Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: re antirationalism
Message-ID: <4813c23a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 23:14:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 93



 ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) posts

>    You have spoken of a lack of evidence for ethical claims, yet
>    from what you have said, you sound more and more like some sort of
>    positivist. It save us all a lot of time if you would tell us just
>    what you consider to be valid evidence. I asked you once before,
>    and you did not answer me, so I will ask you again:
>
>ME> Just what do you mean by "observable facts we can all agree exist"?

 I would start by evidence of our senses.   That should be sufficient
 for just about anything we are likely to encounter on this newsgroup.
 In the unlikely event that indirect phenomena, like the existence 
 of alpha particles of electromagnetic wave phenomena becomes an issue 
 then we can all present the evidence for our positions.   I maintain
 that there is no disagreement about these things among us.

>ME> If it is your point that rightness or wrongness are not
>ME> scientifically verifiable, I am in full agreement with you. 

 And this is the issue.   Rightness or wrongness are neither to
 be found in the evidence of our senses nor are they found within
 the framework of some intellectual discipline like science, as 
 even Mr. Ellis acknowledges.   

>    You're right, of course. Moral values changed. But why? As regards
>    slavery, it is pretty obvious from reading literature of the time
>    that this change was largely caused by a general rational enlightenment.

 By how do you show that this "rational enlightenment" is closer to the 
 "truth" than any other viewpoint?  Granted, it is closer to the value
 system of our particular culture.


>    If it is your stance that one must be religious in order to
>    issue a universal condemnation of slavery, then you are playing
>    into the hands of the religionists (and the O'ists, for that matter). 

 How?   I am saying that a religious belief is one that is taken on faith;
 that the believer "knows" it to be true even if he can neither show it
 to you (evidence of senses) nor base it on some more rigorous intellectual
 framework such as science or mathematics, for instance.
                                                        

>    There is something wrong with anyone who seriously offers an
>    "ethical" position that sees nothing wrong with slavery,
>    infanticide, and Stalinism. Would you prefer a world with these
>    horrors?

 Here Mr. Ellis seems to be saying that what *I* prefer is a valid
 basis for an ethical system.

>             It is with intuitions about such things that we come to
>    philosophy in the first place, just as we come to science with
>    pretheoretical intuitions about the physical world. 

 ...And here he seems to be saying that *intuition* is a valid basis for
 an ethical system...     

>    I don't honestly know how I could justify condemnations of these
>    horrors to any arbitrary person, I would have to know what a
>    person already accepted, and then try to work out from there.

 ...And here he seems to be admitting that he has no idea *how* he can 
 construct an ethical system for Everyman.   

>    If it is your position that all we can objectively know are
>    scientific facts, you are correct that we cannot justify any
>    ethical statements at all. But then, why should we believe in such
>    a ridiculous religion as Scientism? 

 It is not a matter of "believing" in science.  The scientific method has
 a good track record of producing useful Real World results and offering
 a certain predictability about some natural phenomena.  Moreover, it seems
 to be fairly free of cultural prejudices, i.e., Smallpox vaccine seems 
 to work regardless of your religion or even whether you believe in the
 virus theory of disease.   Ministers, rabbis and priests will all fall
 at a predictable rate if they are pushed off a cliff; I don't ask them
 to "believe in" or buy into science.   Science is not something to 
 "believe in"; it is merely a useful tool which *I* choose to employ
 where I can.

 Mr. Ellis is another one of those people who "know" what's right, by 
 gum, and expect all right-thinking people to agree with them.  It is
 precisely this sort of "my value system is better than yours" thinking
 that results in laws against gun ownership, drugs, prostitution, 
 pornography, homosexuality, and a lot of other things that true
 individualists prefer to make their own choices about.

                                                   ---Peter