Vorkosigan

Au contraire, contrarist. You do not need to invent a new value in order to deal with new phenomenon any more then you have to invent a new visual apparatus in order to see things you've never seen before.

Luv: what is..
a microscope
a telescope
a CAT scanner

new visual apparatus to see things we never seen before...

A person in a primative society encountering cloning or nuclear waste would interpret this new stimuli on the same basis as he had been interpreting how best to divy up the spoils of the hunt.

People in technologically primitive societies come in two sexes too, you know.

Also, have you ever lived in a technologically primitive society encountering new tech? I did, in the Peace Corps. It was clear that the old values don't work. You should read some of the writings of Franz Fanon, Chinua Acheba, Ngugi Wa Thiongo, or a whole corpus of anthropology works. New technology demands new values; in fact, one of the biggest headaches is the way technology races ahead of values.

He would do so by seeing what worked best for all men.

I'm glad it is so easy for you. I'll pass that along to the legislatures of the world, who often thrash things out over years.

I think generally all men share some concept of the Golden Rule, and they apply this to new stimuli in the environment as they are exposed to them.

I think they do too. Do you think women share it as well?

They need not share stimuli in order to share the grounds on which to deal with that stimuli.

Certainly, but shared ethical values does not mean that they are "objective" in any sense. Or that they are good values. They merely have the advantage of being shared.

With all due respect, none of your arguments have impressed me as much as his. I am impressed with how much you all think of yourselves, though.

With all due respect, my opinion of the low quality of Lewis' writing is widely shared in the academe. Atheists do not even waste their time refuting him; we focus on serious thinkers, like Platinga. Even William Lane Craig is light-years ahead of Lewis. Look how little there is on him here. I doubt any of us have ever spent 5 minutes thinking about his arguments.

Lewis seems to believe that values are there universally because they have been put there by some Creator. It apparently never occurred to him, as it did to thousands of his contemporaries, and thousands since, that evolution accounts much better for the existence of semi-universal moral responses. Additionally, there are thousands of other postulated gods, and Lewis offers no reason why we should accept his Big Daddy in the sky over some other.

In a strong piece of writing putting forth an idea, a writer does two things. First, she makes a positive case for her point of view. This Lewis does, weakly. Second, she also reviews the negatives of her case. This Mere Christianity does not do at all.

In any case, you do not appear to have understood our discussion, as your reponse to my first question below shows.


I'd like to meet you one day. From your posts, you must be a perfect human being. Congratulations, it must be nice.

(a)I have not insulted you in this way and (b) I do not need to be perfect to see that Lewis was a supercilious, shallow thinker. Indeed, his ignorance and misunderstandings of his own arguments have been demonstrated repeatedly here.

"There is nothing you can point to that would compel me to adopt your standards, except force."

Not even reason?

You missed the boat here. There is nothing outside of our conversation, some transcendent value, that would compel me to accept your claim. You cannot compel, you can only negotiate. The emphasis in that sentence was on compel.

1) I don't understand the question.

1. Why is a "universal" moral belief the proper definition of an "objective" moral?

In Lewis' book, and in your post, you have repeatedly taken the position that a universally shared value is an "objective" moral value. I'd like to know how you came up with that idea. I agree that some moral beliefs are universally shared, but I suspect we would differ radically on which beliefs would count as "moral" and were shared.

2) Probably c.

c. an ideal shared by the majority of individuals on earth regardless of proportions in each culture.

Be careful. I would bet that the majority of people on earth believe women are the moral inferiors of men. Would you want that implemented in your society?

3) Nothing much, I just always wanted to see what an avowed atheist would make of Lewis argument.

Not much. Why don't you read Albert Plantinga, or someone else serious? Shit, on this site alone I would say that the theists Kenny, Bede and Polycarp are better thinkers than Lewis ever was.

Will you understand that Lewis' work is low-level writing intended for mass audiences? Do you think people study him in universities and centers of learning?

I admit, I am intestinally repulsed by applied subjectivism, that is to say, people who excuse their bad behavior by saying that there is no such thing.

