I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state, so this stuff scares me. You'll notice that, in spite of Ahmanson, the CRs think that ID has fallen into a compromise with secular humanism. I guess they think you give up six-day young earth creationism, then the devil Darwin takes control, and then pretty soon the resurrection of Jesus goes right out the window (not to mention double predestination).
Secularists aren't accustomed getting support from C. S. Lewis, but anyone who wants to defend the separation of church and state should read his "Meditation on the Third Commandment" from God in the Dock. It's the best case for church-state separation that I have ever seen.
HT: Richard Carrier (hey we agree on some things!)
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
ID is Creatiionism? Not according to Answers in Genesis
This is Answers in Genesis's (YEC) critique of the ID movement.
Monday, August 28, 2006
On substance dualism, in answer to that question about beer, from Scott Brisbane
1. Problem of Interaction
The argument that we do not understand how a soul interacts with a physical body, appears to be based on an appeal to our ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). For it assumes if we do not know “how” A causes B, especially if the two consist of different properties, that it is not reasonable to believe the two can interact. Yet, as Craig and Moreland point out, a tack can be moved by a magnetic field, and gravity acts on a planet millions of miles away.26 Gravitational forces and magnetic fields appear to have very different properties to the solid and spatially located entities they affect, and although we may not understand “how” such interaction takes place, it nonetheless does—just as we are alert to causation between the mind and body. As another example, even if one is not a theist, most do not view it as inconceivable to believe that God (given God’s existence) created the material universe and could act within despite each one being very different.
A second defense is that the question of “how” the mind interacts with the body may not even arise. As Craig and Moreland explain in depth:
One can ask how turning the key starts a car because there is an intermediate electrical system between the key and the car’s running engine that is the means by which turning the key causes the engine to start. The “how” question is a request to describe that intermediate mechanism. But the interaction between mind and body may, and most likely is, direct and immediate.27
If the interaction is direct and immediate, as Thomists would tend to believe, then there is no reason to assume there is an intermediate mechanism that facilitates the interaction.
The argument that we do not understand how a soul interacts with a physical body, appears to be based on an appeal to our ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). For it assumes if we do not know “how” A causes B, especially if the two consist of different properties, that it is not reasonable to believe the two can interact. Yet, as Craig and Moreland point out, a tack can be moved by a magnetic field, and gravity acts on a planet millions of miles away.26 Gravitational forces and magnetic fields appear to have very different properties to the solid and spatially located entities they affect, and although we may not understand “how” such interaction takes place, it nonetheless does—just as we are alert to causation between the mind and body. As another example, even if one is not a theist, most do not view it as inconceivable to believe that God (given God’s existence) created the material universe and could act within despite each one being very different.
A second defense is that the question of “how” the mind interacts with the body may not even arise. As Craig and Moreland explain in depth:
One can ask how turning the key starts a car because there is an intermediate electrical system between the key and the car’s running engine that is the means by which turning the key causes the engine to start. The “how” question is a request to describe that intermediate mechanism. But the interaction between mind and body may, and most likely is, direct and immediate.27
If the interaction is direct and immediate, as Thomists would tend to believe, then there is no reason to assume there is an intermediate mechanism that facilitates the interaction.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
The Dualism Debate
Alan Cook over at Milinda's questions summarizes some of the debate on dualism both here and at Maverick Philosopher.
How not to be a compassionate conservative, or where is Apollo Creed when we need him?
This is from Nick Burbules' blog:
LAST DITCH
Awww . . . . a heartwarming story. Poor homeless man drives all the way from Louisiana to Washington DC in his FEMA trailer to plead the needs of Katrina victims before President Bush. Even better: he’s a white guy named Rockey (not one of those angry blacks down there). Except, hmm . . it wasn’t a FEMA trailer. And he’s a former chief executive of a company, not just your average Joe. And, uh, the Bush people INVITED him. And, well, yeah, he’s a former Republican candidate for office down there. And, waddya know, he seems mostly to have come to say “I wish we could have Bush for four more years.” Isn’t that a SWEET way to celebrate the anniversary of the disaster, and deflect criticism of Bush’s inaction and obliviousness at the time of the catastrophe?
VR: I'm sorry. People who care don't pull political publicity stunts like this. I grew up in Arizona and was a child when Barry Goldwater was running for President. Bush is supposed to be motivated by both Christian and conservative principles. I don't think that Christianity or conservatism is well-served by leaders whose policies seem to be "Do whatever benefits big business the most."
