logic will therefore reject the position that man is innately good as being naive and out of touch with reality.

"In any case, this link sums up why evolution doesn't equal good.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1955"

Although I do love SMBC, I never said "evolution equals good." Again, who are you talking to?

That being said, "lying" and "cheating" are the two examples given. Don't you find it interesting that we consider lying and cheating to be undesirable? Why would that be, if you think my argument is incorrect?

#158: We are born sociable and cooperative, and we work best when we are in a sociable and cooperative system.

Well, two out of three. We're born sociable, but not cooperative. Any toddler who resorts to absconding with what they want can show you that. While cooperation is indeed the optimum, the immediate gratification of coercion is a biological disposition which is tempered by the individual long-term benefits of cooperation.

"Any toddler who resorts to absconding with what they want can show you that."

Funny you mention toddlers, since Why We Cooperate spends a good portion of its length analyzing studies done on toddlers (as young as 18 months old) to show that they are natural cooperators as well. Like I said, the science is against you.

#171: I haven't gleaned anything from reviews on that book that points to innate cooperation. The first (and rather extensive) review on Amazon offers some criticism on the stag hunt model to the extent that it's actually a meeting of the minds, not some fluffy cognitivist sharing of the minds in which there is a supposedly innate concept of collective motivation. And some mention of a two-year-old picking up your dropped stuff for you reeks of a past history of reinforcement. Often enough, if someone is telling you that someone is doing something regardless of rewards, it's because they don't know crap about rewards.

Oh, are you one of those psychological egoists who don't believe altruism exists and who believes adamantly that people do things for their own self-interest without ever quantifying their little "just so" stories? I love those guys.

Any parent knows that kids don't naturally share. You're right that cooperation is in our nature but so is selfishness. I do believe that you are partially right that ethics come from our genes but ethics also come from our reflection on which of our impulses best lead to a society in which we want to live.

#173: Of course altruism exists. But it keys most strongly on close kin and close friends. You want to blame the fact that the Navajo and the Hopi hate each other, the British felt no qualms about conquering the Zulu, and Carthage was annihilated by the Romans, all on collectivism, as if that were a universal and somehow separable feature of mankind. I find that our native altruism is extended through rational and emotional understanding to apply to all humanity, and this is rather a modern concept, at least for the average man.

"I find that our native altruism is extended through rational and emotional understanding to apply to all humanity, and this is rather a modern concept, at least for the average man."

I agree with that statement, actually. Although this has no relation whatsoever to military empires like the Romans and the British, which are empires built on monarchy and mercantilism.

173: Of course everyone acts for their own self-interest. Why do you believe we're social animals? It was easier for the individual to survive in a group. Name me one act that was carried out in unselfish humility, I'll say someone is selling you something.

#177: Parents bear and raise children.

178: To carry on their genetic material. Selfish action. Or in the case of parents who adopt, to carry on their name. Still a selfish action.

#179: It benefits me none to have my genes carried on. That's not selfish on my part at all; one may anthropomorphize my genes and call them selfish, but I am not my genes. Often in the case of parents who adopt, I would argue you're even more off base; they're doing it because their genes demand they have children, and adopting fulfills that requirement despite not carrying on their genetic material.

Yes, you can interpret any behavior as selfish. It doesn't strike me as a terribly falsifiable statement.

"Of course everyone acts for their own self-interest."

... No. Like I said, psychological egoism relies on "just so" stories that are only accepted because they are never quantified. In practice, there are plenty of things that we do that do not stand up to these "just so" stories.

Psychological egoism is a humbug. It is an academic construct that has no relation to reality. It is, in short, nonsense.

Also supporting #180 on this one. Reproduction is not "selfish" in any individual sense, and in most cases involves a great loss of resources, time, and well-being.

Psychological egoism is a humbug. It is an academic construct that has no relation to reality. It is, in short, nonsense.

I think you protest too much. Give me your list of approved psychologists, and the actions where the human individual is not acting selfish.

Reproduction is not "selfish" in any individual sense, and in most cases involves a great loss of resources, time, and well-being.

