Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
I don't intend to keep replying, but I will say this: that for the most part I don't think the antagonism is directed at me personally as much as it is an antagonistic intolerance of anyone who holds a philosophical perspective different from the mainstream one on this site.Viola Lee
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Andrew @255. I agree that is essential. We've always had people join here with zero interest in ID. And there are always the Christ-haters. You'll be waiting by the phone until eternity to get them to admit that.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
KF
Dead silence and on to some new thread.
I try to interpret silence as, I'd hope, a response to something unanswerable because of its truth. Maybe, in the best case, the person wants to think about the challenging post, so they're quiet. It can be a signal that the person has been corrected (I'd wish for an acknowledgement). In the worst case, it's the prelude for a distraction to switch the topic and avoid the discomfort of being corrected. It could also be that the person doesn't know what to say because they don't understand. They could ask for an explanation in that case though.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Speaking of antagonism, some commenters are here to oppose what UD presents, which is pro-ID content. I would like to see some honesty from these commenters as to why they are here, which would save a lot of comment space. I'll wait by the phone. Andrewasauber
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
KF Great thoughts, as always.
I notice, there was very little to say to what the Russian Chief of General Staff had to say about colour revolutions backed up by a notorious leaked phone call between US big wigs on the Ukraine where US Diplomats were literally vetting cabinet appointments c 2014.
I was shocked to learn about that move to replace the duly elected president with a choice favorable to American politics. Then to follow that with an abolition of the Russian language in that region is really and literally a culture war. This even has been covered-up since it occurred, even after we see its effects in the on-going war.
But, if you are going to be the good man/woman in the storm, per Ac 27, sometimes you have to be willing to lose the debate and vote when a tempting voyage of folly is on the table; backed by money and power, being presented by bought and paid for technicos and publicists.
That's true and it points to the necessity of justice and right-reason. I have read just today that Prime Minister Trudeau has implemented a rule that requires all Canadian journalists to be licensed by the government. Clearly, that will destroy the necessary role of the media as a watchdog on government. When the corrupt government has a partisan media bought and paid for by their own illicitly gained funds, then justice and truth suffers. The remedy has to fall to the average citizen to pursue a virtuous life and be willing to take risks for the truth. Blogs like this are a firewall against government encroachment on information-exchange, although even independent blogs could be suppressed as their are by the CCP.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
VL I do not feel any antagonism towards you at all. I can see no reason for that. You haven't said anything deserving of such. I've just tried to explain my point of view. The question came up as to why certain ideas are not accepted here and why certain posts may seem repetitive. I try to use the approach that will best help others to understand what I'm saying. Of course there's opposition from the anti-ID side. I always hope to get past that if possible. Sometimes the fault is with my explanation and sometimes it is with the person I'm writing to. The points on discussion technique I offer in the hopes of improving my communication skills on this topic. Again, it is in no way directed as a criticism of you personally. ... and just some context - I've been arguing with atheists on-line for 15 years so I have tried to learn from the experience as best I can.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
the antagonism that is felt towards me is too strong, so I’ll not bother.