LAST DITCH
Awww . . . . a heartwarming story. Poor homeless man drives all the way from Louisiana to Washington DC in his FEMA trailer to plead the needs of Katrina victims before President Bush. Even better: he’s a white guy named Rockey (not one of those angry blacks down there). Except, hmm . . it wasn’t a FEMA trailer. And he’s a former chief executive of a company, not just your average Joe. And, uh, the Bush people INVITED him. And, well, yeah, he’s a former Republican candidate for office down there. And, waddya know, he seems mostly to have come to say “I wish we could have Bush for four more years.” Isn’t that a SWEET way to celebrate the anniversary of the disaster, and deflect criticism of Bush’s inaction and obliviousness at the time of the catastrophe?
VR: I'm sorry. People who care don't pull political publicity stunts like this. I grew up in Arizona and was a child when Barry Goldwater was running for President. Bush is supposed to be motivated by both Christian and conservative principles. I don't think that Christianity or conservatism is well-served by leaders whose policies seem to be "Do whatever benefits big business the most."
On the Narnia Movie
JD: By the way, Vic, I meant to ask you: what did you think of the new "Narnia" movie? Did you think it was true to the spirit of the books? And what about the much older cartoon version (which I find absolutely magical)?
VR; I didn't think they botched the story horribly, but somehow the movie didn't excite me as much as I had hoped that it would. I think Tolkien was better served by the movies than was Lewis. I was planning on blogging on the movie, but I never actually did. By the way, Prince Caspian has gotten the green light by the studio. And yes, I do remember, I think, the Episcopal Radio and TV cartoon movie, and even had a LWW movie night when I was program director of a local church way back when. There was also a PBS WonderWorks TV-movie series that, so far as I can remember, got as far as the Silver Chair. I especially remember the Silver Chair because Tom Baker, the fourth Doctor Who, was Puddleglum the Marsh-Wiggle.
I was dismayed to see Chronicles of Narnia McNuggets sold by McDonald's when the movie came out.
Most people don't know this, but John Beversluis reviewed the Chronicles of Narnia in the Reformed Journal when they came out.
VR; I didn't think they botched the story horribly, but somehow the movie didn't excite me as much as I had hoped that it would. I think Tolkien was better served by the movies than was Lewis. I was planning on blogging on the movie, but I never actually did. By the way, Prince Caspian has gotten the green light by the studio. And yes, I do remember, I think, the Episcopal Radio and TV cartoon movie, and even had a LWW movie night when I was program director of a local church way back when. There was also a PBS WonderWorks TV-movie series that, so far as I can remember, got as far as the Silver Chair. I especially remember the Silver Chair because Tom Baker, the fourth Doctor Who, was Puddleglum the Marsh-Wiggle.
I was dismayed to see Chronicles of Narnia McNuggets sold by McDonald's when the movie came out.
Most people don't know this, but John Beversluis reviewed the Chronicles of Narnia in the Reformed Journal when they came out.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
C. S. Lewis and the Search for a Second Edition
Readers of this blog will be interested to know that John Beversluis will be producing a second edition of his controversial book C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, wihch should appear next spring. But this time instead of the Christian Eerdmans press it will be published by Prometheus Books. In it he is going to take on some of the challenges posed by his critics and by more recent philosophical Lewis scholarship. He will, of course be defending the view that Lewis-style apologetics doesn't work.
Beversluis is generally thought of as the consummate Lewis-basher, and as such his original book, published in 1985, was called "despicable" and culpably wrong by one reviewer, while another credited him with picking Lewis's arguments apart like a cooked chicken. In some passages you get the impression that Beversluis thinks Lewis either dishonest or just not very bright, since some of his arguments, at least as Beversluis portrays them, could be refuted by a freshman student who had just passed Introduction to Logic. But in other passages you get a sense that he considers Lewis to be deeply honest and intellectually perceptive. You have to have a substantial share of intellectual and moral virtue to be the grieving hero of A Grief Observed protrayed in Beversluis's book. It is tempting to think that the positive portraits of Lewis found in the book are just so much patronizing, but I don't think so. Beversluis was also honest enough, in a subsequent review of A. N. Wilson, to object fiercely to Wilson's psychoanalyzing and to attack the view, favorably described in his book, that Lewis gave up on apologetics after his enounter with Anscombe. I am looking forward to seeing just how the positive and negative images of Lewis are balanced in the new edition.