Are you serious? Reproduction is our function, the ultimate selfish act outside of trying to obtain self-immortality. All of the resources are spent ensuring the genetic material survives long enough to reproduce, while hopefully bringing the parents pride (through accomplishing more than they have), love (which is an itch that needs be scratched for most people), and later care (relying on that child to take care of them in their aged years).

Not to mention the fact that, if you want to put aside function, parents rarely think of the Ethics. Should they bring a child into the world? Why? We have enough to go around, surely? And with around seven billion people, it's not as though our species needs everyone to have those 2.5 children. Did that child ever consent to being part of life?

#182: Reproduction is our function, the ultimate selfish act outside of trying to obtain self-immortality.

"Our function" implies that we were created with a goal. Evolution may mean that the creatures that exist tend to reproduce, but that doesn't make it our function. Rationally speaking, virtually everyone in the first world would be better off putting the tens of thousands of dollars spent on raising a child in a retirement fund and retiring early. Studies show that people with children are objectively less happy then people without.

if you want to put aside function, parents rarely think of the Ethics.

"The Ethics"? It seems inconsistent for a nihilist to speak of "the Ethics". In any case, you're introducing a false dichotomy; just because someone doesn't consider the moral consequences of their actions, doesn't mean their actions are selfish. I would submit that parenthood is frequently ill-planned and completely against the goals of the parents-to-be, and that we are being manipulated by our genes to do things that are fundamentally not self-orientated.

"Our function" implies that we were created with a goal.

Not in the least. I specifically chose to not use the word "goal" in order to subdue "creationist" tones.

It seems inconsistent for a nihilist to speak of "the Ethics".

Did I not say I was trying to avoid nihilism?

In any case, you're introducing a false dichotomy; just because someone doesn't consider the moral consequences of their actions, doesn't mean their actions are selfish.

I'm presenting that it's impossible to act without selfish motives. Parents reproduce, at the very base, to continue their genetic code.

#184: Not in the least.

The appropriate definitions of "function" from WordNet are "what something is used for" or "the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group". Without a designer, we don't have a function. We have behavioral tendencies, but we don't have to do them, and following them is neither inherently selfish or unselfish.

Did I not say I was trying to avoid nihilism?

Still, "the Ethics" is a very unusual usage; "ethics" or "the ethics of foo" are much more common formulations, and capitalizing ethics as if it were a proper noun is also unusual. It implies that there is one true ethical system, with concrete form of some time.

I'm presenting that it's impossible to act without selfish motives. Parents reproduce, at the very base, to continue their genetic code.

And once again, that's not selfish. A person gains nothing by continuing their genetic code. It may be "selfish" on the practice of the genes, but they aren't the person.

#184: "I'm presenting that it's impossible to act without selfish motives. Parents reproduce, at the very base, to continue their genetic code."

Yes, but I don't think that gene propagation figures into what people typically define as "selfish." Selfishness is about motivation and only brains have motives.

#183: "I would submit that parenthood is frequently ill-planned and completely against the goals of the parents-to-be, and that we are being manipulated by our genes to do things that are fundamentally not self-orientated."

I don't think outcomes figure into selfishness either. People can make selfish choices that turn out to have been the wrong ones in the long-term. But this is perhaps semantics. We tend to attribute selfishness to short-term self-interest more often than to long-term self-interest.

"I think you protest too much."

One can never protest too much about a humbug that fucks up people's sense of ethics (see: God). It is ideologies like yours that lead good people to do bad things.

"Give me your list of approved psychologists,"

Alice Miller, for one, who wrote many excellent books about parenting. But she said nothing about egoism that I know; besides, I think she died recently. What does that have to do with the issue anyhow?

"and the actions where the human individual is not acting selfish."

What do you mean? We commit altruistic actions every day. It's not like there is a pre-approved list that we act from. Are you really this out of touch with reality?

"Are you serious? Reproduction is our function"

Speak for yourself, buddy, that's a personal topic. I am not interested in your opinions about what my function is, so cut that out.

"the ultimate selfish act outside of trying to obtain self-immortality."

There is not much that is selfish about reproduction, unless you actually believe the fallacies of "trying to make another me," using another human being as a means to an end, and things like that... but then you're just irrational.

