From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 19:10:57 MDT
A very good post, Alex. I hoped that I stated something similar to the
system of axioms and the general concept of ethics you describe, somewhere
in the previous parts of the thread, but maybe not forcefully enough to
avoid the impression that I am trying to assert an objective system of
morals.
By all means, I have only a bunch of suggestions about the effective means
of achieving goals, as well as a short list of goals which I hope that
others might find worthwhile, such as finding the social system giving the
average human the best chances at getting what he/she/it individually wants.
Rafal
Alex wrote:
> Robbie and Rafal... you are slinging the term 'morality' back and
> forth unexamined as if it's an objective concept you both agree on
> and merely disagree on the details of implementation. I recently
> posted something on the Genomics Yahoogroup that has just become
> relevant here...
>
> ----------
> One of the problems plaguing the field of ethics is a pair of
> contradictory assumptions at its very core:
>
> "Some things are right and some things are wrong, and we need to know
> the difference."
>
> "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion."
>
> I propose that ethics should be redefined as...
>
> "An ontology for clearly stating what your particular system of axioms
> is, coming to logical conclusions/decisions based on these axioms, and
> communicating your axioms and your process of reasoning based on them
> to others."
>
> Here's an example of how this more honest and rigorous approach to
> ethics would work:
>
> Bob is a Christian. Bob states his axioms.
>
> "I hold the following beliefs to be axiomatic-- God exists, and the
> Bible expresses God's will. In places where the Bible is not clear,
> the literal interpretation is to favored."
>
> Bob then states his conclusions.
>
> "Based on what is written in the Bible, killing humans is wrong,
> unborn fetuses are human, and therefore abortion is wrong."
>
> Jane is a secular humanist. Jane does not share Bob's axioms, but
> aknowledges that they are axioms and not directly subject to debate.
> She can do the following, though...
>
> a) She can point out contradictions within Bob's chosen set of axioms,
> forcing him to assign priorities to the various axioms he holds.
>
> b) She can challenge the chain of reasoning leading from Bob's axioms
> (the Bible expresses God's will) to Bob's conclusions (abortion is
> wrong).
>
> c) If the above approaches both fail, Jane and Bob can agree to
> disagree.
>
> Note that in the event of c), this disagreement isn't always peaceful,
> unfortunately. As an extreme example, if Bob's axioms were to
> explicitly include the statement "Blow up abortion clinics" and Jane
> was an owner/employee/customer of an abortion clinic, then Bob and
> Jane will inevitably find themselves in conflict at whatever level
> permitted by the society they exist in and their level of commitment
> to their respective axioms. But at least Bob, Jane, and any
> bystanders would have a clear idea of what specifically the conflict
> was about... and whether or not the underlying issue has been
> resolved, voiding the conflict. For example, if safe and inexpensive
> removal/storage/transplantation of embryos became possible, Bob and
> Jane would no longer have reason to quarrel-- after all, Bob never
> stated that "Sex without intent to procreate is wrong" and Jane never
> stated that "fetuses must be killed".
>
> Instead of this, ethics debates today seem to rely on appeal to
> authority and some kind of imaginary universal concept of right and
> wrong. It's FRAUDULENT to use value-implying terms without first
> clearly identifying your values so your audience can make up their
> own minds as to whether your idea of "right", "good", "natural", and
> "humane" corresponds to their own. The approach I've outlined above
> will help expose individuals who are trying to conceal their own
> agenda underneath some kind of blanket "consensus" or "prevailing
> social norms".
>
> There should be something equivalent to Godwin's Law that gets
> triggered when someone talks about 'morality' without saying exactly
> what that word signifies to them.
>
> PS: The original purpose of this thread was to figure out how not to
> get the crack-pot treatment from fellow scientists at a vulnerable,
> early point in our careers. But what the heck, ethics is an
> interesting and important topic too.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 16:19:29 MDT