(017d Ann Ryan and Self-interest)

[This is a lecture from the project 25+ Women Philosophers, which was not copied from the former blog]

Two soldiers escaped from the enemy camp. And in the process they succeeded in getting hold on top secret documents. If this information could reach their HQ it would absolutely save thousands of lives, might even end the war.

Half way their struggle through the desert they ran out of water. But they kept on going.The information had to reach HQ, all those lives at stake. Almost exhausted they stumbled on a bottle of water. Whoever left it there, it was the needed water.

It absolutely was enough for one man to survive and get to HQ to deliver the top secret information. Sharing the water would keep them both alive to die both halfway in the desert.

They sat down and opened their backpacks...there was a book. Ayn Rand on ethics. There should be the answer. It was...basic moral rule: self-interest. They looked at eachother, the bottle of water and the lifes saving information.

Reason is the quintessence....ok what kind of tool is it and in what way will it help our heroic soldiers, who know that only one can survive and save so many lives?

Here we touch the quintessence of philosophy. We never get the anwser, We only get the next question. But ok...let's quote Ayn Rand in this critical situation.

"Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims,

but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness." (The Virtue of Selfishness “Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, xiv; pb x.
)

The soldiers wondered. How to apply rational selfishness in this situation? And how would they know, if their choice would be rational? And does it mean that when they apply rational self-interest, they also can be sure that they do the right thing? They looked at eachother.........

Did they both die in the desert...did the info reach HQ ???


This idea that man is basically a selfish individual is not new at all. Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679) is the first major philosopher, apart from Machiavelli, to present a completely individualistic picture of human nature. Even so individualistic that we still know the famous expression "homo homini lupus" which means "man is a wolf to his fellowman".

Only the fear of a war of everyone against everyone leads to the adoption of a regard for others from purely self-interested motives. Thus altruism is either a disguise or a substitute for self-seeking.

Since Hobbes this debate has continued through the ages. The difficulty with this debate is that it is close to psychology. On the one hand is chosen for a very specific description of the nature of man and on the otherhand one uses concepts like 'self-interest', "altruism", "benevolence", "sympathy" which lead to philosophical questions, when you try to elucidate them.

We have to face many questions. For instance, if self-interest would lead us to obey the rules of justice and if we had no natural regard for the public interest, how do the rules come into existence and what forsters our respect for them?

The crucial fact is, that did we have no respect for the rules of justice, there would be no stability of property. Indeed, the institution of proberty could not and would not exist. Hume therefore saw next to self-interest "a tendency to public good, and to the promoting of peace, harmony and order in society". In other words, the psychological picture of human nature is modified to find better explanation for human morality.

What I want to make clear is that the quintessence of philosophy is to question things and not to offer a doctrine, that should read like a rule-book for life. And this has become of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It has become a philosophy of life as a kind of ideology and not somuch a systematic method of constant questioning one's postition.

What is to my interest depends upon who I am and what I want. The question "Is justice more profitable than unjustice?" will be answered differently depending on whether it is answered by a just man or an unjust man. For what the just man wants is not what the unjust man wants.

Thus, there is no single spring of action or a single set of aims and goals entitled "Self-interest", which is the same in every man. "Self-interest" is not in fact the name of a motive at all. A man who acts from self-interest is a man who allows himself to act from certain motives in a given type of situation.

In other words, 'Self-interest" is another word for acting from certain motives and to study morality we thus have to study these motives. We still have no definite answer on the question what drives the human being, what his motives are. Are they universal, individual or contexual? We are still working on it.