"All of the resources are spent ensuring the genetic material survives long enough to reproduce, while hopefully bringing the parents pride (through accomplishing more than they have), love (which is an itch that needs be scratched for most people), and later care (relying on that child to take care of them in their aged years)."

Once again, another "just so" story. What did I tell you about that? You didn't quantify it. If you did, you'd find that your explanation is another humbug. There is no way that these feelings you list are worth the amount of money, time and resources lost by the parents.

Also, what did I say about using human beings as means to an end? that's plain evil, no matter how you cut it. Are we to believe that you support this evil as well?

"Not to mention the fact that, if you want to put aside function, parents rarely think of the Ethics. Should they bring a child into the world? Why? We have enough to go around, surely? And with around seven billion people, it's not as though our species needs everyone to have those 2.5 children. Did that child ever consent to being part of life?"

Nope, he didn't. And that's a powerful argument against natalism. There are many others. But I am not here to debate the natalist issue. My issue is solely that your "just-so" explanation is, to be nice about it, completely unquantified nonsense. Parenting is just ONE example of the failure of your ideology to reduce all human action to a one dimensional construct (no such ideology ever comes out to be true, because human motivations and actions are more complicated than simple-minded one-dimensional constructs).

And, to come back to the topic of this thread, that is the first step to "avoiding nihilism." People often seem to be led to nihilism by looking at just one aspect of human behaviour, or one explanatory construct, don't understand it, give up, and declare that nihilism is the only solution. For example, you hear people say "people disagree about ethical principles, so there must not be any truth to any of them!", a reasoning which not only makes absolutely no sense (people disagree about established scientific facts all the time, that doesn't mean there is no such thing as a scientific fact), but also does not take into account the vast areas where people agree. Someone brought up the five sages touching an elephant fable, and that's a good analogy for what people do when they talk about ethics.

#187: "Once again, another "just so" story. What did I tell you about that? You didn't quantify it. If you did, you'd find that your explanation is another humbug. There is no way that these feelings you list are worth the amount of money, time and resources lost by the parents."

See, the thing about saying that the attribution of selfishness is a "just so story" is that the same goes for the attribution of selflessness. At the end of the day, you're not the one making the decisions that other parents make about what's worthwhile. Value is subjective and is relative to the individual weighing the decision.

"See, the thing about saying that the attribution of selfishness is a "just so story" is that the same goes for the attribution of selflessness."

No... my evaluation of his stories as "just so" is based on the fact that it's not quantified. That if you ask a person who makes a given action whether these benefits that the psychegoist (psychological egoist) makes up compensate for what he lost on the action, you will find that the story doesn't hold water.

Note that I am debunking the psychegoist from his own perspective, showing how it contradicts itself- I am not saying that cost/benefit analysis is the way to make moral evaluations. I am not a psychegoist or a psychaltruist, or even a utilitarian- in fact, I never use the words "egoism" and "altruism" apart from when I have to argue with psychegoists. I think they are pretty useless words and standards from which to evaluate actions, and utilitarianism is just logical nonsense.

"At the end of the day, you're not the one making the decisions that other parents make about what's worthwhile."

Well, that's a trivial statement. No one can take decisions for anyone else. So what?

"Value is subjective and is relative to the individual weighing the decision."

I'm not sure if your use of words here is very precise- the value of what, or do you mean value in itself? Relative in what sense?

"Subjective" is another word I don't use because it is used in very confusing manner by various people. Let's use "personal." "Values are personal" is a trivial statement- of course all values that exist are values of a specific person. But if you mean that values cannot be evaluated beyond personal preference, then I disagree, and I don't think you hold to that either. But we can get to that when you say what exactly you did mean or did not mean by that sentence.

"Values are relative to the individual weighing the decision." Again, do you mean "the values involved in a decisions are weighed by the individual weighing -a- decision" or "the individual weighing -a- decision decides what values are involved," "values are personal for all, including -an- individual who weighs a decision," which is again trivial, or something else?

