God Fearing Atheist

No Epitome, thats not what im saying at all.

Living like savages is exactly what the social contract prohibits!

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: God Fearing Atheist ]</p>

God Fearing Atheist

But is this true? Whats important and enlightening about the quote from Leviathan at the very top of my first post is the simple observation that, although human beings differ to a remarkable degree in the quality and quantity of their faculties, they can all (and i take this to be the infirm, retarded, etc, as well), in at least one way, deal large amounts of ill fate on each other. While Johnny Brain-damage may not be as clever as his fellows, there is no doubt he can swing a fist, hold a bat, or pull a trigger. And less doubt still that he will be willing to take, if only in the long run, abuse of most sorts.

There is a simple reply to this, I think: being put under anesthesia while conscious and without consent is barred up the proviso, thats clear enough. Forced used against me while already under, consentually, can be prohibited post-contracturally. We have, on the one hand, "contracts" of an implicit, hypothetical sort, which give rise to conditions in which the explicit contracts of the market arrise, on the other. The former are justifed on grounds of reciprocity. The latter can probably be established, both by the former sort, and something akin to what Searle did in his essay, "How to derive an 'Ought' from an 'Is'".

Narveson put it this way:"If you say, "I promise to do x", you have, so far as I am concerned, told me that you have accepted a commitment to do x. If you break the commitment [by saying something like, "why not break a promise?"], most of us, I think, would conclude that you are engaging in sophistry or didnt know what you were talking about. And yet we obviously don’t think that you had a commitment to do x prior to your promise to do it. Promises of this explicit sort [which, again, arrise post-contract]commit because thats what they're for: to promise is to convey to others that you agree that you are committed to doing whatever it is you promise".A promise is an obligation.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: God Fearing Atheist ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist: But is this true? Whats important and enlightening about the quote from Leviathan at the very top of my first post is the simple observation that, although human beings differ to a remarkable degree in the quality and quantity of their faculties, they can all (and i take this to be the infirm, retarded, etc, as well), in at least one way, deal large amounts of ill fate on each other. While Johnny Brain-damage may not be as clever as his fellows, there is no doubt he can swing a fist, hold a bat, or pull a trigger. And less doubt still that he will be willing to take, if only in the long run, abuse of most sorts.

No, this doesn’t cut it. I referred to the MOST disabled of our society: quadriplegics, severe burn victims, severely brain damaged, etc. You merely addressed mildly to moderately disabled individuals capable of physical exertion, while ignoring people unable to “swing a fist, hold a bat, or pull a trigger”. Do you now care to address my original point? While you may simply think of these people as “Johnny Brain-damaged”, I happen to think they have rights worth protecting just as much as your own. Would you take a bat to the head of a severely “Johnny Brain-damaged” individual and beat the hell out of his brains only if he was unable to reciprocate such an action? Or would you merely condone or allow someone else to do it?

Quote:

There is a simple reply to this, I think: being put under anesthesia while conscious and without consent is barred up the proviso, thats clear enough. Forced used against me while already under, consentually, can be prohibited post-contracturally. We have, on the one hand, "contracts" of an implicit, hypothetical sort, which give rise to conditions in which the explicit contracts of the market arrise, on the other. The former are justifed on grounds of reciprocity. The latter can probably be established, both by the former sort, and something akin to what Searle did in his essay, "How to derive an 'Ought' from an 'Is'". If you say, "I promise to do x", you have, so far as I am concerned, told me that you have accepted a commitment to do x. If you break the commitment (harming me while under anesthesia) by saying something like, "why not break a promise?", most of us, I think, would conclude that you are engaging in sophistry or didnt know what you were talking about. And yet we obviously don’t think that you had a commitment to do x prior to your promise to do it. Promises of this explicit sort (which, again, arrise post-contract) commit because thats what they're for: to promise is to convey to others that you agree that you are committed to doing whatever it is you promise. A promise is an obligation.

Again, this is simply not true. Have you ever had general anesthesia? I have, and you usually end up signing a contract that basically says exactly the opposite of what you claim. You basically sign something that says general anesthesia may lead to death. Granted, it doesn’t say you can be intentionally killed, but there is no contract that says you will not be killed. Why should there be in a civilized society? In any case, this is all beside the point of my original argument, so allow me to clarify.