I have no antagonism towards you personally. I have a hard time knowing just what you are espousing or believe and when I think I do, there are some things I agree with and some I don't.jerry
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
I have been one of the main people who have engaged all you folks in discussion for quite a while, so I'm going to assume all these last posts are partially about me. I think there is quite a bit I could say about how my arguments are received and responded to also, but it is clear to me that nothing constructive would come of that. The divide is too great, and the antagonism that is felt towards me is too strong, so I'll not bother.Viola Lee
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
SA, did you see what happened when I mentioned that a fifth force is contemplated so we cannot just talk about four? (For all my sins, I have a physics background.) There was a suspicious spin put on it, and it went for several rounds until in an odd coincidence, it was in the news that there may be some evidence. I responded a little to that, and boom, silence. That was just as the Russian General's remarks on dirty colour revolutions was backed up by report on a diplomatic scandal with US State Dept big wigs literally vetting the Ukraine cabinet on the phone. Dead silence and on to some new thread. KFkairosfocus
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
SA, once the ding dong exchange has been had, then we can refer to it. You will notice how after THREE YEARS were spent on the issue of the transfinite and the cosmological succession of time, once Prof Carol Woods was on the table backing up things I has pointed to from the outset, I can now talk to it in brief. Unfortunately, we are not just dealing with ideas and concepts. The seven Ciceronian First duties overturn maybe 150 years of legal undermining and much longer on worldviews leading to frankly suicidal agendas. But we are in a situation where Marxist and related indoctrination equates moral principles with oppressive imposition by "religion" -- effectively, a dirty word. But we must remember for every rat one sees by day, there are twenty by night. I think it is being quietly, duly noted that there is a way to get back to sound reasoning, governed by self evident first duties and leading to a saner vision of law, government and public policy. The concern I have, is we may be too late to avert going over the cliff as a civilisation, for sure the US has been in 4th gen dirty colour revolution civil war since about 2017 and is playing out a Reichstag fire game now, while geostrategic vultures are pouncing or contemplating pouncing. I notice, there was very little to say to what the Russian Chief of General Staff had to say about colour revolutions backed up by a notorious leaked phone call between US big wigs on the Ukraine where US Diplomats were literally vetting cabinet appointments c 2014. Likewise, the SOCOM insurgency escalator and McFaul's rosy tinted description of colour revolutions. But then, sometimes only massive pain and loss will teach. But, if you are going to be the good man/woman in the storm, per Ac 27, sometimes you have to be willing to lose the debate and vote when a tempting voyage of folly is on the table; backed by money and power, being presented by bought and paid for technicos and publicists. KFkairosfocus
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
A few of the "rules" I've come up with: 1. If you leave something open-ended, or you use slightly the wrong word, or you misspelled something, or you offered an analogy - they'll attack that and not the core of the argument. 2. If you do not comprehensively explain the entire end-to-end argument each time, you will be attacked for what you left out. 3. If you present ideas unsupported by expert commentary, the attack will focus on that 4. If you provide expert commentary, it will be attacked as quote-mining 5. If you provide a full, lengthy quote - it will go unread 6. If you fully refute the point, you'll usually be met with silence From those rules, I think guys like BA77 and KF have learned that you have to put a lot of material out there, make it as comprehensive and air-tight as possible. That can result in some long, repetitive posts, but that says something about the nature of the opposition.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Andrew
Pride, rebellion, hatred, emotionalism… these are things that words won’t likely defeat.
Is there anything we can do to try to help them overcome those things? Fighting fire with fire doesn't seem to work as I see it - although I'm very tempted to do that almost all the time.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Jerry
But how do these discussions get so crazy with nonsense ideas constantly thrown about?
It's a key question and something worth thinking about. I look at the responses, or lack thereof, to whatever I posted. So, I try to improve. I think we're all trying to have a good impact with the truths we know. So, whatever is not working with everybody else, is also not working with me because I see the same nonsense that we all do. I take it as my task to use the best material I can and work on explaining. I think KF offers a wealth of material that is often not absorbed - sometimes if we echo his points or good points made by other ID supporters here, that can give an impact. But the same group of objectors have been here a while - that mega-thread from last year (almost 300,000 words on my count) had all the same people who are here. But I think the questioning changes. The anti-ID position doesn't stay exactly the same. Our opponents try out different arguments. At the same time, the choice is ours. Whether to keep reading the posts here, or to keep replying, or to keep trying to convince the same people ... we invest the time and have to judge if it is worth it, or are we just talking to a wall.
Read the Wikipedia article on De Officiis
I just read some sections - loved it. Cicero is a gold-standard for ancient thought. I can always stand to learn more about his writing and life also.
Just repeating the same list 500 times hasn’t done it. (Definition of insanity) Time to retire that list and try something else.
