Re: The unCongregation of Master Han Shan (Platitudes-R-Us)


"Hollywood Lee" <hollywoodlee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e3alc8$77s$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George Cherry wrote:
"Hollywood Lee" <hollywoodlee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e3ahu5$hl6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hollywood Lee wrote:
George Cherry wrote:

Haidt is a psychologist who has studied the foundations
of moral sense in different cultures (including totalitarian
cultures). He came up with these four foundations. He
does not propose them to us: he simply documents them--
as an anthropologist might. He's very bright, engaging,
and insightful. One could do worse (like reading Stumper's
repetitive posts) than reading the link above. I'll repeat it:

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200508/?read=interview_haidt
Of course, Haidt himself does not subscribe personally
to 3-4. I find 3. particularly repulsive. To observe is not
to approve.

Thanks for the clarification George. Since I find this topic to be of
great interest, I have bookmarked the link for later reading.
Oh yeah. Just to return the favor, you might like the article at
Crooked Timber on thought experiments in ethics. See
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/02/experimental-philosophy/

In particular, I like comment 32 since it reminds me of the arguments I
had with DT about the value of highly constrained hypotheticals.

I'll read it later and just skimmed it now. The example
reminds me of the arguments put up to expose the
"errors" of a utilitarian (I'm a sort of utilitarian). If the
ethical action is the secure the greatest good for the
greatest many, then why not kill an innocent, harvest
his organs, and save the lives of a dozen people
waiting for organ transplants. My answer to this example
is that it would result in a great deal of unhappiness in
many folks because it would upset their moral sense
that one should never harm an innocent. It's a tricky
example, though. If I were in need of an organ transplant,
I would not accept an organ procured by murdering an
innocent. Is it a stretch to see why I don't eat meat?

BTW, my rule utilitarianism has had new life pumped
into it by Robert Wright's "NonZero: The Logic of
Human Destiny".

I like Wright's interviews on Slate magazine quite a bit. His obvious
intelligence and ability to interact with so many different personalities
is wonderful I also like his support for the value of win-win games. But
I would be cautious about buying into Wright's "biological evolution of
life and the cultural evolution of humans have a basic trajectory and are
designed to fulfill a grand goal" thesis since I think his claims run
beyond his evidence. See:

Killjoy! Seriously, thanks for bringing this up. We're
going to discuss "Nonzero" in the Active Retirement
Association to which I belong, and this will be a good
issue. BTW, I'm as phony as they come: I haven't
read "Nonzero" yet! I've just read about it in other
authors (Jonathan Haidt and Martin E. P. Seligman)
that I admire. BTW, win-win games are inimical to
lawsuits, are they not? How about euthanizing all
the lawyers and replacing them with arbitrators? : o )
Hey, can't physicalists and atheists have grand goals,
too?

"What about the interesting idea that "non-zerosum" as opposed to
"zero-sum" interactions between organic forms (genes, cells, individuals)
have been the main cause of the evolution of biological complexity,
behavioral flexibility, and human intelligence? There certainly have to be
win-win advantages over living alone for nucleic acids to have cooperated
in making cells and, by extension, for cells to form individuals

I just don't like arguments that try to extrapolate these
low-level biological processes (except as hints) to
"high-level processes" like intellectual, social, and
cultural interactions. It's as silly (to me) as trying to
deduce free will and choice from quantum uncertainty.

and for individuals to form social groups.

But beyond this it is difficult to imagine how we can assess the relative
contributions of zerosum and non-zero-sum interactions to the evolution of
specific adaptations, especially our own behavioral ones. Did social and
verbal intelligence increase because individuals in one group were
superior to those in other groups in cooperative foraging, hunting,
defense against predators, keeping the peace, or raiding other groups
(which is zero-sum for the losers and non-zero-sum for the victors)? Or
did they increase mainly because within groups some individuals were
better at getting a disproportionate share of mates, food, or other
resources? Did the intelligence required to make and use tools increase
because they were used for zero or non-zerosum activities? What about the
spatial intelligence required to find your way while gathering, hunting,
raiding, or escaping pursuers?"

It's this kind "humans are rotten to the core" kind of
argument that leads religious folks to say that without
the authority and guidance of religion, we're all be
robbing, raping, and killing one another.

Review by William F Zimmerman in Quarterly Review of Biology

I don't think this disproves Wright's thesis, but it makes me cautious -
especially since so many Intelligent Design folks have tried to latch onto
Wright's thesis. Anyway, here's a link to his debate/discussion with
well-know atheist Daniel Dennett where the topic is discussed.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486

Thanks for the link.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The unCongregation of Master Han Shan (Platitudes-R-Us)
    ... of moral sense in different cultures (including totalitarian ... waiting for organ transplants. ... But I would be cautious about buying into Wright's "biological evolution of life and the cultural evolution of humans have a basic trajectory and are designed to fulfill a grand goal" thesis since I think his claims run beyond his evidence. ... "What about the interesting idea that "non-zerosum" as opposed to "zero-sum" interactions between organic forms have been the main cause of the evolution of biological complexity, behavioral flexibility, and human intelligence? ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Darwin and Modern PA
    ... >> cultures (such as we see in chimps and ... > is the prevailing behavior that drove hominid/human evolution. ... > It seems to me that the evolutionary loss of large canines can most ... confusion of two time scales -- the ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Central Failure of Evolutionary Psychology (compared to the
    ... behavior pattern is universal across cultures, ... likely derived from Darwinian evolution, i.e., from biological evolution by ... Darwinian evolution can only work across enormous time ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Harvard: Morality Evolved! (GASP!)
    ... organ transplants. ... one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe. ... your moral instincts here.) ... But they might do some kind of logical reasoning anyway. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The unCongregation of Master Han Shan (Platitudes-R-Us)
    ... of moral sense in different cultures (including totalitarian ... waiting for organ transplants. ... that one should never harm an innocent. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)