I have never met anyone like this. Certainly nobody on this site is that way, and no serious moral subjectivist is. So stop with the strawman arguments, please. As far as I can see, since a Xtian can always get forgiveness from god, there is no incentive to behave in this life, is there?

Many of the arguments you folks are making sound good on paper, I just find them distatsteful when used by a man who will not support his children or by a wife who will not be faithful to her husband.

May I remind you that the highest divorce rates are found among evangelical Christians and the lowest among atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. See <a href="http://www.barna.org," target="_blank">www.barna.org,</a> the Christian polling group.
Like all good religions, the doctrine of subjectivism can be dangerous in the hands of fools.

"Moral subjectivism" is a philosophical stance, not a religious one. Many Christians are subjectivists, many atheists are objectivists. One does not mean the other.

It assumes that people can even determine what is in their best interests, or the world's, and it is obvious they generally cannot.

Luv, but above you said that they could. You claimed that a primitive could use his values to determine the proper perspective on new tech. You explicitly affirmed that people could, in fact, discover their best interests.

Michael

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Pomp

luvluv,

I’ll address your latest comments here. It seems, however, that you are still missing the primary point that I am trying to make, which is that you do not understand the subjectivist position. You have repeated the same errors after having them pointed out to you by four different posters.

Out of curiousity, by your definition, should women have rights?

Should one hold slaves, or not?

Should certain castes have dominance over others?

Luv, I think my answers to all these questions would be both obvious to you and beside the point. The point is that, in direct contradiction to Lewis’s and your position that all people across all times and places have agreed on all important moral questions, these are questions of significant moral import that people living in different times and places have disagreed vehemently on. You made an assertion. These cases prove that assertion to be false.

Also, in defining all morality in matters of self interest, does it not follow that the strong will always have decidedly less morals than the weak, since the strong have less to fear from the consequences of their actions?

I’m not sure what you mean by “less morals.” If you mean something like “fewer constraints on their actions” then, yes, the “strong,” however you want to define that, will have fewer constraints than the “weak.” Presumably, your implication is that the guy with the biggest stick will have “no morals,” or “no constraints on his actions.” This is not the case as, in order to truly escape from all moral constraints, that individual would need to be a) self-reliant to the point of never needing to cooperate with anyone for his survival and b) dangerous to the point that he could simultaneously fight everyone else and win. In reality, our reliance on each other for material and immaterial support and the relatively narrow range of our abilities prevents such a situation from ever occurring, or even coming close to occurring.

In saying that a person ought to act in his own benefit to as great an extent as he can and get away with it, aren't you implicitly arguing that might makes right?

In a sense, yes. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, however, it is simply a better general strategy to cooperate with each other than to seek to overpower each other. Negotiation is almost always less costly than violent conflict.

A fortunate coincidence for you, for it was your original argument, as opposed to the one you subsequently picked up from Hobbs, that we need not share even a single value in order to negotiate for peace.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. My argument has not changed, although I’ve fleshed it out a bit more since my original short post to you, and I may have misspoken at some point, although I'm not going to dig through my comments to find out. If you think I've contradicted myself somewhere, let me know where and I'll clarify my position for you. As I explained in detail in my previous post (see the case of hypothetical individuals A and B), we need not share any values at all in order to negotiate. It is certainly helpful to share values, however, as, among other thing, it allows us to form negotiating coalitions with others who share our values.

As I have said, by your original argument, the stronger party would never negotiate.

And as I have said, you are incorrect. It is often in the stronger party’s best interest to negotiate rather than fight, simply because the cost of fighting is high.

In other words, had Hitler not engaged in war and had he merely expelled the Jews, you would not have a problem with a Nazi state? And if you would disapprove of a peaceful Nazi state, on what grounds would you disapprove of it?

This is at least the fourth time I’ve said this, and the second time I’ve italicized it for emphasis: I do not have to have any grounds on which to disapprove of the Nazi regime other than the fact that its values conflict with my values.