Of course I'm going to have lot of disagreements with what he comes up with in the second edition. If you are somebody who thinks that Lewis just gets everything right and you can't see how anybody could resist Lewis's overwhelmingly powerful apologetics, then Beversluis is a good antidote, since he shows you how Lewis sounds to people on "the other side of the aisle." Critical exchange is how we progress in this discipline of ours. I think progress has been slow on getting dialogue going on the merits of Lewis's work in our discipline of philosophy, partly because of the enthusiasm of some of Lewis followers and the hostile-to-metaphsysics atmosphere in philosophy after the WWII. But this is beginning to turn around.
Beversluis is generally thought of as the consummate Lewis-basher, and as such his original book, published in 1985, was called "despicable" and culpably wrong by one reviewer, while another credited him with picking Lewis's arguments apart like a cooked chicken. In some passages you get the impression that Beversluis thinks Lewis either dishonest or just not very bright, since some of his arguments, at least as Beversluis portrays them, could be refuted by a freshman student who had just passed Introduction to Logic. But in other passages you get a sense that he considers Lewis to be deeply honest and intellectually perceptive. You have to have a substantial share of intellectual and moral virtue to be the grieving hero of A Grief Observed protrayed in Beversluis's book. It is tempting to think that the positive portraits of Lewis found in the book are just so much patronizing, but I don't think so. Beversluis was also honest enough, in a subsequent review of A. N. Wilson, to object fiercely to Wilson's psychoanalyzing and to attack the view, favorably described in his book, that Lewis gave up on apologetics after his enounter with Anscombe. I am looking forward to seeing just how the positive and negative images of Lewis are balanced in the new edition.
Of course I'm going to have lot of disagreements with what he comes up with in the second edition. If you are somebody who thinks that Lewis just gets everything right and you can't see how anybody could resist Lewis's overwhelmingly powerful apologetics, then Beversluis is a good antidote, since he shows you how Lewis sounds to people on "the other side of the aisle." Critical exchange is how we progress in this discipline of ours. I think progress has been slow on getting dialogue going on the merits of Lewis's work in our discipline of philosophy, partly because of the enthusiasm of some of Lewis followers and the hostile-to-metaphsysics atmosphere in philosophy after the WWII. But this is beginning to turn around.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Why the old standard argument against substance dualism begs the question
Bill Vallicella issues a charge of begging the question against the argument that dualistic interactionism can't be true because we cannot see how the soul could interact with the body.
The argument against exclusivism
E= Exclusivism
C= Calvinism
U= Universalism
1. E (assumption for reductio).
2. E -> C (the argument of the Triabloggers).
3. C -> U (Johnny-Dee's argument).
4. E -> U (chain argument).
5. E -> ~U (true by definition)
6. E -> (U ^ ~U) 4, 5
7. ~ E
But of course for this argument to work premise 2 has to get around Craig's argument to the contrary, based on Molinism.
C= Calvinism
U= Universalism
1. E (assumption for reductio).
2. E -> C (the argument of the Triabloggers).
3. C -> U (Johnny-Dee's argument).
4. E -> U (chain argument).
5. E -> ~U (true by definition)
6. E -> (U ^ ~U) 4, 5
7. ~ E
But of course for this argument to work premise 2 has to get around Craig's argument to the contrary, based on Molinism.
If exclusivism then Calvinism
The folks over at Triablogue have provided an argument that if Christian exclusivism is true, the Calvinism must also be true.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/thief-and-robber.html#comments
Makes sense; if the only people who are saved are born-again Christians, then some people certainly, as it were, have been "shut up into disobedience" through God's choice.
But before declaring victory for this argument, the Triabloggers need to take on a lion, none other than William Lane Craig, who argues for Christian exclusivism using a Molinist perspective.
Of course, my inclination is to say
If exclusivism then Calvinism.
Not Calvinism.
Therefore not exclusivism.
But then that's just me.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/thief-and-robber.html#comments
Makes sense; if the only people who are saved are born-again Christians, then some people certainly, as it were, have been "shut up into disobedience" through God's choice.
But before declaring victory for this argument, the Triabloggers need to take on a lion, none other than William Lane Craig, who argues for Christian exclusivism using a Molinist perspective.