The Discussion

[13:23] hope63 Shepherd: but if we want to work on the study of motives.. we have to refer to other scientific knowledge,, and not limit it to the limited approach of mind/body/etc..
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: still thinking about what they will do
[13:23] ChatNoir Talon: Well the answer to the Information reaching the HQ is obvious
[13:23] hope63 Shepherd: to say.. philosophy based on historically developped thought..
[13:24] ChatNoir Talon: The information DID reach the HQ. and one of the soldiers made it.. otherwise we wouldn't know of the story :-)
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: not necessarily
[13:24] herman Bergson: I agree Hope
[13:24] hope63 Shepherd: chat.. they found the two dead.. with the bottle still full..
[13:24] herman Bergson: very clever ChatNoir ^_^
[13:24] ChatNoir Talon: :)
[13:24] ChatNoir Talon: Ahhh Touché
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: The soldier who will continue on to HQ is a rational Darwinism answer, the stongest will save the others and the weakest will be left to die.
[13:25] ChatNoir Talon: I like that Ari
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but is that not altruistic?
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: whcih means trhey had rational elements to qualify a weaker or a stronger sri..
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: ari
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: and so, we are still faced with his self-interest
[13:25] herman Bergson: What I wanted to point out is that I had no idea how to apply self-interest in this situation
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: and it's aparrent success
[13:26] ChatNoir Talon: Right.. is too ambiguous a term
[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: welll...self interest is to live...no?!
[13:26] herman Bergson: Butt hat is a problem with a lot of Rand's writings....
[13:26] hope63 Shepherd: why not play that famous game: herman has a baloon and the earth will collapse: now he can take 3 more.. give the arguments why it should be you..
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:26] ChatNoir Talon: It sounds like self-preservation.. but its hardly the same thing
[13:26] herman Bergson: the easy use of concepts and the lack of conceptual analysis
[13:27] herman Bergson: The more I read the more nervous I became
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: i do not think ayn rand would have an answer to this problem that would make sense to us
[13:27] herman Bergson: What she writes is clever and it read easily
[13:27] Hokon Cazalet: to me it seems to have a contradiction, both should take the bottle for themselves (be selfish), yet both cant live (ethical egoism seems to return us back to the war of all against all)
[13:27] Samuel Okelly: maybe one soldier was christian who decided to forego his own biological self interest in order to save the many in the sure knowledge that our biological state is a gateway and not "an end"
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: that's what make me nervous too.. too easy to apply for too many..
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: Ms Rand was much too unforgiving with opponents of her theories, but like all philosohers, she had jewels and she had garbage
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: yes very !
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes true Aristotle
[[13:28] ChatNoir Talon: "One man's garbage is another man's dinner"
[13:28] Anne Charles: Ms Rand's Objectivism might work in a world where everyone
has a three-digit IQ with no mental aberrations and the
manual work is done by robots, but that world doesn't exist,
does it? Only in a work of fiction are her ideas workable.
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: Christians are not more altruistic thank no Christians
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: her confidence in her mind was almost insane if you ask me
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: much as i liked her works
[13:29] ChatNoir Talon: Yes, I don't like her too much :-(
[13:29] Samuel Okelly: they are when compared to rand, ari ;-)
[13:29] hope63 Shepherd: she tried to link self-interest to responsibility.. but i didn't find out how that would work..
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: Oh, I like her, but she would not be my friend, I think
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: too right Sam
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: well maybe after a few glasses of wine...
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I would argue that Christians as well as any other tribal religion is just as self-concerned as anyone else
[13:30] ChatNoir Talon: She's like the anti-ChatNoir
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:30] hope63 Shepherd: ARI.. THIS WOULD BRING JUST TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE MOTIVE..
[13:30] Samuel Okelly: tribal????
[13:31] hope63 Shepherd: sorry..no yelling..:)
[13:31] Mickorod Renard: I agree Ari,,but christians are not afraid of self sacrifice
[13:31] ChatNoir Talon: I agree, Ari. Atheist can be just as selfish as christians... I guess it depends on the situation and their compromise to their faith
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: We like to think we are altruistic, but in all things there is a reward for the self
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: very true
[13:31] Hokon Cazalet: their faith doesnt matter in this case, rand advocates that we ought to be selfish, not just want it
[13:31] hope63 Shepherd: camus: la chute...
[13:31] ChatNoir Talon: But the big difference is Motive. If you do it for the reward or for the other
[13:31] herman Bergson: This is a concern in philosophical discourse since Hobbes
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: I think she advocates that it is not wrong to be selfish
[13:32] Hokon Cazalet: she says its good to be selfish
[13:32] herman Bergson: The empiricist side has more difficulty finding answers than the rationalist side
[13:32] Samuel Okelly: the arrogance of atheism lends itself perfectly to the nonsense which is randism
[13:32] Mickorod Renard: sometimes selfish doesnt cause others harm..
[13:32] ChatNoir Talon: But it hardly does the others any good
[13:32] Mickorod Renard: note sometimes
[13:32] herman Bergson: I think we need to stop for a moment...
[13:33] ChatNoir Talon: Halt!
[13:33] Anne Charles: Ms Rand held that compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the
suffering and the guilty is a cover for hatred of the
strong, the able, the virtuous, the successful, the
confident and the happy. Can this woman really be
considered rational? Or even human?
[13:33] herman Bergson: For the word 'selfish' is so easily used
[13:33] herman Bergson: do we really know we all use the same meaning?
[13:33] Mickorod Renard: yes Herman
[13:33] ChatNoir Talon: Let's define it, please (and I agree Anne.. she can come off as 'inhuman' in some contexts)
[13:33] herman Bergson: I think we should return to Hope's first remark..
[13:34] Hokon Cazalet: when i say selfish i mean something different than how my sister uses it, so thats a good point
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: Of course the survival of the most fit is naturally rational
[13:34] hope63 Shepherd: lets face it.. selfish is -as ari would say-- an archaic .. or a a priori,hokon?
[13:34] herman Bergson: For understanding the human condition we need to look at other sciences too....
[13:34] herman Bergson: There are for instance examples of animals sacrificing themselves for the group
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: yes hope I think we are hard wire to survive
[13:35] ChatNoir Talon: Lemmings! ^^
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: chat.. tis lemming story in the disney film
[13:35] herman Bergson: Even an ant species...
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: was made up..
[13:35] Mickorod Renard: even vines will Herman
[13:35] herman Bergson: they seal their nest every night to survive...
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, yes, but thes are not rational beings
[13:36] ChatNoir Talon: Those spider mothers wo become their children first meal
[13:36] herman Bergson: so a small group stays outside and close the entrances of the nest
[13:36] hope63 Shepherd: ari.. that is a rational rationality linked to man:) but nothing is contradicting rationality in nature..
[13:37] herman Bergson: No Aristotle....but is rationality the primary property of human kind?
[13:37] ChatNoir Talon: As rational being, I propose, we can see that ourselves are no more important in any important way than any other one. Can we say that our culture is better than any other? Can we say our life is worth more than any other? I don't believe so
[13:37] herman Bergson: Right ChatNoir
[13:37] ChatNoir Talon: Thus I can't rationally save my life first more than anyone elses
[13:37] Mickorod Renard: ayn rand would have to be described as a rational individual,,not human
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: You raise a good question Herman
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: what did you believe chat.. and what can we know?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Just one observation....
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: It is like the question of god, does he exists merely because you can not disprove his existance
[13:38] herman Bergson: we do a lot with our rationality...but how much of our conduct is controled by other drives?
[13:39] Samuel Okelly: pandering to reductionist views and adopting them as "a given" highlights the inadequacy of a simple dualistic A or B option and forces us to reconsider the common rejection of platonic form
[13:39] Mickorod Renard: or does he not exist just cos we cant?
[13:39] Hokon Cazalet: i think Hume said "reason is and ought to be a slave to the passions"
[13:39] Laila Schuman: Can we say that our culture is better than any other? Can we say our life is worth more than any other? I don't believe so........ can we? i say that people do it every day...all day long... in arrogance
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: she did not preach against benelovence, but argued that altruism did not exist
[13:40] ChatNoir Talon: Exactly, Laila.
[13:40] Mickorod Renard: compassion is also a human trait
[13:40] herman Bergson: After all these centuries of philosophy ..we made some progress, but we are still at the beginning
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: herman.. people are starting to tell me what they believe.. how can we know and what..?
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Herman, each question sought creates more
[13:41] ChatNoir Talon: That's philosophy for ya
[13:41] herman Bergson: Because of all I have lectured about now and all the questions we discussed I have come to a conclusion
[13:42] Hokon Cazalet: well, we ask for a reason to things, yet we then need a reason for those justifications, and so on
[13:42] herman Bergson: I concluded that the mind is a recursive system....
[13:42] herman Bergson: when you look at the index of the book of life and you look for mind you will read
[13:42] herman Bergson: Mind....See mind
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: lol
[13:42] Mickorod Renard: curse as in curse?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Hokon...
[13:43] ChatNoir Talon: hehe
[13:43] herman Bergson: As I said earlier...we constantly are biting in our own tail
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: have we become the dog chasing its tail for so long that our spines are bent in a fixed circle?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle.....that is my impression at the moment
[13:44] herman Bergson: and I try to understand it
[13:44] Mickorod Renard: philosophy has and is the mother
[13:45] ChatNoir Talon: So it's a) Ask ourselves why are we chasing the tail or B) Run around
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: if we could just look off to the side and break out of our revolving path
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: welll not much has changed since we started all this over a year ago
[13:45] herman Bergson: True Gemma...
[13:45] herman Bergson: Some has changed.....our ideas have become more diverse
[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: well,. i think more about those questions then I did before
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: that may be true
[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: so .. i still don't talk much more lol
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: and our understanding of diferent idea's
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: we have been exposed to many thoughts
[13:46] ChatNoir Talon: I think philosophy's not about getting the deep answers of life. But it makes us think better :-)
[13:46] Samuel Okelly: we are a driven ppl
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: but we come back to the questions over and over
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: I think change comes slowly, and it is those jewels for each individulas thought that makes the progress
[13:46] hope63 Shepherd: instead of simplifying our lifes by what we learn.. you complicated it herman..lol
[13:47] herman Bergson: that was my point today ChatNoir
[13:47] ChatNoir Talon: ^^ Nicely done, sir
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: well some of us think we have made progress
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Hope...hopelessly complicated it gets...hmmmmm
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: one hopes, Mick
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: just not in the same direction as you Ari
[13:47] Alarice Beaumont: well..the more one knows.. the moe one questions..
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: :)))
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: there are many paths
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: but isnt my direction the right one?
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: grin
[13:48] herman Bergson: Seeing the many ideas and possibilities makes life definitely more colorful
[13:48] ChatNoir Talon: Lol
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: I agree Herman
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: we all bend and affect each others path as we share ourselves with each other
[13:49] herman Bergson: So I think we have only one option....
[13:49] Samuel Okelly: hearing the views of others helps us to challenge what we believe or cement our beliefs more solidly
[13:49] herman Bergson: We have to continue our quest
[13:49] Mickorod Renard: do another year?
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed
[13:49] Mickorod Renard: yeaaa
[13:49] ChatNoir Talon: It's a neverending quest.. that's the fun of it :-)
[13:49] herman Bergson: there are still a number of women philosophers to come
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: you who isn't spoiled yet with 1 year of class hokon.. what do you think..
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: Did we include Jesus as a philosopher?
[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: hehe
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:50] ChatNoir Talon: So maybe the dog just chases its tail because its exerciting and it fun :P
[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: my cats go after their tails for fun
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: well, he certainly was that, Mick
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: I think my dog is insane
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: that's hard training for rl hokon..
[13:51] ChatNoir Talon: Why would Jesus work as a carpenter when he could make a fortune as a baker?
[13:51] Mickorod Renard: my dog is a selfish control freak
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: or with a mcdonalds..
[13:51] Hokon Cazalet: yummy
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: oh god
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: ,-)
[13:51] ChatNoir Talon giggles
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well I think that when we begin to think of MacDonnalds it is time to end our discussion ^_^
[13:52] Mickorod Renard: banker not baker?
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: yep !
[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: time for food =)
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks Herman
[13:52] ChatNoir Talon: No, baker
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly
[13:52] ChatNoir Talon: Thank you Herman!
[13:52] hope63 Shepherd: lol..
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your interest and participation today :-)

(017c Ayn Rand and Reason)

[This is a lecture from the project 25+ Women Philosophers, which was not copied from the former blog]

If there is one philosopher well represented on the Internet then it certainly is Ayn Rand. And not only in the Internet. There also is an Ayn Rand Institute, in Irvine California and The Objectivist Center in New York.