This is the key point that you are missing. I do not need to provide some philosophical proof that your values are “wrong” in order to disagree with you. We both hold values that are not subject to argument; we value whatever it is that we value. If you and I hold contradictory values, then we will disagree. It is as simple as that.

I absolutely believe that if I can save lives by compelling a man to stop an immoral course of action (like invading Poland) by appealing to his moral sense and shaming him then that is morally superior to your position, which in effect says it is okay for Hitler to do whatever he perceives to be in his best interest.

You have once again created a strawman subjectivist position. No subjectivist claims that everyone ought to run around doing whatever he or she wants. Once again, there are objective constraints on actions. My position is that Hitler ought not invade Poland because he will face harsh consequences if he violates everyone else’s interests by doing so and, thus, invading Poland is not really in his best interest. Your position is that Hitler ought not invade Poland because…well…just because. It’s “wrong,” whatever that means.

What are you going to say to Hitler? “Bad Hitler. You can’t invade Poland. That’s wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.”

What am I going to say to Hitler? “Adolph, buddy, you realize that every Western nation you don’t immediately remove from the picture is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks if you do this right? You’re going to get your ass kicked. You’d better reconsider.”

If shame based on shared values can save lives, is it not morally superior to self-interest?

If one uses “saving lives” as the sole criterion for judging moral devices, yes. I don’t happen to accept that notion.

And what of the value of shame as a deterant?

I agree that shame is a powerful behavioral modification tool, which is why I called it the theist’s best friend. Theistic moral systems are largely about control. Shame is a useful way to control people.

I've had those opportunities myself with women who were fully of age, who I was not afraid of impregnating or catching an STD from, and who had no friends who were friends of mine (through which I could hurt my reputation). In other words, I had nothing to lose by getting what was in my interest (sex), and was held from doing so only by my not desiring to feel shame. What of these situations?

What of them? If you would really feel worse about having used someone than you would feel good about getting laid then you acted in your own interest by turning down sex. Am I supposed to disagree with this? I never said that we shouldn’t feel shame, I simply look disparagingly upon those who suggest, as you have, that it be used as a means of control.

Before you ask me on what grounds I disapprove of the use of manipulative shaming, scroll back up and re-read my comments on what grounds are necessary to disapprove of something.

And has it occured to you that shame is not a figment of the imagination, but an actual emotion? Might it not then have some purpose, whether Divine or evolutionary?

At what point did I say that shame was imaginary? I’m sure it does serve some evolutionary purpose, perhaps helping us to steer clear of acts that would cause others to distrust us, thereby lowering our ability to negotiate favorable outcomes.

I realize that it can be quite confusing to debate several people simultaneously, but you are missing several very key points here. Until you really understand the subjectivist position, you are not going to understand why none of your criticisms of it are valid.

Someone7

I haven’t read this thread in its entirety, but having read most of Mere Christianity (I couldn’t finish it, Lewis was beginning to grate on my nerves with his constant use of argument by analogy), his idea that God must exist for objective moral rules to exist is absurd. That Lewis was not a very logical thinker, or even very learned in ethics, is clearly demonstrated by this. Plato had already put an end to that idea 2500 years earlier in his dialogue Euthyphro.

As had already been said, the more of Mere Christianity you read, the stupider it gets. I had to put the book down after his chapter on sex.

Vorkosigan

Here is a paper by Plantinga we discussed in the Philosophical forum some time ago:
<a href="http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/alspaper.htm" target="_blank">http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/alspaper.htm</a>

Are Darwin and Churchland right? Well, they are certainly right in thinking that natural selection is directly interested only in behavior, not belief, and that it is interested in belief, if at all, only indirectly, by virtue of the relation between behavior and belief. If adaptive behavior guarantees or makes probable reliable faculties, then P(R/N&E) will be rather high: we (or rather our ancestors) engaged in at least reasonably adaptive behavior, so it must be that our cognitive faculties are at least reasonably reliable, in which case it is likely that most of our beliefs are true. On the other hand, if our having reliable faculties isn't guaranteed by or even particularly probable with respect to adaptive behavior, then presumably P(R/N&E) will be rather low. If, for example, behavior isn't caused or governed by belief, the latter would be, so to speak, invisible to natural selection; in that case it would be unlikely that most of our beliefs are true, and unlikely that our cognitive faculties are for the most part reliable. So the question of the value of P(R/N&E) really turns on the relationship between belief and behavior. Our having evolved and survived makes it likely that our cognitive faculties are reliable and our beliefs are for the most part true, only if it would be impossible or unlikely that creatures more or less like us should behave in fitness-enhancing ways but nonetheless hold mostly false beliefs.

