Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Challenge to Humanist/Materialists Message-ID: <584@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-May-84 00:04:20 EDT Article-I.D.: hou3c.584 Posted: Tue May 22 00:04:20 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 23-May-84 19:20:36 EDT References: <779@akgua.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 113 Replies to Bob Brown's questions: Question #1) Since man is purely a product of his genes and his environment, on what basis is the statement "I ought..." distinguishable from "I itch.." ? (Thank You C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity) "I ought..." is a moral statement or value judgement, while "I itch..." is a statement of fact. (This answer is not an attempt to sidestep the question, but I can't give a better answer without knowing what you are driving at.) Question #2) Following that line, how can responsibility for personal behavior be assigned to anyone since he or she is not really in a position to control his or her genetic make-up (right now anyway) ? The answer to this question has little to do with belief or nonbelief in materialism. (Christians should of course replace the phrase "genetic make-up" with something like "the spiritual makeup given to the individual when he was created by God".) I don't want to turn this into a dry discussion of definitions, but I don't see how to avoid doing so. "Responsible" is defined in terms of "cause," and assuming that we agree that a person causes his actions to occur, the person is in some sense "respon- sible" for his actions. However, that does not settle the matter because we can generally think of an arbitrary number of causes of any given event. For example, take the case of a person who is mugged while walking down a New York city street. Do we blame the mugger for deciding to commit the mugging, the victim for walking around alone in New York, the police for failing to protect the victim? Clearly, we must decide which cause is the most meaningful. There is no one answer to this; for example if you are giving advice to the victim it might be most meaningful to concentrate on the fact that the mugging would not have occurred had the victim not been alone. However, in my view, and probably in the view of most of you, it is in general most meaningful to view the mugger as causing the mugging to occur. (I will probably write a discourse on the concept of "meaningfulness" at some point, but not now.) Since the question was probably intended to be about free will, let me state that I (unlike some humanists) do not believe that free will exists. The existence or nonexistence of free will does not change the basic issues here. It may be easier to argue that the mugger's past experiences, rather than the mugger himself, were responsible for the mugging if you assume deter- minism; but since most advocates of free will concede that past experiences affect a person's actions, the same argument can be made if you assume free will. Question #3) Is there a reference point in this system that will prevent the tendency to drift toward anarchy when you and I and a zillion other folks are doing our situational ethics number on a grand scale ? I started to write a long essay about the nature and source of ethical values, and didn't get very far, so let me try a brief answer. If each individual has the ability to choose their own moral values (and I believe that Christianity assumes that they do) then by definition you have moral anarchy. Humanism's response to this condition is that complete unanimity of moral values is neither practical nor necessary. Humanism sets up a basic guidepost by claiming that any moral system which does not incorporate a respect of the value of all people is fundamentally flawed, and deals with remaining disagreements by asking that the rights of all people to their own opinions be respected. This is adequate to form the basis of a harmonious society. Question #4) Is there a need for the designations good and evil (I think Rich Rosen dealt with this) and do they have any meaning in this world view ? (In light of Questions 1 and 2 ) Another brief answer. Stating that something is good or evil is making a value judgement. People will always make value judgements as long as they have both emotions and reason, thus there is a need for these terms. Because there is a significant amount of agreement between people about what constitutes good and evil, it is obvious that these value judgements are not completely arbitrary, and thus the terms have meaning. Question #5) Does this implicit exultation of self actually succeed in making a livable society ? (I expect to hear from Ayn Rand Disciples on this.) OK, I will leave the Objectivists to answer most of this one, but let me make one point in advance. As I understand it, Ayn Rand would say that if a woman gives up her life in order to save the life of her child, the woman is sacrificing one of her lesser values (her life) for one of her greater values (the life of her child), and is therefore acting in her self interest rather than acting altruisticly. I have no problems with this concept, but I don't like the terminology because I think that most people would agree that the woman is acting altruisticly. How about defining "altruism" as assigning value to other people or the actions that flow from such an assignment? Have I received a biased view of Humanism, in particular, since I get the impression that it is extremely ME oriented ? Any philosophy that is concerned with the individual, Christianity included, can be accused of being "ME oriented," but only by looking at one facet of the religion and ignoring the rest. Humanism assigns value to all individuals, not just "ME". Therefore, if I accept humanism, I must value the welfare and happiness of all of humanity, not just of myself. Kenneth Almquist