The information is overwhelming, but yet it makes me think too. Is this still about a philosophical discourse or are we dealing here with a doctrine, an ideology, a cult or a sekt, a political organization?

"The impact of Rand's ideas is difficult to measure, but it has been great. All of the books she published during her lifetime are still in print, have sold more than twenty million copies, and continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies each year. " A quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has a decent article on her.
So, let's focus on Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas. She describes her philosophy of Objectivism thus:
1.Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2.Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3.Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.

In short is means 1. Metaphysics: Realism, 2. Epistemology: Reason, 3: Ethics: Self-interest and 4. Politics: Capitalism. Let us focus on 1 and 2 for today.

In modern philosophy realism is used for the view that material objects exist externally to us and independently of our sense experience. Realism is thus opposed to Idealism, which holds that no such material objects or external relaties exist apart from our knowledge or consciousness of them.

It also clashes with phenomenalism which, while avoiding much idealist metaphysics, would deny that material objects exist except as groups or sequences of sensa, actual or possible.

What is the open philosophical nerve here? The claim of an "objective absolute". It is nothing more than a claim, not a statement of fact. There is no way of denying that the only source of knowledge we have is our individual sensory experience.

Perhaps our human situation is such that we cannot know anything beyond our experiences; perhaps we are, each one of us individually, confined to the theater of our own minds. Throwing reality on the table as an 'objective absolute' does not refute this observation.

Even more questionable is Ayn Rand's statement that "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality"
It sounds so obvious, that you are immediately inclined to say: sure... yes.. absolutely true. But let me ask you a simple question.... it says "reason is a means". We all will claim that we use our reason every day, but how does reason work? What kind of machinery is it?

Philosopy: Who Needs It, pg 62: "Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." Ayn Rand.

If this is a knowledge claim and I cant read it otherwise, I really have serious questions to ask, especially while Ayn Rand holds the view that we are born with an empty mind, a tabula rasa. All we know, we know by experience only. In other words..who sent her this revelation?

Let us first put it into historical perspective. Historically we have two kinds of reason. The 17th century philosophers like Descartes saw Reason as opposed to Experience, while the philosophers of the Enlightment saw Reason as opposed to Faith.

When we take an overall view of the work of Ayn Rand, her ardent condemnation of mysticism and religion, I would conclude that she uses the concept of reason in the way as the Enlightment philosophers like D'Alembert and Voltaire did: reason as opposed to faith.

That doesnt bring us much further, but it is a start. The question I still want to see answered is, how can we have knowledge of the existence of reason?

And there is more. What are human beings in a position to do, in virtue of their possesion of the faculty of reason? What , by means of reasoning, are we in a position to achieve?

In this form it becomes very clear that the question raises at least two highly disputable issues. First, it is far from immediately clear what reasoning is, on what occassion, in what activities or processes, reason is exercised.

And second, if we determine, probably with some degree of arbitrariness, what reasoning is, it may very well be highly disputable whether this or that can or cannot be achieved by reasoning.

So, in the end, saying that reason is the only guide man has to survive is not clarifying the human condition that much. And if reason is opposed to faith I even encounter a paradox in Randianism, for you have to accept the truth of her philosophical axioms in good faith, which is against reason.