Let's note a few things about this draft paper paragraph:[list][*]It discusses actual ideas from actual people (Darwin, Churchland)[*]It uses philosophical argument styles and jargon[*]It uses difficult ideas -- "fitness," "cognitive."[*]It does not assume the reader is an idiot.

This is not a particularly difficult paper, but it is light-years ahead of Lewis. Luv, what does it take to convince you that Lewis is an intellectual lightweight?

But if Plantinga doesn't give you pause, here is an on-line presentation of Van Til:

<a href="http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/sce/cvt_sce_contents.html" target="_blank">http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/sce/cvt_sce_contents.html</a>

Happy hunting!

Michael

Vorkosigan

If not, what would compel a vastly superior army to negotiate with an inferior one, if the value of peace was not shared?

Luv, instead of repeating questions that have already been answered, why not provide some discussion of the issues as they have been presented to you. In the post just before you asked this, I had already explained why you were wrong:

It will always be in the interest of the strongest party to war if the spoils of the war exceed the cost of waging the war UNLESS both parties share the value of peace.

This is a formulation of the extremely intensively-studied problem of the <a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html" target="_blank">Prisoner's Dilemma</a>. It basically asks, when the costs to cheat on an agreement are low and short-term gains are strong, what keeps the cheater from (in Luv's case) pillaging the world? Virtually all social interactions that involve agreements are some variant of this problem.

The answer is, Luv, iteration. Dilemmas of this nature do not happen once. If nations did not exist in time and deal with this over and over again, then you are absolutely right, the dominant one would simply take over the world.

The problem is, Luv, the you have framed the problem incorrectly. International Relations do not occur once, but over and over again, every day. And since the US expects to cooperate with other nations in the future, it has to behave as though it would be a good partner to cooperate with. In other words, it discounts current costs of cooperation against future gains of cooperation, just as you do whenever you keep a promise. The calculus of cost, Luv, is not independent of the future. And your formulation of the problem has no future, and thus, is incomplete.

In scholarly terms, this is known as the <a href="http://www.brembs.net/ipd/ipd.html" target="_blank">Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.</a> When social beings must contract again and again -- the dilemma is iterated -- outcomes are very different than the one Luv predicts, and much more in accord with what we see in the real world.

I suggest you read the two sites I've provided. There is a gigantic and always increasing body of literature on Prisoner's Dilemma games and the evolution of cooperation.

I hope this has partially answered your question. Although there are many fictional treatments of the problem of social cooperation and enforcement, the best in my view is the science fiction story by Eric Frank Russell, the entertaining And Then There Were None...

Michael

luvluv

Turt, no you would not have to be perfect to question his thinking, you would have to be perfect to say this:

"No wonder he never married until late in life. He must have been hell on his servants"

and this:

"You can only laugh at shit as dumb as this."

That is what caught my eye. That, by the way, is what I meant by "ire".

At any rate, "Things Fall Apart" is actually one of my favorite books, but I think it has to do with customs rather than morality. Many of what we would call bad things that occured in that book were the result of customs, and not merely morality. For instance, the practice of Okonkwo's tribe of leaving twins to die in the forest has to do with the custom of believing that twins are evil spirits. Perhaps much of what are perceived to be moral differences are simply differences in information. Okonkwo's tribe only got rid of twins because they thought that twins were the result of evil spirits. If the tribe could have learned that twins were not evil, might we not expect them to behave differently? There different response was not on the basis of different morals but of different INFORMATION. That is what I meant when I said that many cultures seem to be moving in the same direction, that once informatin catches up with their customs, there customs change. Now that we don't believe that witches exist, we don't burn them anymore. But our morality has not changed: we object to the murder of innocent parties. The difference being formerly, we did not know the witches were innocent.

