Canis lupus hominis

Posted in deep thought | Tagged Bill Moyers, Margaret Atwood, religion | 9 Comments

9 Responses

1. on February 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm Christopher@BorderWars

   This comment of yours is of particular interest: “Of course, I see atheism very differently from most people. If a person can live in this world as an atheist, I consider that person to be a far tougher person than I am.”

   I’ve made the exact same argument myself. It’s philosophically and motivationally difficult to live a “moral” life if you deny that there is any reward or punishment waiting for you at the end. It’s the difference between a job and a hobby; sure, both can provide non-monetary fulfillment, but would you spend as much time at work if you weren’t getting a pay check at the end of the month?

   I don’t think that saying it’s *more* difficult is of any value, but it usually goes there “what, you think you’re better than me??” is not an uncommon response. Comparative morality is rather like penis measuring… although there is an unhealthy fixation on it, the only thing that doesn’t work and get the job done is a complete absence any.

   I’d rather point out how certain philosophers, say Neitzsche, seemed to go there! When you start down the road of Reason and Rationality, coming from a faith based religious worldview, it’s not surprising that the notions of Absurdity and Nihilism emerge before my particular belief system, Objectivism.

   It’s the whole pendulum thing, but when you say “Libertarian” some people mistake that for Anarchist.

   If anyone has it easy, it’s the anarchist nihilist… they don’t require any self reflection or “bible study”–so to speak–since it’s very easy to make every decision based on gratification or whim.

   But even an agnostic Libertarian requires “bible study” because even though the metaphysics are different, a robust morality is a complicated thing to comprehend.

   
   
   • on February 5, 2010 at 3:40 am Jess

     “It’s philosophically and motivationally difficult to live a “moral” life if you deny that there is any reward or punishment waiting for you at the end.”

     No, it is not. Even the religious have this one right: Do unto others as you have them to unto you. Good rule to live by. No need to add “or you’re going TO BURN IN HELL.”

     
     
     • on February 5, 2010 at 4:13 am retrieverman

       What I meant by my original statement is that it is difficult to continue living when one realizes that no matter what one does, you’re going to be eaten inside out by the worms and the grubs.

       To fill that spot, man has to start asking questions, which in earlier times were filled with religion. Most traditional religions are animist and believe some form of reincarnation.

       There are times I wish I had courage to say that was atheist, but I cannot yet motivate myself beyond that fundamental contradiction. I have to have something. I definitely sure there isn’t a guy up there watching me do things.

       Of course, this whole assumption changes your moral prerogative. Now, you have to make the most of what you have, and in my case, I don’t handle injustice very well. That’s probably why I can’t be a libertarian.

       
       
       • on February 6, 2010 at 12:18 am Christopher@BorderWars

         I’d be interested in hearing what your reservations are regarding libertarian philosophy and injustice. I suspect that you’re concerned with patterns of distribution and utilitarianism.

         I think the fundamentals of libertarianism have a pretty good track record against the greatest injustices of history. Many of those who have sought some idea of justice in the ends versus justice in the process do not have a good track record at all.

         
         
         • on February 6, 2010 at 1:08 am retrieverman

           I tried to place my views into something that virtually all progressives deny exists. I believe there is a human nature. All libertarian philosophy is based upon an understanding of human nature. I’ve yet to find a libertarian who doesn’t talk about human nature. Virtually all bring up some economist– classical, neo-classical, or Austrian school economists are very popular among libertarians. Schumpeter is one I’ve read, and his ideas fit within this paradigm very well.

           I think that within our species, there exist two contradictory tendencies. One of these is our individualism, which libertarianism supports to the highest degree (although anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard probably exceed libertarians). The other is collectivism, which you call pure altruism. I would call pure altruism the behavior that would lead to the greatest collectivism.

           The error on the left is to assume that everyone is an altruistic to such an extreme degree that one can have total collectivization without causing harm or misery. If someone refuses to accept that collectivization, well, you can see what happened to the kulaks. If something similar were to happen here, the people who would be our equivalent of the kulaks would simply go John Galt. That would be a policy failure.