The Discussion

[13:24] herman Bergson: So much on point 1 and 2 :-)
[13:24] Finding Nirvana chuckles
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: you can lol
[13:24] Anne Charles: I agree with Ms. Rand that religion is antithetical to
reason, and that is about all upon which we now agree.
Disclosure: In my youth, I was a militant ultra-right anti
-communist/socialist who agreed in total with Ms Rand, and I
have read "The Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged" and "We the
Living" to the last page.
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: if she were here she would dispute that
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have questions or remarks..feel free ^_^
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: applause..tonight we have had the best herman so far-- well he needed 3 lectures for that on ayn rand--
[13:25] ChatNoir Talon applauds too
[13:25] Samuel Okelly: You articulated exactly what I view as the contradictory nature of her approach so well herman and I’m sure it will come as no surprise that as a Christian, I find Rand’s views completely abhorrent, :)
[13:26] Hokon Cazalet: from what it sounds, she seems to advocate a tenent of logical positivism, that we structure sense data by as universal language of logic (which if true can come under attack by recent comments of quine and others)
[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you for your cheers....especially from Hope..
[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: I think her philosophy opposes 'subjectivism' in what ever form it takes inclulding religion
[13:26] herman Bergson: And yes Samuel, I can imagine how you feel about Rand
[13:27] Finding Nirvana: I acknowledge that it is hard to place a distinction between what we'd catergorize as faith and reason. Yet, my intuition tells me that 'reason' is being excecuted when you weigh the faith of others against your own. Is what I am proposing faith or reason? :)
[13:27] herman Bergson: well...my biggest problem with her philosophy nowadays is that it isnt a philosophical discourse anymore..it is a kind of belief....a cult or sekt
[13:27] herman Bergson: which is in absolute contradiction with the philosophy itself
[13:28] ChatNoir Talon: I love contradictions :-)
[13:28] herman Bergson: Finding...you introduce a new epistemic tool..intuition
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: many weak folks will seek out cults, it is the strong minded that investigates for their own empirical refinement
[13:28] ChatNoir Talon: How about instinct?
[13:28] Finding Nirvana: how is it new?
[13:28] Finding Nirvana: :)
[13:29] herman Bergson: we have reason...experience..and now intuition too
[13:29] herman Bergson: Oh yes Chatnoir..forgot
[13:29] ChatNoir Talon: We all knew how to suckle on our mothers breast to feed.. isn't that something? ;)
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: reason is where she cannot apply logik in certain cases but then applies her dictoriate (reason)
[13:29] Finding Nirvana: i feel that the human language, or the English language particularly, tends to complicate something which is simple to understand in essence
[13:30] Finding Nirvana: reason, feelings, beliefs, experience/memory, etc
[13:30] Samuel Okelly: personally i recognise the fundemental basis for both in the human experience (hence my "fides et ratio" tag) :0
[13:30] Finding Nirvana: they're all one thing in the end: Thought.
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: all things other than the facts are merely feelings
[13:30] Finding Nirvana: It's like a stream of consciousness.
[13:30] Hokon Cazalet: where does logic come from for rand btw, if its not innate, but used to order experience, where does it come from?
[13:31] Finding Nirvana: And with the phenomenon of the 'mind', we categorize to make things simpler to understand :)
[13:31] Finding Nirvana: that's where our reasoning comes in?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Hokon....these are fundamental questions indeed
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well... so we have some open ends here ....
[13:32] herman Bergson: Hokon's question..where did logic come from to assist reason?
[13:32] Finding Nirvana: as always, innit?
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: that is not new
[13:32] Finding Nirvana: :)
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, I see no open ends , only 'subjectivism'
[13:32] Finding Nirvana: that is the "open end!" :D
[13:32] Paula Dix: Finding i think something in this line also, the separations of mind parts are artificial
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: If you can not exhibit the facts then it is not 'objective'
[13:33] Finding Nirvana: yeap
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Paula...so you could say man is a theoretical construct
[13:33] ChatNoir Talon: Very well put, Ari
[13:33] Finding Nirvana: aristole
[13:33] Finding Nirvana: you speak much of facts
[13:33] Finding Nirvana: what is "fact" to you?
[13:33] Finding Nirvana: :)
[13:34] herman Bergson: One moment....
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: that is what Ms. Rand speaks of
[13:34] ChatNoir Talon: Oy, that's another thoughie
[13:34] herman Bergson: HOLD ON
[13:34] Finding Nirvana: i wasn't here for the
[13:34] Finding Nirvana: lol ok
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is the isssue of 'fact' indeed
[13:34] herman Bergson: Rand say 'a fact is a fact'
[13:34] herman Bergson: In a way that is her objectivism....
[13:35] herman Bergson: but objectivity..what is it....
[13:35] herman Bergson: John Locke had a briliant example....
[13:35] herman Bergson: you hold one hand in ice water...
[13:35] herman Bergson: the other hand in warm water
[13:35] Travieso Sella: So, next week you'll talk about the other two parts, herman or when is that?
[13:36] herman Bergson: then you put both hands in trepid water....
[13:36] herman Bergson: the observation then is..that you see ONE object....the bucket with both your hands in and you experience it in two ways...warm and cold
[13:37] Cailleach Shan: The question I still want to see answered is, how can we have knowledge of the existence of reason? Has your reason answered this question yet Herman?
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: a fact to me is something that I have personally experienced, Mr Locke's experimant merly confirms the phenomonm of illusion
[13:37] Paula Dix: great experiment!
[13:37] herman Bergson: so one mind can observe on object and have two different experiences..
[13:37] herman Bergson: this explains how two minds can see one object in two different ways....
[13:37] herman Bergson: what is the escape....????
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: reason is like thinking,' I reason, therefore I survive'
[13:38] Finding Nirvana: your fact doesn't seem very objective to be generalized, then, ari :)
[13:38] herman Bergson: Measurments.....
[13:38] herman Bergson: that is how science developed in those days...
[13:38] Travieso Sella: How often does this class meet?
[13:38] Paula Dix: thats where science came in i guess
[13:38] Samuel Okelly: it is an act of faith to hold that any sensory corresponds to an objective truth
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: Samuel.. when will men acknowledge the fast that all his sensory experiences are limited to what "they can experience..
[13:38] Finding Nirvana: hmmmm Samuel
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: faith has nothing to do with reason
[13:38] herman Bergson: No samuel....we even dont get that far...
[13:39] Finding Nirvana: u're such an aristotlean
[13:39] Finding Nirvana: :P
[13:39] Mickorod Renard: hi rodney
[13:39] herman Bergson: What we have reached by now it that we measure....calculate...
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Mick
[13:39] ChatNoir Talon's head hurts
[13:39] Samuel Okelly: :)
[13:39] Daruma Boa: hi rodney
[13:39] Mickorod Renard: i have a sneaky idea that reason and faith are very similar
[13:39] herman Bergson: you can say ..this feels cold ..I can say this feels warm...but we both say this is 20 degrees celcius
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: faith is a way for us to explain something we wish were true
[13:40] herman Bergson: a very sneaky idea Mickorod ^_^
[13:40] Mickorod Renard: its about choice
[13:40] Finding Nirvana: ahhh
[13:40] herman Bergson: So eventually we have a degree of intersubjectivity
[13:40] Samuel Okelly: we do not "choose" what we believe or have faith in
[13:41] Finding Nirvana: everything is subjective enough to have something in common between them :D
[13:41] Mickorod Renard: we do choose if we believe it
[13:41] Finding Nirvana: we're "alive" that is a facty
[13:41] Finding Nirvana: :D
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: I choose not to file somethings as fact until I have experienced it
[13:41] herman Bergson: To state it again....
[13:42] Finding Nirvana: is your fact supposed to be objective, then?
[13:42] Finding Nirvana: ari?
[13:42] herman Bergson: we all have our private expereince....as we are locked in in our own mind....
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: accorindg to Ms Rand facts are the basis of objectivisim
[13:42] herman Bergson: by measurements we get a mutual agreement about values...facts
[13:42] Cailleach Shan: lol sometimes experience can come from 'no mind'
[13:42] Paula Dix: hmmm even if i experience something i have to think a lot before accepting it as a fact :)
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Aristrotle, but what are facts?
[13:43] herman Bergson: she doesnt tell
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Paula....reasoning
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: the facts are a personal matter, and we each opine what they are
[13:43] herman Bergson: Like the word reason, when we hear the word fact we all think to know what it is all about
[13:43] Finding Nirvana smiles
[13:44] herman Bergson: That..Paula is just renaming your experience
[13:44] Mickorod Renard: many of us exist in a world where we trust in facts,,as they are told as being facts to us by scientists,,so we have faith in what they say
[13:44] Paula Dix: lol hence platos cave?
[13:44] Cailleach Shan: What if there is no such thing as 'facts' what if we just made it all up!!
[13:44] Finding Nirvana: :D
[13:44] Finding Nirvana: There is no spoon
[13:44] Mickorod Renard: or not
[13:44] ChatNoir Talon is so confused :-(
[13:44] Sluggy Easterwood: dictionary says facts are true statements
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: Mick, you can not believe everthing you hear ,
[13:45] Finding Nirvana: Bend your mind to bend the spooon
[13:45] Daruma Boa: lol
[13:45] herman Bergson: We did made it all up. Cailleach...
[13:45] Finding Nirvana: :D
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: lol, Clailleach
[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:45] Cailleach Shan: lol
[13:45] Mickorod Renard: exactly,,we have to have faith that someone has tested it
[13:45] Paula Dix: Mick, what we believe is that scientific community will really test the new info and confirm or deny
[13:45] Finding Nirvana: <3 Plato + The Matrix
[13:45] herman Bergson: but by means of intersubjective agreement we have some hold on an external world
[13:45] ChatNoir Talon: >_<
[13:45] Samuel Okelly: you couldnt make some of this stuff up herman ;-)
[13:45] Daruma Boa: keep te faith, oh yes
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: keep the reason
[13:45] Mickorod Renard: lots could be conspiracies
[13:46] Finding Nirvana: oooo
[13:46] Finding Nirvana: u want real conspiracy Mickorod?
[13:46] herman Bergson: True Samulel..I used books..:-)
[13:46] Finding Nirvana: watch Zeitgeist
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: some had faith in wall street
[13:46] Paula Dix: Perfect Herman, and science is the best way to get hold of whats real
[13:46] Finding Nirvana: both 2007 and 2008
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: we must be skeptical
[13:46] Onasander Belavidorico: facts are something we delegate on a polycentric level authority to- we cooperate with them to the scale our groupings can tolerate until they are codified by law- this is a form of fact- another fact it the brute forceo f reality telling you otherwise
[13:46] Finding Nirvana: um, paula, science started as beliefs as well
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: yea,,seen all that zieder poo
[13:46] Finding Nirvana: lol
[13:46] Onasander Belavidorico: the word fact is deceptive- it's not really one thing
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: I will confirmn ehat is told to me with my own empirical database or as many facts as I can gather
[13:47] herman Bergson: Science still is based on believes
[13:47] Finding Nirvana: indeed
[13:47] Paula Dix: true
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: but you cannot test everything in the world Ari
[13:47] Daruma Boa: hi tammy
[13:47] Paula Dix: like poor wegener was laughed until his death...
[13:47] Samuel Okelly: i think honest introspection informs us that the self is shaped by faith AND reason
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: only wht I am confronted with, Mick
[13:47] Finding Nirvana: it's science only when a whole bunmch of egomaniacs asserts that it's "the truth"
[13:47] Tammy Zipper: hi
[13:48] Paula Dix: now everybody talks like they agreed with continental drift forever
[13:48] Daruma Boa: mh, u stand on my legs...
[13:48] Tammy Zipper: thanks qwark
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: it is reasonable to use faith
[13:48] ChatNoir Talon: Faith is just belief in a thought
[13:48] herman Bergson: That is quite a different discussion Samuel
[13:48] Finding Nirvana: what does Faith tell you, people?
[13:48] Finding Nirvana: what does the heart say? :)
[13:48] Birgie Breck: yes Samuel... both faith and reason
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: Egomaniacs Anoymymous
[13:48] Finding Nirvana: to me, that's intuition
[13:48] Hokon Cazalet: its science when we have a method that gives us reliable information time and time again
[13:48] Samuel Okelly: :)
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: the heart?
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: that ayn rand is a dodgy character
[13:48] Cailleach Shan: Faith..... what's that?
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: is that like God?
[13:49] Finding Nirvana: metaphorically speaking
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ty herman
[13:49] Finding Nirvana: cuz we all know that the heart just speaks blood
[13:49] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark
[13:49] Daruma Boa: see u later q
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Q-man
[13:49] Paula Dix: faith isnt then a kind of reason? we do some leaps without complete evidences because that looks logical?
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: bye Qwark
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: bye.q--
[13:49] ChatNoir Talon: Have to go. Thank you Herman. It was a VERY confusing lesson but a really good one! ^^
[13:49] herman Bergson: Ok......
[13:49] Samuel Okelly: thank you herman! tc every1 :)
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: how coul faith ever be reasoned?
[13:50] herman Bergson: let's conclude our discussion....
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks, Professor
[13:50] Daruma Boa: thxs herman
[13:50] herman Bergson: there are a few philosopphical questions for you to contemplate...
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: thank you Herman..that was a cool session
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed
[13:50] Finding Nirvana: lol chatnoir
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[13:50] Finding Nirvana: philosophy is meant to confuse you :P
[13:50] Cailleach Shan: Good one people.
[[13:51] herman Bergson: the first one is that even when accepting an external world, we still are confinded tou our own mind
[13:51] Finding Nirvana: yep
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Herman, my mind is at the center of the universe
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: well Ari... if succeed 10 times in doing a special thing... don't you think you got faith in yourself that you can make it an 11. time?!
[13:51] herman Bergson: and second.....what kind of mechanism is reason..and how did we 'discover' it. with what means???
[13:51] Mickorod Renard: I have tested a fair rang of substance
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: ahh, Alarice, I call that confidence :)
[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: :-)
[13:52] Finding Nirvana: aristotleVon clearly speaks from a human-centric point of view
[13:52] Anja Amaterasu: Danke Professor für die Lehrstunde, aber jetzt muss ich noch schnell meinen neue Mammi besuchen und dann schell schlafen gehen
[13:52] Finding Nirvana: :)
[13:52] Paula Dix: Ona science is forever a work in progress, never says all answers are there
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks Finding :)
[13:52] Daruma Boa: lol
[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: i find the second question the most interesting one =)
[13:52] Daruma Boa: grüss schön anja^^
[13:52] Finding Nirvana: you're welcome
[13:52] Anja Amaterasu: =)))
[13:52] Onasander Belavidorico: some do say all the anwsers are there
[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: ty herman for the class
[13:52] Finding Nirvana: man.... i miss my philosophy class in RL
[13:52] Mickorod Renard: reason,,,mmmmmmm
[13:52] Finding Nirvana: fun talking about "what is ethics?"
[13:53] herman Bergson: My pleasure ..thank you for participating...:-)
[[13:53] herman Bergson: Next class will be on Rand Ethics
[13:53] Mickorod Renard: thanks herman..i will ponder over reason
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: i mean, i can't say that i haven't heard of this before ^_^"
[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: great .-)
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: tho
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: i must admit
[13:53] Ze Novikov: ty Herman
[13:53] Daruma Boa: why do humans alwasy searching for something??
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: that it's nice to hear Rand in details
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: lovely class, prof :)
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: details*
[13:53] Onasander Belavidorico: thanks for the class
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: Daruma
[13:53] Finding Nirvana: because we uh
[13:54] Finding Nirvana: "think"
[13:54] herman Bergson: thank you CONNIE :-)
[13:54] Mickorod Renard: ok must go,,bye all
[13:54] Paula Dix: Oh, dont trust militars, they have a department called Intelligence! :)))
[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:54] Finding Nirvana: that's the problem
[13:54] Finding Nirvana: :D
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Mick