I say men and mankind just out of habit. I'm sorry if it offends anyone.

Okay on question one: When I say objective, and I can only speak for myself, I basically mean a value that all beings wishing to live in concert with other beings must share. No this value does not apply to lions or pirranna (sp?) but it would seem that they do not wish to live in concert with other beings. However, it would seem that it would apply to intelligent alien species, if they wished to live in concert with us. Now, I call that objective, that may be an error in word usage on my part. But the word shared subjective seems to be misleading, because anyone capable of sharing the subjective idea must be something with intelligence that would agree. I just call it objective, because I assume I am only talking about (and to) human beings.

you say:

"Be careful. I would bet that the majority of people on earth believe women are the moral inferiors of men. Would you want that implemented in your society?"

Do people really believe that women are MORALLY inferior or only socially and intellectually inferior. I actually thought that a large reason behind the restrictions of women, at least in Islamic countries, was to protect them from the morali inferiority of men. Personally, I do believe that men and women are equal but different. I do believe they have to perform equal, but different roles at least in a family in order to promote a healthy society. I am still forming my views on that point, but I must say I was somewhat unnerved by the book The Great Disruption, by Francis Fukiyama. Ever read it? At any rate, it seems to suggest a high degree of social pathology coinciding with high numbers of women in the workforce in any society. The basic thesis of the book was that when women can earn a comfortable living without marriage, marriage not suprisingly is destabilized. When marriages are destablilized, there is a much higher rate of crime, social pathology, and distrust associated with the children of those families as opposed to the children of intact families. I'm not sure what that portends for the future. I am sure women should have full citizenship and government rights, but it would seem like full economic equality of women has some unintended social drawbacks. Anyway, I'm just babbling on that point and maybe that is for another thread.

quoting you quoting me:

"I admit, I am intestinally repulsed by applied subjectivism, that is to say, people who excuse their bad behavior by saying that there is no such thing.

I have never met anyone like this.

I have, many times. You'd be suprised at how the relativist position trickles down to people who do not have the research in this area that you do. You apparently assume that most of the relativists and subjectivists walking around know all about iteration, the Prisoners Dilema, and the works of Plantinga. However, in my experience on college campuses, most atheists, like most religious people, are as dumb as a sack of bricks. They pick the philosophy that fits their lifestyle best and they never put much more thought into it. I have seen many young ladies and young men with significant others out doing wrong, and they just respond to me by saying "Who are you to judge me? Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is". Most of it never gets beyond whatever their urges happen to be at the particular momment. I'm not saying that most religious people have put a lot of thought into their beliefs, I just haven't noticed a marked intellectual gap between the average atheist you meet on the street and the average religous person.

Pompous: I think shame is a medium of self-control, it certainly was in the explicit scenario I gave about my own life. I'm not even sure that shame can be used as a means of control, unless the person being controlled is willing. My mom at least is always trying to motivate me through shame, and I generally ignore her.

you said:

"If you would really feel worse about having used someone than you would feel good about getting laid then you acted in your own interest by turning down sex."

Sure you can say that, but you didn't see her . But seriously, this is a circular argument in this case. If I were to ask what were the evolutionary purpose of shame, you would say to keep me from engaging in behavior detrimental to myself. But in this particular case, the shame itself is the only detriment I face. Like I said, I didn't know the girl well, I was out of town, and I am pretty positive it would have never gotten back to me in anyway. It would seem in such a case that shame is entirely superflous. Why would shame exist to keep me from feeling it alone? Surely I don't need it, if I can analyze the costs and benefits of my actions. It would seem to only stop me from doing the things that I perceive through my mind that I can do without harm to myself.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvluv:
[QB]Turt, no you would not have to be perfect to question his thinking, you would have to be perfect to say this:

"No wonder he never married until late in life. He must have been hell on his servants"

and this:

"You can only laugh at shit as dumb as this."[/b]

I have to be perfect to make a light-hearted comment that he didn't get married because he was insufferably obnoxious? And to point out that his writings are shallow? I don't get that one.

