FW: Will the real Jason Carter stand up?
Jason Carter wcarter@mediaone.net
Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:47:08 -0500 (00923024828, 3.0.1.32.19990401164708.00957ab0@pop.atl.mediaone.net)
At 01:00 PM 4/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>POOBAH
>>I realize you are tired so you must have missed it Jason. The reason to
>>follow a moral code is that it enables complex societies to exist, and
>>ensures your ability to thrive in those societies. That is plenty of
>reason.
>
>CARTER
>No Poobah, I was very much awake when I wrote the above. You seem to have
>missed the philosophical underpinnings of my statement. Who cares if complex
>societies exist or not? Not everyone is a pragmatist, so your reason will
>not satisfactory to them .
>
>Unless you are asserting that it is objectively "good" for complex societies
>to exist (which would defeat your whole point), you have provided no binding
>reason for the individual to follow of a moral code (unless he is a
>pragmatist).
>
>POOBAH
>Jason, when are you actually going to actually respond to your opponents
>arguments rather than repeating your assertion over & over again like a
>broken record?
CARTER
I will repeat until you understand the argument.
>POOBAH
>Let me try again for the upteenth time.
>1) Current theory suggests that cooperative strategies may evolve out of
>selfish strategies in certain scenarios, because cooperation is in a selfish
>entity's long-term self interest. Enlightened self-interest. This theory is
>backed up both mathematically and by observation, both in the human & animal
>world. That is the "rational reason" for acting "morally" (I am using the
>term very loosely). You asked for a rational reason, you have been given
>one. Now you want a philosophical reason. Why is a philosophical reason
>important?
CARTER
I understand your "reason" for acting morally is that certain theoretical
models show that it is in an entity's long term self interest to do so. But
my retort is...so what?
The question is - how can you condemn another person's actions in an given
scenario, especially if an action was in the person's own self-interest?
Ex. a deserted island, and the given subject's bizzare sexual desire for a
child, who also accompanies him.
Secondly, I seriously doubt most people care what's in their long term
interest. Just look at smokers, alcholics, criminals, etc. This is why the
philosophical reason is important, because if we do not have a DUTY, or
OBLIGATION, to follow a moral system, then following such a moral code
cannot rightly be imposed upon anyone. Your presupposition is that it is
good for the individual to cooperate with society - this is not
neccessarily so.
Acting "beneficially", which is completely arbitrary anyway, turns out to
be a rather shoddy moral system. If your mother was about to get struck by
an oncoming car, should I risk life to push her out of the way, or should I
act in my own self-interest? Which one would be the correct choice (Or is
neither correct)?
>POOBAH
>3) If someone is not a "pragmatist" as you say, and is more interested in
>their short-term gain rather than their long-term gain, then current theory
>suggests there are good reasons for me, you & the rest of society to without
>cooperation from this individual, and eliminate this threat. There are good
>mathematical (read rational) reasons to do this. Intuitively, such a person
>threatens the cooperation established in 1 & 2 above.
CARTER
What this translates to is: If someone does not agree with my philosophical
premises (ie. survival and society are good things), then we are to elimate
those persons.
>POOBAH
>4) I have no idea what you mean by "binding reason" so I can't say whether I
>have provided one or not. As I said, I see no evidence of objective
>morality, buy can explain cooperative behavior without it.
CARTER
It is not the explanation that is important. I can explain it by saying
that aliens instilled within us cooperative genes. This is just as much a
viable theory as yours. By "binding", I mean morals that are duty; a code
of action that is applicable to all people, and should not be broken. This
is only possible by way of the metaphysical.
>POOBAH
>5) Even if I grant your entire argument, my response is still "So what?" At
>best you have proven that "objective morality" would be a nice thing to
>have; you haven't proven its existence. This, as I have harped on & on, is
>the fallacy of the undesirable consequence. Let me pose it again, even if
>you are able to prove that lack of objective morality results in an ethical
>quagmire, in what way has that proven the existence of objective morality?
CARTER
You've got it! The only thing I was trying to demonstrate objectively, is
that the lack of objectivity in moral values -does- result in an ethical
quagmire, especially in light of PERSONAL self-interest, the brevity of
life, the freedom of choice, etc. Once again, without accepting the premise
of God, I do not find any rational belief for the existence of objective
morality. I only wanted you to fully understand the implications of your
belief, and to point out that there may be some inner conscience conflicts
when you see or are affected by the actions that logically follow from
other people's free choice and personal desire.
>POOBAH
>In other words, I see no basis for the philosophical underpinnings of your
>argument.
>
>Jason, until you actually respond to these points, there is quite simply no
>point in going on.
CARTER
Do you understand now? You are trying to explain the -existence- of
"beneficial" actions - I am trying to show why we have -no obligation- to
follow such a beneficial system if objective morality does not exist.
Cheers,
-Jason