04 Moral subjectivism( and your own Philosophical Program)

After our latest discussion I realized that it would be a good thing, when I bring forward my personal view on Modern Theories of Ethics. For a good understanding it may be helpful to know in what way I am partial or biased.

Today I'll put my personal views against those of moral relativism and in particular moral subjectivism, which you may call a subspecies of moral relativism.

As we have seen is moral relativism relatively new. The first steps towards a subjectivist interpretation of moral judgement has a longer history.

It was David Hume who came close to classic subjectivism: “X is good” means “I like X.” in "A Treatise of Human Nature "(1739).

- quote - "Since morals have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone can never have any such influence.

Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of reason.

Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relationship of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact.

Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason.

Now ‘tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement. ‘Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.

Thus the course of the argument leads us to conclude that, since virtue and vice are not discoverable by reason, it must be by means of some sentiment that we are able to mark the difference between them. Morality, therefore, is more properly felt than judged of."
- end quote -

The quintessence of moral subjectivism is that moral judgements are not factual statements about mind-independent qualities, but refer to attitudes of the individual person.

The hardest problem for moral subjectivism is to explain, how moral judgements can have authority over others. Hume himself found this problem on his path and tried to solve it more or less by saying:

-quote- "The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation, and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it. This is the sentiment of humanity." -end quote- An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751)

These thoughts of Hume had a great impact on modern theories of ethics and you'll find them in many variations in all kinds of subjectivist theories.

After only this few lectures on modern theories of ethics I cant ignore the feeling that I explicitly have to take a position in this discourse. Talking about these subjects is completely different from what I have done sofar.

Besides that it is important to have a philosophical program of your own. Those who have attended my lectures for some time, may have some idea what my personal program is, but with respect to this subject, ethics, I want to be explicit about it.

Although philosophers always are put in some ISM (empiricism, rationalism, existentialism) does this not mean that they had clear-cut theories about every philosophical question according to their "ism". It is us who love to organize philosophical thinking in 'isms"

To define you personal philosophical program, your way of philosophical dealing with for instance moral judgements, you may discover that you feel more attracted to certain arguments and more in disagreement with other arguments, even tho you may not yet have a good explanation for your preferences.

I hold the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false and that that ethical sentences express propositions about mind-independent facts of the world. Thence you may classify me as someone who believes that moral realism holds the best cards.

This is closely associated with my ontological standpoint that we are just matter and that we have to look for (philosophical) answers at evolution theory, biology, ethology, psychology and neurophysiology for instance.

This doesn't mean that I only need to read the few articles on moral realism and materialism and I'll have all my philosophical answers. This would turn philosophy into some kind of religion.

The contrary is actually the case: the more lectures I give the more desperate I become. There are so many arguments for and against ideas. However, what saves me from insanity, is my personal philosophical program.

In fact it is a rather pragmatic solution. In your personal history you discover, that you are inclined to prefer certain (philosophical) ideas above others. Don't waste time on questioning where that inclination has come from.

A personal philosophical program means not only that you study as much as possible what supports your ideas (that is only to make you feel good:-)

but especially, that you - in an almost Popperian mode - focus on what is brought AGAINST your ideas and are willing to enter the philosophical debate.