I get the feeling that you're trying to argue from a relativist position. Look, I completely understand that, I call myself a relativist also. However, I am not a _complete_ relativist, insofar as I recognize that we are all justified in holding to moral and ethical principles and to use them as we would any other principle- I just don't think that any other person necessarily has to agree with the principles anyone else comes up with. The organization of society, in this view, is not about imposing a ruleset or imposing ruling class value-systems, or to just give up on the concept of society because total agreement is impossible, but about dealing with the variety of value-systems that people already hold and mixing them within a social framework which both respects the right to be a free individual and the demands of social autonomy. The ethical principles that we agree upon and agree to live under compose that framework.

(I used - instead of brackets because brackets seem to confuse the "Touchstones" algorithm into thinking I am talking about a book)

>187 FrancoisTremblay:

You made a lot of sense. I hope some of your points get through.

As for selfish-gene argument. Human gene is not to make us replicate ourselves. The selfish gene is make sure the specie survive in the long run.

#189: "I just don't think that any other person necessarily has to agree with the principles anyone else comes up with."

That's fine, except that you're the one saying (as I quoted above) that parental feelings aren't worth the time, effort and money involved in parenthood. You're trying to make an objective comparison between subjectively valued options. There's very little to unpackage in what I said before. Different individuals will weigh the costs and benefits differently than others would because different things in life are important to them. And such relativism doesn't leave one stranded in the aether either. What one finds lacking in their own life may not be lacking in another's life, their wants differing accordingly.

It is ideologies like yours that lead good people to do bad things.

What makes a person good, and what are bad things? You keep suggesting that if we look inside, we know, because it's inherent, and everything bad comes from collectivism; but you've provided little proof. You said murder was wrong; we listed examples in cases where even in societies that believe so forgive the act (self defense, war, etc.).

that's plain evil, no matter how you cut it. Are we to believe that you support this evil as well?

I don't proclaim to support much in this thread. And how wonderful it must be for you to know what "evil" is. Tastes like religion.

For example, you hear people say "people disagree about ethical principles, so there must not be any truth to any of them!", a reasoning which not only makes absolutely no sense (people disagree about established scientific facts all the time, that doesn't mean there is no such thing as a scientific fact), but also does not take into account the vast areas where people agree.

And, as we all know, if a lot of people believe in it, it must be true. Millions of God-believers could not be wrong.

"That's fine, except that you're the one saying (as I quoted above) that parental feelings aren't worth the time, effort and money involved in parenthood."

You didn't read my post that carefully then, because I already addressed that. I will repeat myself again for your benefit:

When I point out the calculation issues, I am not saying that this is what I believe is the correct way to analyze decisions. I am showing that the psychegoist method is false, using the psychegoist method. It is not my belief that actions are to be deemed ethical or unethical through such a method.

Is that understood? Again, I do NOT believe in the utilitarian method of evaluation. I want to make this very clear because I oppose utilitarianism, and I have no wish to be confused for one.

I will not give my personal opinions about parenthood, because they are not relevant to this discussion.

"Different individuals will weigh the costs and benefits differently than others would because different things in life are important to them."

Again, trivially true. So what?

"And such relativism doesn't leave one stranded in the aether either. What one finds lacking in their own life may not be lacking in another's life, their wants differing accordingly."

I don't see the relation between these two sentences. But since you have not presented any views about ethics that were not trivial, I can't say if your views "leave one stranded" or not, so to speak.

Phocion, I already said you were a joker and wasting my time. Your latest post is another great example of this. You use sarcasm in ways that make no sense (you have seriously never called anything evil in your life? What, are you a saint or something?). You challenge me to prove my position, when my position was never at issue. Your posts are honestly pretty trollish and I do not intend to waste my time answering them.

Phocion, I already said you were a joker and wasting my time.

I may be a waste of your time, but I'm not joking.

you have seriously never called anything evil in your life?

Certainly, but I also once thought everyone in the world spoke English.

Your posts are honestly pretty bizarre and I do not intend to waste my time answering them.

If you say so. It comes across as though your thoughts on good and bad are shallow, at best, and you're uncomfortable explaining them.

#190: As for selfish-gene argument. Human gene is not to make us replicate ourselves. The selfish gene is make sure the specie survive in the long run.

Not at all. The selfish gene argument is about how genes "desire" to make more copies of themselves. Most strongly, your genes want to make copies of you, because they're in you. The desire to make copies of your children and your siblings is nearly as strong, because there's a good chance they're in them. A random human? Not nearly so good; who knows what genes they have in them.