           But on the individualist tendency, I think something similar can happen. I don’t think everyone in the world is comfortable with living by Ayn Rand’s philosophy, even though it is based entirely upon objective reality and is very strongly empiricist. I don’t think that the reason why people are uncomfortable with that philosophy can be entirely blamed on education or socialization. I think that something in human nature, maybe that evolutionary altruism, stops most people from developing this sort of worldview. People may actually live to maximize their wealth and notoriety, but I don’t think that most people could live comfortably with it. If more members of our species could make that jump without causing this anxiety. Part of it does come from socialization, but I think there is something intrinsic in us that demands these considerations.

           I think that proper policy that stems from a grounded moral philosophy has to take these contradictions into account. I don’t think you would have a truly fulfilled society if one focused too much on the individual or too much upon the collective. You have to have both, and I’ll even suggest a 50/50 mix won’t work either. You have to look at the specific situation to see what fits, which is why we have social scientists and policy experts.

           Yes, utilitarian and distributionist issues come to the fore here. I just don’t think hyper individualism truly fits with human nature any better than hyper collectivism does.

           
           
           • on February 7, 2010 at 1:40 am Christopher@BorderWars

             Interesting that we pretty much agree. I think it’s interesting when you’re looking at Philosophy vis-a-vis Religion and Philosophy vis-a-vis Government. Although there are many overlaps in nature and purpose between the two, what I mean here is basically who you should act with others vs. how the government should act with you.

             To me the more important litmus test for a philosophy is the Government aspects, simply because social and religious aspects are easier to control on one’s own.

             One very attractive aspect of libertarian policy is Government non-interference in things that might even be seen as immoral; i.e. not all morality need be legislated. For example, I see no reason why the Government should have any laws limiting marriage. I see no harm in allowing gays and even polygamists (or any consenting adults) from forming legal bonds.

             Rand herself (not to deify the woman, as some do) thought that homosexuality was immoral, but was firmly against any sort of legislation. Really, how many other philosophies don’t fall into the trap of “let’s pass a law against things we don’t like and for things we do! More control the better!” ??

             In this regard, libertarianism vis-a-vis the Government allows for any sort of collectivism to exist by those who freely choose to live in such arrangements.

             Collectivist governments never allow you to opt out and not sacrifice values in your one life for the benefit of others if you don’t want to. Many of them don’t even let you leave!

             I agree that some people are naturally introverts while others are natural extroverts… just as some are individualists and others are collectivists. I’m just wary of forced conformity and participation.

             In this respect

             
             
     • on February 5, 2010 at 10:34 pm Christopher@BorderWars

       As pure altruism, “do unto others” or “love they neighbor” are unattainable and prone to abuse. http://tinyurl.com/yl4cogr

       A slightly different phrasing is “do unto others as they do unto you.” Tit-for-tat is a valid strategy that we see played out in more places than just moral philosophy; it’s a staple of game theory and Econ101 students will remember “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” from lecture. This is more in-line with “eye for an eye.”

       Atwood mentions in the video that religions have offered eternal justice for people who in life did not find it–this is the vast majority of everyone who has ever lived. The “Do unto others” philosophy implies the power to do so, and not everyone has that ability. You might consider it moral to live your life as a victim in such a situation, but “turn the other cheek” might not make YOU evil, but it certainly encourages victimhood. Is it moral to advocate a system where people are basically told to smile and take it?

       Even if you have morality condensed down to “be good (to yourself and others),” it’s still difficult to live that way. If there is no punishment on earth or after, there are going to be people who will adopt a hedonist, epicurean, or even exploitative… because they simply ask “why?” Being punished, or brought to justice, is a reason.

       And “be good” is insufficient to answer the more difficult questions of living with each other, such as how to resolve conflicting interests.

       
       
       • on February 5, 2010 at 10:38 pm retrieverman

         I spend most of my time in the Prisoner’s Dilemma as it applies to interstate (not the highways) behavior.

         I think humans are both collectivist and individualist in our behavior. To say that our nature is either one or the other is also prone to abuse, and sometimes leads to certain ethical problems.

         I suppose that I am more in line with Rawls’s Theory of Justice than I am with Ayn Rand.

         http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html

         
         
   • on February 5, 2010 at 4:54 am retrieverman

     I’m working on a response to your comment, but I’m having a hard time getting it all organized. I’ve started six times, and it’s always been inadequate. Maybe after I sleep on it for a bit, it will be something more worthwhile.

     
     

Comments are closed.