Of course, my inclination is to say
If exclusivism then Calvinism.
Not Calvinism.
Therefore not exclusivism.
But then that's just me.
Where is the harsh review of Ann Coulter's Godless?
I was over at the Secular Web and didn't see what I expected to, a harsh, sarcastic review of Ann Coulter's best-seller Godless. What is the matter with you people?
I did find some stuff over at Panda's Thumb, though.
I did find some stuff over at Panda's Thumb, though.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Steve Hays and Jason Engwer on Jesus Beyond the Grave
I am presenting a link to this review of Jesus Beyond the Grave, though its in-your-face tone is certainly not one that I would adopt.
Atheism of the gaps again
Steven Carr: I can't think of any downside to God helping doctors find a vaccine for HIV.
Does this mean God should help doctors find a vaccine for HIV?
VR: I can't see how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. Does that mean that it didn't evolve?
Does this mean God should help doctors find a vaccine for HIV?
VR: I can't see how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. Does that mean that it didn't evolve?
An article by Timothy Simpson on racism
This reminds me of the days when our governor, Ev Mecham, referred to Black children as pickaninnies. HT: Jarrod Cochran
"Welcome to America, Macaca"
And you thought the days of racial politics were behind us.
At a campaign swing in southwest Virginia this week, VA Senator and Presidential wannabe George Allen made one of the most outlandish statements of the year when he mocked a young Virginian of Indian descent who had been sent by Allen's opponent, James Webb, to film Allen's event, just as Allen had sent two campaign workers to film Webb.
"This fellow over here with the yellow shirt - Macaca or whatever his name is - he's with my opponent," said Allen. "Let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
"Macaca" is the name of species of monkey and is a racial slur. Furthermore, the young man to whom Allen was referring, S.R. Sidarth, a 20 year-old student at the University of Virginia, is not only from America, he was born in Fairfax, VA, Allen's own state. In interviews following the incident, Sidarth said that he believed Allen was trying to draw attention to the fact that Sidarth was the only non-white person out of about a hundred at the gathering.
Allen has made the typical half-hearted apology, saying that he meant nothing by the slurs. His handlers are spinning the story that the slur was a reference to Sidarth's hair, which they described as a "Mohawk." But even if this were the case--and it is quite a stretch since, as Sidarth notes, he wears a "mullet" hairstyle, not a "Mohawk"--Allen has nothing reasonable to say about why he would make a very public assumption about where Sidarth was from based upon his skin color.
Same Old Politics of Division
Since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, the GOP has increasingly played one part of America against another, using fear and prejudice as the primary weapons in their attempt to take control of the political process in America. Whether it was Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen" anecdotes, George Bush the elder's Willie Horton ads or the Rovian "gay marriage" scare of 2004, the pattern is the same: find some group of people that can be used to frighten middle America and exploit that fear for maximal political gain.We should not forget, as Randall Balmer notes in his most recent book, that the formation of what has become the Religious Right began in the 1970s when the Carter Administration challenged the tax exempt status of the fundamentalist Bob Jones University because of its racist policies. These folks have turned divisiveness into an election-winning formula and this year is no different. 2006 has long been shaping up as the year of picking on immigrants for the GOP, so Allen's slurs can be seen as a timely reminder to the party faithful that he remains "on message." His remarks are also evidence that the racist views of his young adulthood have only been suppressed, not expunged.
Neither the American or the Christian Way
One would think that, in 21st century America, one could not get elected to dog catcher after having said such nasty things, much less US Senator. Sadly, Allen's remarks have only been met with yawns in most Republican circles to date. Two of the most important leaders of the Religious Right, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whose empires are both in Allen's state of Virginia, haven't made a peep about what he said. Can you imagine how they would have reacted if Hillary Clinton had said something like this? The 700 Club would have been devoted to the subject for a month and Falwell would be using DVD copies of the event as a fundraising premium.
Both Robertson and Falwell have good reason to be angry no matter who said these things, both because it flies in the face of what it means to be an American, but more importantly, because it is the antithesis of what it means to be a Christian. We believe that Jesus came to break down the barriers that exist between groups who might otherwise be in conflict. The Apostle Paul made the definitive statement : "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." What Christians need to be doing at times when wedges are being driven between groups is to hold fast to the truth of this very good news and resist and reject those who would lead us down paths of hatred and division.