I know what you're saying but I've repeated the irrefutable basics of the ID argument dozens of times and I'll keep doing it until there's a real response. I recall a guy like ET (hasn't been around in a while) would repeat his themes and just silence opponents with them. Something like the example of Stonehenge -- it just works. I think Cicero actually does work more than it may seem. A non-response is often the best we can hope for, since our opponents are almost never going to say "Ok, you're right, I'll have to change my views". So, in the meantime it's best to not get too frustrated with them - unless they're just trolling and amusing themselves at everyone else's expense.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
No offense to anyone in particular, but it's the pearls before swine issue. Put a beggar on horseback and he'll ride himself to h*ll. Pride, rebellion, hatred, emotionalism... these are things that words won't likely defeat. Andrewasauber
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
He’s just a very good example and a brilliant mind
I do not disagree. But how do these discussions get so crazy with nonsense ideas constantly thrown about? Especially when Cicero’s ideas are available and have been presented hundreds of times. This is obviously not doing any good. Maybe there is a need for rethinking how he and others are presented? Read the Wikipedia article on De Officiis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Officiis Just repeating the same list 500 times hasn’t done it. (Definition of insanity) Time to retire that list and try something else.jerry
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
As a statesman, Cicero felt it was essential for the nation to adhere to the natural moral law because a failure there would be destructive to society - and that's what happened through to the fall of Rome. So that's why the idea of subjective morality is not just a private matter. It affects our society and world. For example, Cicero mentioned "right reason" and people can be confused about that. But it's just the duty that has been debated here, and without that we couldn't have rational arguments. The beauty of Cicero's writings are that they're clear and succinct. But there are other classical thinkers who could be quoted also, not just Cicero. He's just a very good example and a brilliant mind.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
So posting those can help people understand the topic, as I see it.
I disagree. They have literally been posted several hundred times. To what effect? None that I can see. Because why would there be this constant reposting? And why the continual questioning of the concept of duty? So is posting them again and again actually counter productive? They are never succinctly associated with reaching objectives. If that was ever made, I failed to see it in all the hundreds of thousand words. Aside: But to point to irony, immediately after I said there was never a need to repost them, a reposting happened for the 5th time on this thread. I never questioned the efficacy of these duties and in fact defended them in many places.jerry
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Cicero makes those seven principles of morality clear and easy to understand though, and it's natural moral law, not religious. So posting those can help people understand the topic, as I see it. We have an objective moral responsibility to those: 1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justiceSilver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
But these aren’t moral values
They certainly are. And they are definitely objective. Read my post (#188) above that includes a definition of moral. You are confusing what people decide to do/not do to be moral with what morality is all about. Morality is all about meeting innate objectives which are shared in common with others. And to make Kf happy, Cicero's duties are conducive to achieving these objectives. Something said many times before so it is not ever necessary to reference Cicero in this regards again except by a link to this argument either here or someplace else.jerry
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
<blockquote<Jerry: No where can you find humans that don’t have the same objectives. These are essentially survival/safety and thriving/flourishing. Agree. But these aren't moral values. We may judge others' subjective moral values by how they impinge on these objectives, but this does not mean that the values themselves are objective.JHolo
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
How can you prove this?
Easy. No where can you find humans that don’t have the same objectives. These are essentially survival/safety and thriving/flourishing. What you have pointed to was individual cultures flouting these objectives. Essentially they are immoral because they are suppressing innate human goals. This is nothing new as every culture since the begging of time has done so in some small or large ways. Including every religion. Usually this suppression by religions is not religious doctrine but still advocated by religions as they are entwined in local politics which is mainly the source of the suppression. Aside: this has all been presented before. But most people on both side here are not interested in understanding. So the same nonsense gets repeated over and over. The answer has always been simple and obvious but literally hundreds of thousands of words have been expended saying nothing new. Aside2: various religions have instituted additional objectives not obvious from human nature. For example, some have said there is eternal life in bliss after death. That is an additional objective. So promoting that becomes moral and impeding that becomes immoral. One observation from this additional objective is that there should be nothing in the objectives of human nature to contradict this. Since both would arise from the same source. So survival and flourishing should be consistent with achieving eternity.jerry
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Sev,
In my view, there is nothing other than subjective morality. Even the moral edicts of a god, while dispensed by a being presumed to be much more knowledgeable and powerful than mere human beings, would still be the subjective views of another individual who is no more able to bridge the is/ought gap than we are. Attempts by some to characterize the moral edicts of a god as objective or to assert that there are moral codes which transcend our reality and are thereby objective is no more than an unwarranted attempt by them to annex the moral high for their own religious presuppositions.