That is what caught my eye. That, by the way, is what I meant by "ire".

Also, saying Lewis' work is "dumb" is not ire directed at you, Luvluv. We are absolutely free to label crap, "crap." I basically do not have any respect for Lewis as a writer of non-fiction. I love his fiction, however.

At any rate, "Things Fall Apart" is actually one of my favorite books, but I think it has to do with customs rather than morality. Many of what we would call bad things that occured in that book were the result of customs, and not merely morality. For instance, the practice of Okonkwo's tribe of leaving twins to die in the forest has to do with the custom of believing that twins are evil spirits.

Well, where I come from, leaving people to die in the forest is a moral act....I saw Achebe speak in Nairobi one year, BTW.

Perhaps much of what are perceived to be moral differences are simply differences in information. Okonkwo's tribe only got rid of twins because they thought that twins were the result of evil spirits.

Yes, this is often the case. If only people knew there were no such things as spirits, much evil might be avoided.

...differently? There different response was not on the basis of different morals but of different INFORMATION.

A behavior does not become "customary" simply because it is a practical strategy to propiate the spirits based on erroneous information. Morals are practical strategies, in many cases. That is the beauty of being a subjectivist. We can dump morals that don't fulfill our goals. You objectivists, whatever you choose as your basis for your objective morals, are stuck with the toolkit you start out with.

Besides, you must realize that the arguments against the spirits in Achebe's culture can also be directed at the spirits YOU make sacrifices to.

That is what I meant when I said that many cultures seem to be moving in the same direction, that once informatin catches up with their customs, there customs change.

Well, yes, so you're saying that leaving human beings to die the forest is NOT a moral act? So we can't even agree on what is moral?

Also, you can't isolate that "custom" from a deeper cultural commitment to the position that human beings are just sacrifices for higher powers. And that, to me, is immoral.

Now that we don't believe that witches exist, we don't burn them anymore. But our morality has not changed: we object to the murder of innocent parties. The difference being formerly, we did not know the witches were innocent.

I agree.

I say men and mankind just out of habit. I'm sorry if it offends anyone.

It doesn't offend me, but it is no longer acceptable writing in academia.

Okay on question one: When I say objective, and I can only speak for myself....

A, you're a subjectivist. As I suspected.

I basically mean a value that all beings wishing to live in concert with other beings must share.

must share? But we know that in fact they do not share many values, but manage to live in concert (whatever that means). In the US people of many different values live together, because they cultivate a moral strategy, tolerance.

No this value does not apply to lions or pirranna (sp?) but it would seem that they do not wish to live in concert with other beings.

Both piranhas and lions operate in social groups.

However, it would seem that it would apply to intelligent alien species, if they wished to live in concert with us.

So they'd have to adopt our morality? Ouch. I would simply ask that they tolerate ours to the extent possible, and that we tolerate theirs on the same basis.

Now, I call that objective, that may be an error in word usage on my part. But the word shared subjective seems to be misleading, because anyone capable of sharing the subjective idea must be something with intelligence that would agree. I just call it objective, because I assume I am only talking about (and to) human beings.

But our issue is: what do you mean by "objective?" Do you mean that the morals you espouse are universal, must be obeyed, and exist in some transcendant realm somewhere?

"Be careful. I would bet that the majority of people on earth believe women are the moral inferiors of men. Would you want that implemented in your society?"

Do people really believe that women are MORALLY inferior or only socially and intellectually inferior. I actually thought that a large reason behind the restrictions of women, at least in Islamic countries, was to protect them from the morali inferiority of men.