And in a way you may discover, that we may never find the definite truth, but that a good argumentation can make some philosophical standpoint untenable, which observation brings you closer to your personal views.

So, from this perspective I will present you my lectures on Modern Theories of Ethics.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you ^_^
[13:21] Apmel Ibbetson: wow..
[13:21] herman Bergson: If you have questions or remarks..plz fele free..
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well... I didnt silence you, did I ? ㋡
[13:22] Apmel Ibbetson: you seem to have done just that :)
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: so, philosophical and maybe mathematical objects are real
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes....seems so, Apmel
[13:23] oola Neruda: does this approach mean that all people will adhere to the same morality?
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: at least in the sense that they have phenomenal analog?
[13:23] herman Bergson: two questions...
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: analogs?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Why do you come to that conclusion, Repose?
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: well, math "works"
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: non-Euclidean geometry was discovered
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: before it was used to model the world
[13:25] herman Bergson: that is a debate "discovered" or "invented" ?
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: would a realist say "discovered"?
[13:25] Kurk Mumfuzz: would it exist if our species did not...?
[13:26] herman Bergson: I have to think about that....
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: I don't know
[13:26] herman Bergson: in a way I would say yes...
[13:26] Startwinkle Aya: natural laws are there wether we are or not
[13:26] herman Bergson: there are two parties here....the mind and reality...
[13:26] Apmel Ibbetson: I´ve been away for two years..but I missed that herman said he was a mathematical realist just now
[13:26] herman Bergson: the math may be the result of the interaction between the two
[13:27] Apmel Ibbetson: he said he was a ethical realist
[13:27] Kurk Mumfuzz: but it is merely our interpretation of those laws... a feeble grasp, at best... ㋡
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: true Apmel
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Apmel...
[13:27] herman Bergson: but ontologically I can be called a realist or naturalist I suppose
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: but does the argument apply to philosophical and thus ethical objects, i wonder
[13:27] herman Bergson: But to answer oola's question...
[13:28] herman Bergson: That is in fact one of the main issues...
[13:28] herman Bergson: Hume had to take refuge to an idea of humanity....a kind of universal human quality
[13:29] herman Bergson: In another way I am inclined to follow that idea...
[13:29] oola Neruda: that is what i was wondering
[13:29] herman Bergson: I mean, regarded as a basic ingredient of an organims
[13:29] herman Bergson: It doesnt mean that I know what these basics are
[13:30] herman Bergson: But exactly that is my program...
[13:30] herman Bergson: It might take a lifetime to get the answer or get close to an answer...
[13:30] Kurk Mumfuzz: i am a bit uncomfortable with the notion that ethics is determined by a social consensus… what if that concensus is wrong...?
[13:30] herman Bergson: But that makes the philosopher tick ㋡
[13:31] Apmel Ibbetson: I´m with you on that one Kurk
[13:31] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that ethics is determined by social consensus
[13:31] herman Bergson: part of it is, you could say, determined by culture
[13:32] Milo Threebeards: Social consensus = mores for the society at the time represented. You can apply the ethics term to that if you like. Throughout history as we move on these things change
[13:32] herman Bergson: But as Hans Küng already believed....there is some general or universal ethics
[13:32] herman Bergson: In fact something like Hume also refered to
[13:33] herman Bergson: At least speaking for myself, I think that the human organism is universal in its qualities to some extend..
[13:33] herman Bergson: like we all have two legs and two eyes
[13:33] Apmel Ibbetson: so ethics is the same as species?
[13:33] herman Bergson: So to some extend the body has a universal shape
[13:34] herman Bergson: I am inclined to focus my research on that idea Apmel
[13:34] Apmel Ibbetson: ok..daring answer
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: Milo makes a good point...
[13:35] herman Bergson: And that is the important point Milo....
[13:35] herman Bergson: would you say that we have a different idea of ethics than for instance the Greek 300 B.C?
[13:36] Milo Threebeards: Well ethics are usually represented by the majority of what society believes is correct. I think that the basics remain the same but do bend
[13:37] Milo Threebeards: For example issues of clothing and appearance as opposed to crime and punishment
[13:37] herman Bergson: I agree Milo.....that is what in the former lecture was pointed at...
[13:37] herman Bergson: the philosophy of today on ethics holds a number of thinkers, who believe in a mixed situation
[13:38] Kurk Mumfuzz: there may be reason to believe that emergin ethical perspectives are like evolutional abberations… a radical awareness that behavior and thought must be changed in order to survive...
[13:38] herman Bergson: on the one hand there isa layer of subjectivism / relativism an don the other hand there is some objectivity yet
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Kurk...another chapter...the relation between ethics and evolution
[13:39] Kurk Mumfuzz: k... ㋡
[13:39] herman Bergson: I believe there definitely is one, tho I stilll havent got answers
[13:40] herman Bergson: but it is part of my program
[13:40] Kurk Mumfuzz: well, it strongly suggests that ethics is an on-going strugle to maintain...
[13:41] herman Bergson: Who knows...
[13:41] herman Bergson: But in Science fiction they sometimes come up with the idea that mankind will evolve in a kind of MIND only beings
[13:42] Kurk Mumfuzz: i think the maintenance of ethical systems is real... not fiction...
[13:42] Kurk Mumfuzz: e.g., when we invented nuclear weapons, notions of "limited violence" became fashionable...
[13:43] herman Bergson: but that was just a variation on what we already do for centuries
[13:43] oola Neruda: last week i wanted to bring up Oppenheimer… and his delimia
[13:43] herman Bergson: we kill justified and unjustified
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes...it must be a terribly difficult situation when you know you use physics only to make something very destructive
[13:44] herman Bergson: ethics in the weapon industry..
[13:45] herman Bergson: sounds almost contradictory
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: ambiguous
[13:45] Kurk Mumfuzz: but there is an ethical system there... we may not see or understand it... but it exists...
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: too
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:46] herman Bergson: There definitely will exist some rationalizzation
[13:46] Apmel Ibbetson: maybe that is what ethics is all about?
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: is ethical rationalization still ethics?
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Apmel......a kind of rationalization of our animalistic drives
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: oh...
[13:47] Apmel Ibbetson: hmm..we seem to agree a lot today herman :)
[13:47] Kurk Mumfuzz: well, that is the interesting part... Hume tells us it cannot be rationalized... but I will bet their ethical system in the weapons industry is chillingly rational...
[13:47] Kurk Mumfuzz: ㋡
[13:47] Frederick Hansome: it seems that the ultimate question relates to what we base our ethical position on.
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes interesting subject....
[13:48] Frederick Hansome: who (or what) is to say one criteria is preferabel to another
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well...at least I have made clear what my philosphical starting point is in this project
[13:49] herman Bergson: That, Frederick, is in fact the whole debate in ethics
[13:49] Frederick Hansome: well, please give us the definitive answer! :)
[13:50] oola Neruda: smiles
[13:50] herman Bergson: as we saw with cultural relativism...there is no criterium to decide by....
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:50] herman Bergson: Yoy are asking too much, Frederick
[13:50] Frederick Hansome: smiles
[13:50] herman Bergson: But in fact is that your personal program....
[13:51] herman Bergson: You have to put your ideas to the test
[13:51] Apmel Ibbetson: not really herman..you said you were an ethical realist..so that must be some "true" ethics then?
[13:51] herman Bergson: the only tool you have is logical argumentation
[13:52] Frederick Hansome: but virtue and ethics do not lend themselves to logic
[13:52] herman Bergson: ethical realist means that moral judgements have mind-independent references...
[13:52] herman Bergson: Like for instance Philippa Foot suggested that a value word like 'rude' or 'courageous' have empirical content
[13:53] herman Bergson: besides their function as value word
[13:53] Kurk Mumfuzz: to me that suggests that i cannot predict what decision you might make in any given question...
[13:53] Apmel Ibbetson: yes..and if it does..then you can try to find the true corrrespondens to that fact
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Apmel and thus become moral judgements rationally debatable..
[13:54] herman Bergson: This is therefore contrary to Hume's idea
[13:55] Startwinkle Aya: im needed i must go be well all
[13:55] Kurk Mumfuzz: but how do we communicate that to others to establish the consensus of what is right and what is not...? make rules...?
[13:56] herman Bergson: If moral judgements are rationally debatable, we can use logical argumentation
[13:56] herman Bergson: Which in fact already happens in all kinds of negociations
[13:57] oola Neruda: i think it could be hard to tell a logical argument from some rationalizations
[13:57] Kurk Mumfuzz: if i tell you that i am an epicurian hedonist, then we have a place to begin a discussion of my ethical system... where do we begin with a "ethical realist"...?
[13:58] herman Bergson: Oh...there are millions of obstacles oola....but the point is to follow that idea and put it to the test yet
[13:58] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:59] herman Bergson: Maybe with a debate on the empirical mind-independent content of moral judgements
[14:00] Frederick Hansome: sorty, have to leave
[14:00] herman Bergson: How to justify that....analyze the semantics of moral judgements
[[14:00] Violette McMinnar: Good night all
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: "realist" is an epistemological term, right? to know where to start with an ethical realist, do we need to know his or her ontology?
[14:00] herman Bergson: Ok....I guess our time is up for today :-)
[14:01] herman Bergson: May I thank you for your participation
[14:01] Kurk Mumfuzz: ㋡ thank you for this... :)
[14:01] itsme Frederix: thank you for the lecture
[14:01] Apmel Ibbetson: thank you herman..
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[14:01] Apmel Ibbetson: I´ll try to be back sooner than two years from now:)
[14:01] oola Neruda: thank you for allowing us to see your point of view in this
[14:01] herman Bergson: yes Repose..the qualification 'realisme' has many ramifications
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: Yes, thanks for the personal view, Prof
[14:02] herman Bergson: especially it is an important concept in epistemology
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yes, picked that up from the bits of reading i do...
[14:03] Kurk Mumfuzz: k.. take care, all... ㋡
[14:03] herman Bergson: You can find a number of lectures on realism in the blog of the philosophy class Repose :-)
[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Kurk
[14:04] Repose Lionheart: Thanks, I look them up!
[14:04] Apmel Ibbetson: bye all
[14:04] Repose Lionheart: them
[14:04] herman Bergson: Bye Apmel...
[14:05] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman! :-)

