Intelligent Design Krauss Ousted Posted on August 4, 2018August 6, 2018 Author Barry ArringtonComments(21) Spread the loveHeadline in azcentral: Renowned ASU professor Lawrence Krauss ousted from post after sex misconduct claims
21 Replies to “Krauss Ousted”
From a moral subjectivist point of view I don’t see what’s so wrong with Krauss’ behavior. Nor do I see anything wrong from a so-called evolutionary ethics point of view. I mean isn’t “groping women, ogling and making sexist jokes,” just evolved ape behavior?
PS I am not a moral subjectivist nor someone who believes in evolutionary ethics. I am just trying to see these allegations from the point of view of one of Krauss’ defenders.
john_a_designer @ 1
It’s that is/ought gap again. The fact that this is the way some male apes behave does not mean that is how we should behave towards one another in society. As for moral objections, if there are women who found his behavior offensive and alarming then that is more than sufficient justification for taking some sort of action against him. What I cannot understand is how apparently intelligent men like him seem to lack the empathy to understand how some women might find these approaches unwelcome.
Institutions also tend not to want to be associated with people who behave as Krauss allegedly does. They find it to be harmful to their long-term interest.
People would not want their female loved ones to be assaulted by such a person, which is another reason for giving him the heave-ho.
I think there are a number of reasons to shun Krauss aside from moral ones.
Subjectivism = selfishness. For the rational person, the moral code informs his behavior; for the irrational person, his behavior informs his moral code.
Hey, a dog’s gotta do what a dog’s gotta do. Right? /sarc
Seversky: What I cannot understand is how apparently intelligent men like him seem to lack the empathy to understand how some women might find these approaches unwelcome.
Empathy? Why should anyone care about that? God is dead.
“Male apes” explains it all. That is the whole problem, right there. The overwhelming desire to be an ape.
And people wonder why there are problems in society
To expand on Seversky’s point, it turns out that women typically find being groped unpleasant. So a man who too aggressively touches women just might end up receiving a knee to the groin rather than an opportunity to boost his fitness level, if you know what I mean. The successful ape/man will have to moderate his behavior accordingly.
Sev: The fact that this is the way some male apes behave does not mean that is how we should behave towards one another in society.
Why not? It seems to work for the apes just fine.
Folks, A sad development. I trust process was fair and conclusions well warranted as a basis for actions taken. What steps for counselling and family support, as such likely would affect LK and his family, not just the victims. I think we need to be moving to a rehabilitative model, maybe on the 12-step type approach. KF
PS: Though, certain behaviours undermine credibility for positions of high trust, permanently, cf Colson post Watergate.
thanks for your serious comments (9&10) on this unpleasant topic.
You guys are not backing away from ape-man evolutionary ethics, so that’s good. Consistent.
So, a man will not assault a woman because the woman will defend herself and may hurt him. So, to protect his own groin, evolution will make him not attack her.
In simple terms – that is horrifying. But it’s everything we know about evolution and it is why we hate it (or at least I do). It destroys human sensibility. Forget morality. Evolutionary thought is an entirely novel and bizarre concept that wipes out all of the moral learning and development of human history. All of the subtle insight gained from religious and spiritual thought on moral growth – gone.
It’s just ape-men groping ape-women.
For those of us who want to follow and serve our Savior, this kind of story should raise a red flag warning us to watch out, because we are also imperfect sinful human beings.
We are not better than the professor that transgressed against another person. Hence we should ask God to keep our spiritual sight fixed on Jesus so that we bring praise and glory to Him.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28 (NKJV)
“For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” 1 John 2:16 (NKJV)
“that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.” 1 Thessalonians 4:4-6 (NKJV)
“and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Romans 1:23-25 (NKJV)
I’m not saying that morality doesn’t play a role—I believe it almost always does (except in cases of sociopathy, perhaps). I don’t abstain from groping simply because of the risk of getting kneed or slapped. That’s actually a relatively minor consideration. Much more importantly, I understand that it causes harm to women, and I don’t want to harm anyone, because I empathize with other people.
I’m just pointing out that there are reasons aside from morality to abstain from groping women. Essentially, it’s against one’s own self-interest to do so.
No sympathy for Krauss here. Never did like the guy.
Understood. However, I think when you add “empathy” into the supposed evolutionary development from ape to man it creates even more explanatory problems.
A reader writes to say that on p. 44 of Richard Weikart’s book, The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life, we find a passage on Krauss’s views on sexual morality: In an interview, he once stated: “I think that science can either modify or determine our moral convictions. The fact that infidelity, for example, is a fact of biology must, for any thinking person, modify any ‘absolute’ condemnation of it.”
This would seem to follow from Darwinian sexual selection theory. It fails to take into account that in any human setting, what human beings think of behavior actually matters.
Excellent point in comment at #17.
Well stated. Thanks.
I went to ASU the man was incredibly pushy, quite frankly I never liked him and I found him to be abrasive and very very annoying. I find this a very ironic.
So if all we are is a product of evolution that Prof Krauss`s desires and actions were a product of evolution.
His evolved brain told him groping is good it may even lead to passing on his genes to the next generation so why on earth would he not engage in this behaviour.If his highly evolved brain gave him these desires and then told him to act on these desires why on earth would he not do it.
“The fact that this is the way some male apes behave does not mean that is how we should behave towards one another in society.”
This statement by you is interesting. And followed up well by others.
Male apes, monkeys, etc., exhibit homosexuality in the wild. Therefore I’ve seen it stated it is in human nature as well as a result of our ancestral history. That it’s natural humans have homosexual activity and we must accept it as being natural.
In fact, schools, leaders, politicians, media, activist groups all teach now if you do not accept it, you are homophobic, a bigot, you are hated, fired, ostracized and essentially black-listed in some areas, indeed “re-educated” and sent to “sensitivity” training. You are forced by homosexual activist to accept abnormal sex as being normal, or lose your job, everything in some places.
How do you reconcile one form of sexual activity evolved over time by unguided, blind events as non-acceptable?
While demanding another form of sexual activity be acceptable based upon Darwinist, unguided, blind events?
Aren’t both actions in our DNA according to Darwinist?
Darwinist like to have their cake and eat it too.
Seems quite a mess of hodge-podge, just-so stories. Make it up as you go fairy tales.