Hmmm....so why not restrain the men? When there are car thieves, we don't stop driving, we arrest the thieves. Male domination of women is done for the purposes of male domination. No other reason.

must say I was somewhat unnerved by the book The Great Disruption, by Francis Fukiyama. Ever read it? At any rate, it seems to suggest a high degree of social pathology coinciding with high numbers of women in the workforce in any society. The basic thesis of the book was that when women can earn a comfortable living without marriage, marriage not suprisingly is destabilized.

No shit. Because, as you note above, most men are assholes, so women only marry because they have no other economic option. Modern society gives women economic options. In cultures where men have not yet caught up to women, the number of women not marrying is extremely high. I recall reading that in Japan something 30% of females in the under-35 generation will never marry. Ditto for Taiwan. In America, note that more than 90% of the population eventually marries. The men have changed. In other words, divorces happen, but remarriage happens. In any case, I do not agree that divorce is necessarily a bad thing, especially when there are no kids.

Also, Fukuyama, like most commentators in this area, has an artificial and idealized view of the past. In many rural areas divorce rates are high, and men often simply leave their wives along with kids and no economic means of support.

When marriages are destablilized, there is a much higher rate of crime, social pathology, and distrust associated with the children of those families as opposed to the children of intact families.

I agree. But the answer is not to shove women back in the kitchen, but to educate men. You're making an argument that because men are shits, women must be imprisoned. I reject that argument.

I'm not sure what that portends for the future. I am sure women should have full citizenship and government rights, but it would seem like full economic equality of women has some unintended social drawbacks.

Yes, like forcing men to behave. Oh, the horror!

"I admit, I am intestinally repulsed by applied subjectivism, that is to say, people who excuse their bad behavior by saying that there is no such thing.

I have never met anyone like this.

I have, many times. You'd be suprised at how the relativist position trickles down to people who do not have the research in this area that you do. You apparently assume that most of the relativists and subjectivists walking around know all about iteration, the Prisoners Dilema, and the works of Plantinga. However, in my experience on college campuses, most atheists, like most religious people, are as dumb as a sack of bricks. They pick the philosophy that fits their lifestyle best and they never put much more thought into it. I have seen many young ladies and young men with significant others out doing wrong, and they just respond to me by saying "Who are you to judge me? Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is".

They are absolutely correct. Who are you to judge their private behavior? What does "out doing wrong" mean? It is a phrase you invented so YOU could control THEIR behavior. What grounds do you have to tell another person what to do with their minds and bodies?

I agree that many subjectivists are not as well educated about morals, but I have been here a year and listened to smart people like Pompous, and SingleDad, and Hobbs. It's been an education.

Most of it never gets beyond whatever their urges happen to be at the particular momment.

And? So what? There's nothing wrong with two people having sex, unless they are violating some oath or one has not given consent.

I'm not saying that most religious people have put a lot of thought into their beliefs, I just haven't noticed a marked intellectual gap between the average atheist you meet on the street and the average religous person.

That's cuz there isn't any difference. In any case, to make ethical judgements, brains are useful, but not necessary. There's no level of IQ that gives you the right to make judgements about ethics. Anyone can do that. When you attempt to pass judgement on people, they have every right to respond negatively, regardless.

Michael

ohwilleke

Because it may take less effort to achieve your objective with negotiation, and because the winner may be able to get something useful (e.g. voluntary submission which makes ruling later easier) with negotiation than with brute force. If you can get everyone to simply give up, why would you ever make war?

On another point, you argue that C.S. Lewis relied on the formal creeds of different systems of thought. Yet, they are clearly irreconcilable on their face. To give just one example, compare Sikhism and Confucianism. Sikhism holds the ultimate equality of all persons to such a high level that it ban the use of furniture in temples so that no man stands above another. Confucianism in contrast argues that ever person has a hierarchical relationship with every other person, master to servant, father to son, husband to wife, older sibling to younger sibling, elder to junior. These are fundamental values of each system of belief that are diametrically opposite from each other. And, they determine what is moral in the context of relationships.

Pomp

But if Plantinga doesn't give you pause, here is an on-line presentation of Van Til

(Pompous Bastard runs screaming from the room at the mere mention of Van Til.)

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Yes, I don't know what imp possessed me.....

Michael