Secondly, evolution knows nothing about the future. Many creatures have evolved themself into a dead end. If creatures were evolving to make the species survive in the long run, no creature would ever evolve to live on just one island or one lake--but they do all the time. As long as we keep reproducing, there's nothing driving us away from destroying everything, by whatever means, except for slight responses to the percentage of children of violent men and women--which will change humanity on millennia long scales.

"Not at all. The selfish gene argument is about how genes "desire" to make more copies of themselves. Most strongly, your genes want to make copies of you, because they're in you. The desire to make copies of your children and your siblings is nearly as strong, because there's a good chance they're in them."

Have you ever heard of the "pathetic fallacy"?

#197: Sure. Evolution tends to give you a set of genes that will give you a tendency to make more copies of the genes. They will also tend to give you a tendency to help you children and siblings, because that will also increase the number of copies of your genes in the population. Evolution tends to give you a set of genes that don't have such a high tendency to help non-relatives, because they're more different genetically and because they're a lot less likely to reciprocate.

Is that better?

Well, yes. The point being, it all has to do with the individual and how he deals with his own nature and his environment. It is within the purview of human choice. People forget this very easily.

Reproduction is not "our function" or "our purpose." It is a tendancy given to us by evolution. Like all such, it can be followed or ignored. It can be seen as desirable or undesirable. We, as human beings given some tiny bit of free will by the social order, can choose whether to reproduce or not. Most people do not even examine the issue as being a choice, they have children because they have sex. In that sense, they are no better than the beasts of the field.

#193: "You didn't read my post that carefully then, because I already addressed that."

No really, I understood you. You believe the paradigm of "psychegoism" is false because you see other people weighing their choices and you can't fathom why they don't make the same decisions you would. So I think it fairly appropriate to communicate to you that not everyone values the same things to the same degree. Such variation is a fact of life.

"No really, I understood you. You believe the paradigm of "psychegoism" is false because you see other people weighing their choices and you can't fathom why they don't make the same decisions you would."

No, that's not what I mean! I told you this has nothing to do with what I believe. This has nothing to do with how *I* make decisions. This has nothing to do with *my* values.

Do you understand what it means to disprove an ideology using its own premises? It doesn't mean you agree with that ideology. It just means you think THEIR ideology is contradictory. Like for instance, when we atheists posit that if God existed, then evil wouldn't exist, but evil does exist, so it must be wrong. Because we argue this way, doesn't mean we believe God exists! It means we believe the idea that God exists is contradictory. Okay? God doesn't exist, but we show that what they believe doesn't work out, even if it was true. But WE don't actually believe it's true, THEY do.

Again: I am not a psychological egoist. I am not a utilitarian. This is NOT how I think. I do this to show a contradiction in their thinking.

Do you understand what I am saying? I tried to break it down as simply as I could, and I don't know how to make it any simpler. If you don't get it, I'm sorry.

#201: You seem awfully confused. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm misidentifying you as a "psychegoist." The issue all along has been that you objected to the idea that humans operate out of self-interest and proceeded to make several flat-footed attempts to falsify it. It could have been averted if you addressed my skepticism of the book you cited on innate cooperation by pointing out evidence from the actual book that would support your claim, but instead you went into a nosedive purporting that you could overturn the reality that humans indeed operate out of individual incentive with rhetoric about how trivial it all is. Sorry it didn't pan out.

"Flat-footed attempts to falsify it"? Seriously? If you can demonstrate that the "just so" stories of psychegoism are actually veridical and not at all just ad hoc "explanations" that are and remain unquantified, then please do it... otherwise you're just plain deluded. The belief that you can reduce all of human behaviour to one limited and arbitrary construct is a delusion.

#203: No, I'm just calling your bluff. If there was anything compelling from that book that showed that innate cooperation exists, you'd mention it.

What does any of this have to do with psychegoism? More time-wasting. If you're so interested in the book, buy it.

I'd be more interested in knowing what isn't time-wasting (then again, isn't that we only have?), but you continue to prove my point about acting purely out of selfish incentive: you cannot be bothered to explain because it is a waste of your time.