I think this needs to be addressed on points. In so doing, we will move beyond how we can know certain self evident, branch on which we sit first principles, the first duties, to the ontological, logic of being roots of moral knowledge and truth: Sev: >>In my view, there is nothing other than subjective morality.>> 1 - So, is this merely your subjective whim, or is it offered as something to be taken seriously as well warranted? 2 - If the first, it is of no persuasive merit, it simply is empty opinion.. 3 - If the second, it is an attempt at making an objective truth claim about the domain of right conduct, virtues and duties etc, which becomes self referential and an invitation to cynicism and nihilism. 4 - Meanwhile, as the presentation of a presumably reasonably informed and responsible person, it is implicitly -- as usual -- appealing to duties to truth, right reason, warrant etc, i.e. it is yet another case of objections appealing to branch on which we all sit first principles. 5 - As I showed again in 153, the attempt to deny objective moral truths necessarily fails as it is a claimed moral truth and on negating it as false we have a first, undeniable objective, knowable moral truth. 6 - Truth, as Aristotle pointed out in Metaphysics, 1011b, is accurate description of reality, its entities and states of affairs etc. >> Even the moral edicts of a god, while dispensed by a being presumed to be much more knowledgeable and powerful than mere human beings,>> 7 - The implicit claim to knowledge, wisdom to pronounce is confirmed. 8 - Of course, the pivotal failure of the Euthyphro is that a common g god is not the necessary and maximally great being, inherently good and utterly wise creator of all things contemplated by theism. The latter is in a unique position, root of reality framework to any possible world. 9 - But first, we must understand the radical contingency of our causal-temporal thermodynamic domain [CTThD henceforward], one which is both fine tuned for C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life and is generally held to trace back to a singularity c 13.8 BYA. 10 - For, in our CTThD, year follows year in cumulative, causal succession to today. Where, we cannot trace back to utter non being, a true nothing, as such can have no causal powers. Were it ever the case, such would forever obtain and there would be no world, indeed no reality. Note, too, we are here seeing time at cosmological scale as a thermodynamically constrained causal succession, complete with the second law as time's arrow. 11 - Further, circular retro-causation (and yes this has been suggested) is an attempt to draw a world out of the not yet. It is appeal to hoped for causal powers of non being in disguise. It fails. 12 - Another candidate for origins, is that our CTThD and onward extensions are without beginning. This is an implicit appeal to a transfinite more or less physical past through something like a quantum foam etc. 13 - However, we can quantify and structure the transfinite by using hyperreals R*, which I suggest, are a better picture of what the schools number line indicates with arrows pointing to infinity, than R. 14 - In effect consider [-1 --*0*--1] as involving . . . in the star markings near zero, some h closer to 0 than 1/n for any number we may count up to in N, n. This is an infinitesimal, the foundation of Robinson's nonstandard analysis, and historically the root of fluxions/calculus, duly tamed. 15 - Its reciprocal, using 1/x as catapult function, will be H a transfinite hyperreal, here considered a hyperinteger. We can see, too that continuum is here extended and for example by adding to any real r, *0* as a zone, we see any r has a cloud of neighbouring infinitesimally altered numbers. This opens up a way to treat Calculus as effectively an extension of Algebra. Where r is a vector of magnitude |r| and + or - direction, so the zone near 0 is in effect a cluster of vectors forming a tiny cloud at its tip, by vector addition to r. This allows us to address instantaneous rates, slopes, change, growth etc. 16 - However, we now have a way to bracket the reals with counting numbers and other integers as mileposts: . . . -H__[-H-1] __ . . . -2 __-1__*0*__1__2__ . . . [H-1]__H__ . . . 17- We thus see what it would mean to be beginningless for a CTThD, it would be transfinite in the actual past. And while c 1910 the steady state universe model contemplated this and many claimed it makes sense, it cannot be the case, for logic of structure and quantity reasons. 18 - Simply put, it is a futile supertask to try to span the implicit or explicit transfinite in finite stage, causal-temporal, thermodynamically successive steps. Worlds like ours had a physical, finitely remote beginning. 19 - That which begins has a cause and we see the need for a necessary being world root causally capable of being source and sustainer of worlds including CTThD's. 20 - This is already a familiar figure as a necessary being is eternal and a being capable of causing worlds is exceedingly powerful. 