- Rev. Timothy Simpson, Christian Alliance for Progress and Change
"Welcome to America, Macaca"
And you thought the days of racial politics were behind us.
At a campaign swing in southwest Virginia this week, VA Senator and Presidential wannabe George Allen made one of the most outlandish statements of the year when he mocked a young Virginian of Indian descent who had been sent by Allen's opponent, James Webb, to film Allen's event, just as Allen had sent two campaign workers to film Webb.
"This fellow over here with the yellow shirt - Macaca or whatever his name is - he's with my opponent," said Allen. "Let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
"Macaca" is the name of species of monkey and is a racial slur. Furthermore, the young man to whom Allen was referring, S.R. Sidarth, a 20 year-old student at the University of Virginia, is not only from America, he was born in Fairfax, VA, Allen's own state. In interviews following the incident, Sidarth said that he believed Allen was trying to draw attention to the fact that Sidarth was the only non-white person out of about a hundred at the gathering.
Allen has made the typical half-hearted apology, saying that he meant nothing by the slurs. His handlers are spinning the story that the slur was a reference to Sidarth's hair, which they described as a "Mohawk." But even if this were the case--and it is quite a stretch since, as Sidarth notes, he wears a "mullet" hairstyle, not a "Mohawk"--Allen has nothing reasonable to say about why he would make a very public assumption about where Sidarth was from based upon his skin color.
Same Old Politics of Division
Since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, the GOP has increasingly played one part of America against another, using fear and prejudice as the primary weapons in their attempt to take control of the political process in America. Whether it was Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen" anecdotes, George Bush the elder's Willie Horton ads or the Rovian "gay marriage" scare of 2004, the pattern is the same: find some group of people that can be used to frighten middle America and exploit that fear for maximal political gain.We should not forget, as Randall Balmer notes in his most recent book, that the formation of what has become the Religious Right began in the 1970s when the Carter Administration challenged the tax exempt status of the fundamentalist Bob Jones University because of its racist policies. These folks have turned divisiveness into an election-winning formula and this year is no different. 2006 has long been shaping up as the year of picking on immigrants for the GOP, so Allen's slurs can be seen as a timely reminder to the party faithful that he remains "on message." His remarks are also evidence that the racist views of his young adulthood have only been suppressed, not expunged.
Neither the American or the Christian Way
One would think that, in 21st century America, one could not get elected to dog catcher after having said such nasty things, much less US Senator. Sadly, Allen's remarks have only been met with yawns in most Republican circles to date. Two of the most important leaders of the Religious Right, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whose empires are both in Allen's state of Virginia, haven't made a peep about what he said. Can you imagine how they would have reacted if Hillary Clinton had said something like this? The 700 Club would have been devoted to the subject for a month and Falwell would be using DVD copies of the event as a fundraising premium.
Both Robertson and Falwell have good reason to be angry no matter who said these things, both because it flies in the face of what it means to be an American, but more importantly, because it is the antithesis of what it means to be a Christian. We believe that Jesus came to break down the barriers that exist between groups who might otherwise be in conflict. The Apostle Paul made the definitive statement : "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." What Christians need to be doing at times when wedges are being driven between groups is to hold fast to the truth of this very good news and resist and reject those who would lead us down paths of hatred and division.
- Rev. Timothy Simpson, Christian Alliance for Progress and Change
This is not acceptable
John Loftus and Ed Babinksi have informed me that on The Discomfitter's website (which I take it is a parody site of Debunking Christianity) there was a comment put on in Loftus' name identifying himself as a homosexual pedophile. I looked at the site and found what they were talking about. And apparently it does link to Loftus' profile. Can anyone explain to me how this could have happened? I have no idea as to who's responsible for this, and it is particularly disturbing to me that this would have been done by a Christian. It does raise the specter of people using our names to put bogus messages on blogs.
Parody and humor have their place in religious dialogue, but this is about 50 yards over the line. I'm willing to listen to explanations, but if I don't get a good explanations soon I will have to do the only thing I can do (besides point this out), and that would be to ban the Discomfitter from Dangerous Idea.
In the real world, people want to know what your creed does to your character.
P.S. Because this post has been trolled, I am closing this entry to comments, and eliminating the ones that are there, only adding that probably Loftus should not accuse anyone in particular. I think it is someone having fun at everyone's expense. I am not going to ban anyone at this time, including the Discomfitter.