03 Another analysis

Thesis 1:As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be.

The meta-ethical position usually concerns the truth or justification of moral judgments, which leads to

Thesis 2: The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

These are two theses which deal with different aspects of epistemology. T1 focuses on the question: What can I know, in which it assumes that sensory experiences is the source of our knowledge.

T2 assumes that we obtain data by sensory experiences and that we can formulate statements with truth-value based on them. Thence it asks how truth is established.

T1 registers that in some cultures you see that there is polygamy and in others there is not, which leads to a conclusion that monogamy is not a universal standard. T2 goes on step further and says "Polygamy is morally wrong".

When you say that this statement is true, T2 says that the truth is relative to a specific culture. Even stronger…we have no rational basis to decide on the fact that in culture A it is true, and in culture B it is false, with the more complicating factor that is can be relative to a group or different persons in one group even.

Against T2 we can bring forward moral objectivism, which holds that rationally we can prove that moral judgments are ordinarily true or false in an absolute or universal sense.

Or we can use even a heavier attack and claim that moral judgements can not have truth-value at all, because they are completely different from descriptive statements as used in science, like "The distance between the Moon and Earth is n km".

First of all we can challenge the focus on disagreement in T1. Before you can disagree with someone there must be a lot of agreement first, otherwise you could not even communicate with that other person as the meaning of every word could be challenged then.

If this is right, there cannot be extensive disagreements about morality. The agreements are more significant than the disagreements. T1 cannot be true.

Another way of criticism we encountered in Philippa Foot (1978) in my lecture on her ideas. She holds that words like 'good' or 'rude' or 'brave' not only have an evaluative content, but also a descriptive content.

This enables us to unveil the agreement we can have on moral terms based on the descriptive content of the term, which means the behavior, actions it refers to.

Again a reason to reject moral or cultural relativism is that it may be said that the supposed evidence is incomplete or inaccurate because the observers are biased.

For instance based on the fact that our language doesn't have words for certain phenomena in another culture and that the words we use represent them in a biased and colored way.

An other argument against the empirical evidence on which T1 is based is the anthropological assumption that cultures are rather discrete, homogenous, and static entities.

There are arguments to hold that a culture is an ongoing process, which changes and can be influenced and if this is so, it would be much harder to know the moral values of different cultures and to prove that the disagreements prevail.

Besides, these disagreements between cultures can also be caused by religious differences and that for instance the underlying conviction, that a person for instance has a right to his life can count on a general agreement.

And from that you can even go one step further and hold that the opposite of T1 is an empirical fact: there is a lot of agreement on fundamental moral values.

Take the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. You'll find it in many cultures like basic moral prohibitions against lying, stealing, adultery, killing human beings, etc.

Hans Küng (1996) and others even maintain that there is a common “global ethic” across the world's major religious traditions. As you see, there are a lot of ways to critizise T1.

This objectivist standpoint, the view that there is some kind of independent moral standard, leads to the conclusion, that we rationally could discuss moral disagreements.

By testing moral judgement against an objective standard you can rationally conclude that judgement A is right and judgement B is wrong.

A relativist would admit that it might be possible to resolve disagreements within one moral framework, but not when these judgements are taken from different moral frameworks.

Another consequence of an objectivist standpoint is that there only one right moral standard, which implies that this standard has to be superior to other moral standards.

In reality we see this idea about ethics expressed in matters as Universal Human Rights and the activities of Amnesty International,

or in the worldwide actions agains global warming. It seems that about all nations are convinced that the moral standard that one should preserve and protect life a universal moral standard is.