21 - Moreover, as we have seen, this world has responsible, rational, self moved . . . free, morally governed creatures who cannot but know and appeal to first duties as framework for moral government. So, we confront the is-ought gap. 22 - Post Hume, such can only be bridged, at reality root, on pain of ungrounded ought. We need that the reality root inherently bridges is and ought, i.e. it must be inherently good and utterly wise. That adds to our bill of requisites. 23 - But, can we just leave it floating? 24 - No, as immediately that injects grand delusion into our minds as we certainly have a pervasive moral sense we call conscience as a core part of consciousness, which regulates our thinking, reasoning and deciding. If this is delusion, we have discredited our minds and the world of thought collapses in bankruptcy . . . precisely the fate of determinism, relativism, subjectivism. 25 - So we see why the only serious candidate is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, one worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. 26 - This solves both Hume and Euthyphro: root of reality bridges is and ought as the root is is good and wise so principles of morality are neither arbitrary nor independent. Secondly, the bridge is in the root so it is grounded. And, 27 - it is intelligible to those willing to think it through so it is not a demand for blind conformity, it is an invitation to live out our rational responsible potential informed by our evident nature. 28 - Of course this is philosophy, one is free to propose another candidate ___ or state of affairs ___ but, to be factually adequate ___, coherent ___ and neither simplistic nor ad hoc ___ is another matter entirely. 29 - Further to this, God is a serious candidate necessary being (as opposed to flying spaghetti monsters etc) and such are either impossible of being or are actual. It would be interesting to hear anyone who doubts God explain that no he is not a serious candidate ___ or is impossible of being ___ especially post Plantinga. 30 - So, we have on the table an explanation that addresses Hume and Euthyphro etc. >>would still be the subjective views of another individual who is no more able to bridge the is/ought gap than we are.>> 31 - Pagan, small g gods are not comparable to God as conceived through ethical theism, and as serious candidate necessary being world root. To lump together given that these matters have been seriously raised at UD for years, is to set up and knock over a strawman. >> Attempts by some to characterize the moral edicts of a god as objective>> 32 - We are not addressing empty moral edicts, again, strawman. We have seen how we can know that certain branch on which we all sit first duties are accessible to all as first principles, that they are such that objectors invariably appeal to such, and so are inescapably true and self evident. 33 - So, we know them and we further know these are endorsed by the foundational teachings of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. We know that a pagan stoic summarised them as the collective wisdom of the Greco-Roman thinkers. We know that someone like Steven Malveaux stumbled across them as an atheist. We know that Buddhism etc recognise them. Long ago C S Lewis summed them up as in common first platitudes. And we know that they actually built civilisation including constitutional democracy. 34 - We are not dealing with dubious, failed attempts b nonentities that are easily dismissed, we are dealing with what built our civilisation. >>or to assert that there are moral codes which transcend our reality and are thereby objective>> 35 - There are first duties long since identified and shown to be branch on which we all sit first principles that built our civilisation. They are intelligible, are self evident, are appealed to by objectors as an inevitable part of their arguments, making those arguments fail. 36 - Let us understand just what awful, oppressive impositions of wicked priestcraft and right wing theocratic christofascists -- not -- we are talking about . . . duties:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
37 - Let the would be objector then explain how habitual pervasive untruthfulness, fallacies and irrationalism, refusal to soundly warrant, refusal to be prudent, crushing or warping or benumbing sound conscience, disrespect for neighbour and her rights, unfairness and injustice become a sound foundation for thought and life. >> is no more than an unwarranted attempt by them>> 38 - There we go again, the inevitable appeal to the first duties in an attempt to overturn them. >> to annex the moral high [ground?]>> 39 - There we see it, the slanderous oppressive imposition thesis. >>for their own religious presuppositions.>> 40 - And, the right wing Christofascist theocracy thesis, too. 41 - On the contrary . . . KFkairosfocus
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Seversky & VL, Seversky said @229:
While I would agree that moral choices can also be classed as personal preferences, I view it as an attempt to trivialize the former.
