I just read this whole thread. Interesting, but kind of all over the place. You start out talking about morality and good and evil in general, and end up talking about the value of a human life.
I see those as related topics, so the discussion is not really all over the place.
Quote:
I think this is a dead-end question. How can the value of a human life (be it that of a retiree or a baby) be measured?
The value of human life can be measured in currency (for example US$). In fact it is measured that way. If you buy life insurance, you are putting a value on human life. If you spend money on a heart transplant, you are doing the same. If you are on a committee that purchases stop lights in order to improve safety and possibly save lives, you are doing the same. Some people find this distasteful and would rather ignore it, but that doesn't make it disappear.
Quote:
Who values my existance? Obviously I do, so it has value to me. Is that enough? It is to me, but to the community? This is a scary thought, especially for a group that is the minority. What if the Christian majority of this country decided that atheists have no value? I guess what I am trying to say is that I admire your attempt to discuss this question rationally, but it isn't a rational question. How can it be when it involves irrational people?
You lost me there. Reasoning about irrational people is not irrational.
Quote:
Also, for whoever suggested killing off the retirees-there are many different types of value. You seem to be discussing the question economically, which is a whole different discussion.
You lost me again. The discussion of value is economic by definition.
« Last Edit: 2003-09-26 12:30:38 by David Lucifer »
Sorry I took so long to get back into the thread, I've been away. It's nice to see how it's evolved though.
Anyway,
Quote:
My point in this is a simple one: morality can be pragmatic and rational. We do not need unthinking obedience to a system/deity. If we wish to balance the individual and the community interest, then a system of ethics, based on a realistic and compassionate view of humanity is a very rational and effecient way of doing so.
We don't need unthinking obedience to a system, we need a system of ethics based on realistic and compassionate view of humanity? I think you've contradicted yourself there. Any system needs obedience, regardless of whether or not it's logically based. I think you're giving humans too much credit. If it weren't forced on us, what would prevent one person from killing another? Sure, in a perfect world we would all be rational, and we'd all realize that, for the benifit of both the individual and the collective, we should be civil and not kill or steal from each other, but we're not there yet. We don't all think about all our actions, and when there is an absence of rational thought, you need unthinking obedience to a system.
Been away from the forum for a while. Apologies. Where was I?...
I'll try to live with the accusation of naivety.
For the record, I have little illusions about human nature- it's evolution over time has meant that we have the capacity for both selfishness and altruism. Which we apply depends largely on what we instinctively understand to be in our best interests at the time.
I wasn't, also for the record, making the point that humans are rational. I was, if memory serves, making the point that morality is (or can be, depending by what you mean by it) inherently rational and that we can choose to follow it out a sense of self-interest.
We may not always be rational- our decision making and analytical faculties are limited and fallible.
However, we can rationally choose an ethical structure that complements our basic, evolved nature. We can choose to surpress certain instincts and to reinforce others, even if we cannot escape instinct.
My point about a realistic view of human nature should take this into account. The pitfalls and shortcoming of evolved human psychology have to be taken into consideration before we can construct a system of ethics that is free of dogmatism and hypocrisy.
For the record, I have little illusions about human nature- it's evolution over time has meant that we have the capacity for both selfishness and altruism. Which we apply depends largely on what we instinctively understand to be in our best interests at the time.
Though I enthusiastically agree with the rest of your post, I have to take issue with this comment. If you always choose to behave in your best interest, how can you say it is altruistic?
The essentially self-interested role that altruism and reciprocal altruism play in human behaviour has already been covered extensively in evolutionary biology by various thinkers, and notably by Richard Dawkins himself.
In our evolutionary past altruism and reciprocal altruism evolved to allow humans to co-operate in a way that served their own genetic self-interest.
For instance, parental altruism evolved in many animals in order for organisms to safeguard the future carriers of their genes. In humans we also have a generalised protective instinct towards children in general- largely due to the fact that in ancient societies the children of your tribe would tend to be (at least distantly) related to you.
Reciprocal altruism evolved to allow humans to trade and cooperate, and thus increase their individual power over their environment by making use of the resources of other individuals with shared goals.
There is also the evolutionary argument that the sense of 'caring what others think'- which many philosophers hold to be the root of the conscience- is purely down to an innate instinct to want to be held in high esteem by the members of your tribe (something that would be evolutionarily advantageous).
All of these are forms of altruism. All have an (ultimately) self-interested rationale. All should be taken into account when formulating a rational ethical structure.
Apologies for the confusion. I should have specified that I was talking about the 'ultimate' causes, not the 'proximate' causes.
All of these are forms of altruism. All have an (ultimately) self-interested rationale. All should be taken into account when formulating a rational ethical structure.
Do you really equate your self-interest with your genetic self-interest? I don't.
They are not the same thing, and I wouldn't try to tell you that they are.
If a parent were to sacrifice the life of their child in order to save themselves, that might be rational in the proximate, personal sense, but it would hardly be rational in the genetic sense, and I doubt you'd find anyone who would argue it was moral.
Something that might equate with your genetic self-interest, for example nepotism, might contradict with your rational self-interest, if the relative were to prove a liability, or even a threat. Most people would argue it is immoral, too.
The point I am making is that the human moral sense is formed, in large part, by our evolutionary history (and its roots in genetic self-interest).
If we wish to create a (proximately) rational ethical framework, then we cannot escape this.
We must take into account the way the moral sense is designed to work (and also designed not to work) if we are to build an ethical framework in accordance with (what I'm hoping are) our values- reason, truth and compassion.
We must take into account the way the moral sense is designed to work (and also designed not to work) if we are to build an ethical framework in accordance with (what I'm hoping are) our values- reason, truth and compassion.
I agree but I'm curious about whether you think so because you believe that our moral sense we have because of evolution is a good guide, or because any attempt to countermand human nature is doomed to failure or some other reason?