Parody and humor have their place in religious dialogue, but this is about 50 yards over the line. I'm willing to listen to explanations, but if I don't get a good explanations soon I will have to do the only thing I can do (besides point this out), and that would be to ban the Discomfitter from Dangerous Idea.
In the real world, people want to know what your creed does to your character.
P.S. Because this post has been trolled, I am closing this entry to comments, and eliminating the ones that are there, only adding that probably Loftus should not accuse anyone in particular. I think it is someone having fun at everyone's expense. I am not going to ban anyone at this time, including the Discomfitter.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Babinski on objective moral values
Ed Babinski: Please continue to define "subjective" and "objective," and let me know where your investigation takes you.
VR: What is unclear about my definition of "objective" and "subjective/"In any event, I have discussed this on other posts. Something is objective just in case it has a truth value that is not person-dependent or society dependent. "Murder is wrong" is objectively true if it is the case that even if a person thought it was OK to kill anyone who really ticked them off, or a society approved of such behavior (say, so long as the person were in a privileged class), it would nonetheless be really wrong.
If we say, for example, that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that we have those rights even though the powers that be are de facto denying them, then we are committed to an objective standard of moral values. If, on the other hand, we hold that we possess these rights only in virtue of residing in a society that secures those for us, then we have a subjectivist view of moral values.
EB: I mean, how "objective" (or for that matter "subjective") do you have to be to acknowledge that you, as a healthy happy life-loving human being don't really appreciate being murdered in your sleep, or having objects you have worked to obtain simply taken from you; or that you don't really appreciate being called names or spat upon?
VR: Of course, I as an individual, do not like to be murdered in my sleep (though actually, if you are going to do me in, that would be the time to do it), or be called names, or spat upon. The problem is whether I should care whether or not other people are murdered, stolen from, or spat upon. They are, after all, other people. Now maybe it is in by best interests to be concerned about others. But it may not. An ancient Greek Sophist philosopher named Antiphon once suggested that self-preservation is the law of nature, and that we should follow social laws when people are watching, but when we are alone (and can get away with it), the law of nature. If I just murdered someone, the lawss of most societies require that I submit myself to the authorities for incarceration or execution. But while this what my society might expect, it cuts completely against my self-interest.
EB: I also suspect that interactions between large brained primates who were members of social species demonstrated such basic likes and dislikes millions of years ago.
VR: And, as long ago as that, humans learned to ask the question, "What's in it for me?"
Oh, and congrats on the brevity of your response.
VR: What is unclear about my definition of "objective" and "subjective/"In any event, I have discussed this on other posts. Something is objective just in case it has a truth value that is not person-dependent or society dependent. "Murder is wrong" is objectively true if it is the case that even if a person thought it was OK to kill anyone who really ticked them off, or a society approved of such behavior (say, so long as the person were in a privileged class), it would nonetheless be really wrong.
If we say, for example, that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that we have those rights even though the powers that be are de facto denying them, then we are committed to an objective standard of moral values. If, on the other hand, we hold that we possess these rights only in virtue of residing in a society that secures those for us, then we have a subjectivist view of moral values.
EB: I mean, how "objective" (or for that matter "subjective") do you have to be to acknowledge that you, as a healthy happy life-loving human being don't really appreciate being murdered in your sleep, or having objects you have worked to obtain simply taken from you; or that you don't really appreciate being called names or spat upon?
VR: Of course, I as an individual, do not like to be murdered in my sleep (though actually, if you are going to do me in, that would be the time to do it), or be called names, or spat upon. The problem is whether I should care whether or not other people are murdered, stolen from, or spat upon. They are, after all, other people. Now maybe it is in by best interests to be concerned about others. But it may not. An ancient Greek Sophist philosopher named Antiphon once suggested that self-preservation is the law of nature, and that we should follow social laws when people are watching, but when we are alone (and can get away with it), the law of nature. If I just murdered someone, the lawss of most societies require that I submit myself to the authorities for incarceration or execution. But while this what my society might expect, it cuts completely against my self-interest.
EB: I also suspect that interactions between large brained primates who were members of social species demonstrated such basic likes and dislikes millions of years ago.
VR: And, as long ago as that, humans learned to ask the question, "What's in it for me?"
Oh, and congrats on the brevity of your response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)