I can assure you it was not my intent to trivialize. Preference, IMO, is an intractable aspect of sentience and hardly a trivial one. IMO, it is the root quality that is behind all choice, one way or another. IMO, the only reason anyone follows any particular religion or spiritual belief is because it offers some promised, enjoyable outcome, or at least some measure of relief from that which is unenjoyable. VL: The last time KF and I argued about "duties," I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how KF could be right, since I couldn't understand his argument. I couldn't see how an inescapable condition of "appealing to truth" represented a "duty," much less an objective one for all possible sentient beings. Duty to whom or what? Under condition of what consequence? It would have to be, as you said, something like mathematics or logic in order for it to be "inescapable" and "universal" or "transcendent." "Preference towards enjoyment" is, IMO, just such a transcendent, inescapable commodity; it is an inescapable, intrinsic aspect of every free will choice we make, serving either direct or abstract enjoyment, management of enjoyments, or avoidance of what is unenjoyable. Enjoyment, IMO, is the ought that drives every choice, regardless of what you dress it up with. Nobody would do the "oughts" in any religion if it was going to deliver to them eternal suffering instead of enjoyable, heavenly reward. Nobody would intervene in my hypothetical situation if they found what the man was doing enjoyable to observe. The question is, though, if some personal enjoyments are wrong, and if so, how so? Perhaps a better way of saying this is: is there some universally applicable goal of all sentient beings that represents the highest or ultimate form of enjoyment, by which every choice can be properly evaluated as either "right" or "wrong," or leading towards that highest form of enjoyment or away from it, fulfilling it or corrupting it? Is there an "ultimate enjoyment," so to speak, that provides the basis for the math or logic of proper behavior, by which we can evaluate our own behavior and which tells us when we have a "duty" to intervene in some situations? I think there is. and at the risk of sounding like a flower-peddling hippie, new ager or starry-eyed romantic, I think the only possible candidate is love. I think it is the universal, non-crooked yardstick by which "moral obligations" and proper behavior can be correctly measured. I think the "duty" to love can be understood as a simple form of "duty;" the better we love, the more we are "paid" with the inner, ultimate enjoyment of love; the worse we love, the less we are paid. Properly loving fills one with the enjoyment of having love grow within you. I think conscience and empathy are secondary qualities that come from love. I think love entails all the virtues and explains their value to us. I think that in my hypothetical scenario, it is our love that immediately recognizes the behavior as wrong, and gives us transcendent, universal authority to intervene, and to intervene regardless of the potential consequences, because we are accessing something that is a immediately recognizable, as sure as 1+2=4, as wrong, even if the man is enjoying it, we know that enjoyment is wrong. How? Because it is unmistakably cruel, and cruelty is the antithesis of love. What we call "good" is the proper expression and advancement of love; what is "evil" is the absence or antithesis of love.William J Murray
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
JH, we are subjects and are error prone. That is why sound reasoning on first principles including first duties is VITAL, providing warrant that then establishes knowable, intelligible, objective truth. of course you mean to correct what you perceive as our errors, inadvertently revealing your implicit appeals to duties to truth, right reason, warrant. Precisely as we expect for branch on which we all sit first principles.. KFkairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
A case study on civilisation collapse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXBgNNtEJ6Mkairosfocus
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
I see our sense of morality as being analogous to our perception of aesthetic beauty. It is objectively true that we all have a sense of morality, and a sense of aesthetic beauty. But how we perceive each of these is individual (ie, subjective).JHolo
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Seversky
It implies that the revulsion we would experience if we saw a child being tortured is substantively no different from a preference for strawberry over chocolate ice-cream and that is most definitely not the case in my experience.