This may be a somewhat long and complicated lecture, but we cant escape that: the thesis that moral disagreements prevail and can not rationally resolved is easily stated, but way more difficult to defend, which counts for most philosophical standpoints.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: So, I guess this is enough to give you a headache ㋡
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a remark or question...plz
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: re: global warming -- the end of life is the end of moral possibility. Pretty easy to agree on that...
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: but something that CAN be agreed upon...
[13:24] Abraxas Nagy: is it?
[13:24] herman Bergson: I think that there are moral motivations involved
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: no?
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: so one objective standard we will have is the person's right to life
[13:24] Frederick Hansome: You mentioned testing moral judgement against an objective standard. What would an objective standard look like?
[13:24] Prof Cerise: but a person's right to life may be waived in war
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well Gemma....the quintessence is indeed if it is possible to get to objective standards
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: or seppuku
[13:25] herman Bergson: moral relativism denies that
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but even now in some countries that is completely ignored
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: still ethnic cleansing
[13:25] herman Bergson: That may be true, but you still can ask the question : is that right
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: true
[13:25] herman Bergson: Besides...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Things as ethnic cleansing is most of the time motivated by religious or ideological views
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: that means that the underlying moral judgements...a right to live for instance are not accessible rationally
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes...
[13:28] herman Bergson: What strikes me in the debate is that many philosophers try to stick to one approach
[13:28] Prof Cerise: but if arguments can be made for a person's right to life even from within a culture, rational grounds are given
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: buried still in myth...
[13:28] herman Bergson: it is either relativism or objectivism
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: nothing between???
[13:28] Prof Cerise: I agree. False dichotomy
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:29] herman Bergson: There are however a few these days who hold that some standards are universal, objective and others can be relative
[13:30] Prof Cerise: any normative standard we hold is always taken to be universal
[13:30] herman Bergson: In the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia you can find some names
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: always?
[13:30] herman Bergson: I wonder.....
[13:30] Prof Cerise: well, it doesn't mean that it is unchangeable though
[13:30] herman Bergson: Universal for the person who holds the moral standard yes...
[13:31] Prof Cerise: yes
[13:31] herman Bergson: but if=n fact is that just a form of subjectivism
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...so what does that say about the claim to universality, then?
[13:31] herman Bergson: YEs Repose....
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: if it is changeable?
[13:32] herman Bergson: the thing is that certain moral judgements claim authority..
[13:32] herman Bergson: claim
[13:32] herman Bergson: and the question is....on what is this authority based
[13:32] Prof Cerise: what about the notion of contextualized universality?
[13:32] herman Bergson: what is the justification of that authority
[13:33] herman Bergson: Would that not be a kind of relativism Prof?
[13:33] Prof Cerise: how about a kind of split between relativism and absolutism?
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: split?
[13:33] Prof Cerise: not absolutely relative, not absolutely absolute
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is in fact one of the modern developments in the philosophical discourse on ethics
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: Coleridge: The hallmark of a mature mind is its ability to tolerate ambiguity"
[13:34] herman Bergson: Personally I am inclined to look at evolutionary factors in human behavior
[13:34] Prof Cerise: it also allow for change in our morals based on the change in context
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: I prefer "embrace"
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: we do a lot of that here repose
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:35] herman Bergson smiles
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: i swim in it, Gemma :))
[13:35] herman Bergson: I am inclined to look for moral justification in our biology
[13:36] Prof Cerise: how so?
[13:36] herman Bergson: As the basic drives of a living organism
[13:36] Prof Cerise: is does not derive ought
[13:36] herman Bergson: in our evolution we have learnt to stick to certain rules
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: wondered about that myself
[13:37] herman Bergson: No...the OUGHT is a human invention
[13:37] herman Bergson: a product of the mind
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: everything is a product of the mind
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: that is an assumption, though
[13:37] Prof Cerise: of course, but you still cannot derive morals from facts, can you?
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: sure
[13:38] herman Bergson: that is what Hume already noticed , yes..
[13:38] Startwinkle Aya: there are natural laws too
[13:38] Prof Cerise: just because something is a certain way does not mean it "should" be that way
[13:38] herman Bergson: But this implies that moral statements are factual statement
[13:38] herman Bergson: or actually not
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: naturalistic fallacy, yes -- but ethics may ultimately ground in the transrational
[13:38] Prof Cerise: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Like Hare suggested....moral judgements are prescriptive statements...commands
[13:38] Prof Cerise: transrational?
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: molecules may be 8 shapes at once
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: moral life can't be 2?
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: is/ought?
[13:39] Startwinkle Aya: why not?
[13:39] Startwinkle Aya: for each concept
[13:39] Prof Cerise: but hare was an emotivist, right?
[13:39] Startwinkle Aya: each view
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes
[13:40] Prof Cerise: so he wasn't keen on normative judgments at all
[13:40] herman Bergson: but a fact is that we are organisms guided by rules, by normativity
[13:40] Prof Cerise: but we still want to say that killing is wrong is an appropriate moral standard
[13:41] Prof Cerise: aren't rules norms?
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes
[13:41] Prof Cerise: ah, sorry...misread
[13:41] herman Bergson: if you take the thesis: killing is wrong
[13:41] Prof Cerise: yes, we are guided by rules, but we can still question them and look for rational basis
[13:41] herman Bergson: would that be universally accepted?
[13:42] Prof Cerise: and without a rational basis, they would be unjustified
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is the point Prof....
[13:42] Prof Cerise: so back to biology...
[13:42] herman Bergson: we say killing is wrong, but.....and then our (irr)rationality kicks in :-)
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: what grounds reason, then?
[13:42] Prof Cerise: how can you rationally ground a moral norm in biological facts?
[13:43] Startwinkle Aya: needs
[13:43] herman Bergson: this has several aspects...
[13:43] herman Bergson: the first is a descriptive approach...
[13:43] herman Bergson: the human organism behaves
[13:44] herman Bergson: does things and leaves other actions...
[13:44] herman Bergson: so we choose.....have motives for actions
[13:44] herman Bergson: and this can be regarded as a product of evolution
[13:45] Prof Cerise: so where does normativity come in?
[13:45] herman Bergson: where we have complicated our lives in respect to other primates by the fact that we can question our motives and actions
[13:45] herman Bergson: the normativity would come from survival
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: it is self-reflexive?
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are....
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: i see your position...
[13:46] Prof Cerise: but the fact of a survival instinct does not justify any standard, right?
[13:46] Prof Cerise: I am trying to understand
[13:47] herman Bergson: so eventually you could conclude that moral s is learnt behavior
[13:47] Prof Cerise: Yes
[13:47] herman Bergson: and not based on a specific culture....that is the surface
[13:47] herman Bergson: but based on human nature in a biological sense
[13:48] Prof Cerise: but whenever we talk about justification, we surpass facticity and learned behavior
[13:48] Lovey Dayafter: what is the topic for next time?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting
[13:48] Prof Cerise: so how can we ever have a justified moral law?
[13:49] Prof Cerise: or do we just have to say that we have moral laws (simpliciter) and not ask for their rational bases?
[13:49] herman Bergson: well...that depends on what you mean with justification...
[13:49] Prof Cerise: yes it does
[13:50] Prof Cerise: justification would involve anything with reasons
[13:50] herman Bergson: if it is logical deducability…that might be difficult unless you accept normativity in the premisses
[13:50] Prof Cerise: and these reasons could very well be contextualized (actually, they would always have to be)
[13:51] herman Bergson: and this normativity could be biologically justified
[13:51] Prof Cerise: how would biology justify "thou shall not steal?"
[13:52] herman Bergson: that would be behavioristically justified
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: sociobiologists could probably find a way, Prof C. I wouldn't find it compelling, most likely...
[13:52] herman Bergson: the organism has learnt that it does not contribute to its survival in the long term
[13:53] herman Bergson: dont ask me for all answers... ㋡
[13:53] Prof Cerise: :)
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:53] herman Bergson: I only can give you my tentative frame of mind
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: we are a young species!
[13:53] Prof Cerise: lol
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:53] herman Bergson: Oh yes...
[13:54] herman Bergson: human development has been very slow
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: mmm are we?
[13:54] Sartre Placebo: night
[13:54] herman Bergson: some arent Abraxas
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: new science: evolution speeded up 500% in past 10k years psyorg.com
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to go to the newspaper for a meeting now
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: i will be here thursday
[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok...
[13:55] Lovey Dayafter: c u Gemma
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: bye, Gemma!
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma :-)
[13:55] Prof Cerise: bye gemma
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: poof
[13:55] Startwinkle Aya: bye gamma, waves
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: SLN!
[13:55] herman Bergson: I think it is time to dismiss class
[13:56] herman Bergson: I hope all this has given you enough to think about :-)
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Yes, Prof
[13:56] herman Bergson: Then I thank you for your participation again
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:57] Prof Cerise: thanks professor!
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: oh yes! tysm! herman
[13:57] Frederick Hansome: nite, all. Thank you, herman
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: Thank you!
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: nite Fred
[13:57] Startwinkle Aya: be well all
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye frederick :-)
[13:57] Violette McMinnar: Thank you Herman, good night all
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: WOOOOOOOO
[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye StarTwinkle
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: free flight