This is evidence of the objective nature of moral norms. If they were entirely subjective, then you couldn't refer to "the revulsion we would experience" when witnessing certain crimes. Each person would have to judge for themselves and you couldn't generalize about what we would do. But the fact that "we would" indeed feel moral revulsion, without having to consciously decide that such things are against our subjective opinion, means that moral norms are built into our conscience. Everybody experiences this and therefore we're responding to an objective truth. Nobody needed to teach or tell us that such a thing is wrong.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
VL
Oh my goodness, I withdraw in chastisement!
Well, earlier you said:
I’m going to try and respond to all the “subjective morals is nihilism” comments
You've written 18 posts since then, avoiding several of the points I responded to you on. It's easy to get distracted at times.Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
VL
can you just tell me why you added “by chance”
"By chance" meant that someone decides in their subjective opinion that wearing polyester-made clothing is an immoral act. That's their subjective moral idea. Then a survey goes out and it happens that 35 other people think the same. So, "by chance" there are that many people with the same opinion. It's not an objective moral law and a group of people believe the same thing not by design or by a plan - but by chance they all think the same thing. That's the idea behind "morality by popular consent". It just so happens, other people agree on various moral norms. The phrase "it just so happens" is another term for "by chance".Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
William J Murray/165
However, let’s say you are walking down the street and in the yard of a house there, a child is tied to a post and a man is sitting on a lawn chair next to the child and you see the man put a cigarette out on the child’s face. The child is screaming in pain and the man is laughing. Let’s say the police are on strike at the time to remove that from the equation. What do you do? Let me assume that, like me, you’d go over and attempt to stop the man and free the child, and take the child away into a safer place regardless of what the ramifications may be to your personal safety or legal entanglements thereafter, regardless of what the man’s relationship with the child may be. Why would you do that, if you are a moral subjectivist? Are you okay with attempting to impose your personal preferences on others? Aren’t you, essentially, doing the same thing the man is doing – imposing your personal preference on others? I’m interested in knowing how a moral subjectivist would justify intervening in such a situation, and if they view their behavior as substantively different from the behavior of the man harming the child if that situation does not actually represent, to them, the same kind of “wrong” as 2+3=6
In my view, morality is a set of principles whose function is to regulate the behavior of human beings in society towards one another with the purpose of protecting the agreed rights and interests of all members of that society. If one of those rights guarantees protection from unwarranted physical violence against the person then that would be a justification for intervention. However, that can be seen as a description of what "is" not a prescription of what "ought" to be the case. It is a claim about what morality is not which morality should be observed or whether there should be any moral codes at all. The reality is that most normal people would intervene to save the child because they would be appalled and outraged by what was being done to it. In other words, our reaction would be rooted in empathy for the sufferings of another and, in my view, it is empathy which is the foundation of morality. While I would agree that moral choices can also be classed as personal preferences, I view it as an attempt to trivialize the former. It implies that the revulsion we would experience if we saw a child being tortured is substantively no different from a preference for strawberry over chocolate ice-cream and that is most definitely not the case in my experience. In my view, there is nothing other than subjective morality. Even the moral edicts of a god, while dispensed by a being presumed to be much more knowledgeable and powerful than mere human beings, would still be the subjective views of another individual who is no more able to bridge the is/ought gap than we are. Attempts by some to characterize the moral edicts of a god as objective or to assert that there are moral codes which transcend our reality and are thereby objective is no more than an unwarranted attempt by them to annex the moral high for their own religious presuppositions.Seversky
April 12, 2022
April
04
Apr
12
12
2022
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 13

Leave a Reply