If I, as a civilian (not a doctor), encounter person X, who is under general anesthesia, then what is to prohibit me from harming person X considering they are not in a position to reciprocate any harm I may cause to them?

hedonologist

(edited to add the sentence in bold)
What about people who practice forms of employment involving aesthetics or porn, have no relatives as beneficiaries, and aren't politically active, etc, so their only basic effect on society is trading aesthetics for money and money for what they need? Would watching one of them die, be something more than an "offence to the palette"? How about pro football players if all they do is provide a sort of aesthetic image of a game on a TV screen? Musicians? What music can stir the soul of some people (or induce production of certain hormones and brainwaves, if that is what you value) so much as those little bundles of cute?

We would have to consider what is MORE utilitarian, saving the baby or not, and see how much effort it is "worth" to whoever has the utilitarian value and is considering the question, to try to accomplish either the killing or the saving. Similarly, someone could benefit from a fridge MORE than a person would benefit from destroying a fridge for no reason, so doesn't a fridge have "rights" in the utilitarian sense? (hed crys, "VCR's are people too! Doesn't anyone care about them?") What about games (babies are also interactive)?

A lot of pain and maybe loss of work has already been "invested" in a baby who made it out of the womb-- the pregnancy and labor. Now they are autonomous and could be given or sold, without harming an unwilling mother. If you consider the above employees/people or products to be valuable wouldn't this mean the babies at least have a similar value to "society", if someone would want to adopt them even for just a little while?

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

tronvillain

God Fearing Atheist:
It is not always rational, and does not necessarily equate with the tit-for-tat strategy of game theory, which itself isn't always the best strategy.

At most that means individual strategies must take into account the strategies of others. In a single encounter, if one can predict the opponent will cooperate, then defection could be a "superior" strategy to cooperation.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Yes, those religious types who crashed two aircraft into the WTC certainly valued every soul there.

And of course, there is Rwanda, where many clerics were among the perpetrators of genocide.

As far as I know, there are no cases of mass killings by atheists in the name of atheism. All mass killings have taken place under the rubric of some authoritarian belief, such as Communism, Christianity, Islam, Facism and so on. Could you list some examples of "the true colors" of atheism?

Michael

Photocrat

In tit-for-tat, I should be nice *first* and only reciprocate harm after they do so first (and then I should be nice again, if they correct their behavior). If anything, it shows that nice guys win in the end; so long as they work to make sure that their partners are also nice.

The problem is that, while you may not think you have a 'contract' with an infant, other people will still observe what kind of person you are & reciprocate for them. Due to their belief that you will not reciprocate for them, they won't reciprocate either & you lose.

So I don't think that you can just isolate one segment of society & say "you're not doing anything for me, so it's okay if I give you the shaft" and not expect to lose. You cannot treat human interaction as a pure exercise of strategy, either, for that matter. You will find out that people will ally themselves to make sure that you lose whenever you're percieved as being that Machiavellian...

Photocrat

The communist party of China; which requires it's members be atheist before they join [I'm told that they're somewhat lax in this; but I don't know of any outspoken theist who has been allowed to join]

I should also note that you have to be a member of the communist party to have any political power in China [e.g. anything higher up than a local official]

The U.S. State Dept. has a nice list of human rights abuses which it has published. It can easily be located online. In fact, I've told you all of this before... more than once.

As to the arguement, there isn't one. This all goes nowhere, which is why I only use it to counter 'all religions are evil' rants--to point out that they're all dead ends. Neither arguement proves anything; since in accepting one, you accuse yourself of the other (qui s'excuse s'accuse).

Then again, you can always play the 'no true atheist' game with me... Please explain why the atheists there are not representative of your beliefs? Now then, why can't I say that the people who have committed atrocity X are not representative of *my* beliefs? Exactly.

Jane Bovary

This is a bit rich...aren't you directing your indignant response to the wrong poster? Epitome makes a couple of really ridiculous statements, Turtonm points out the flapping holes in her argument/opinion[?]and you accuse himof making artificial arguments!

Communism is a political ideology... athiests are not compelled to follow its tenets. Athiesm is a disbelief in God, that's all...it carries no extraneous convictions relating to anything else.

Not so Christianity, which must be held accountable for its doctrines and the historical consequences of actions carried out in its name....just as Communism[not athiesm] has been held accountable.

echidna

GFA, in the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000022&p=" target="_blank">previous thread</a> I found that you were alluding to Social Contract Theory demonstrating that morality is somewhat irrelevant in terms of those unable to reciprocate.

I think the straightforward conclusion is that the existence of subjective morality demonstrates that Social Contract Theory is somewhat irrelevant in terms of those unable to reciprocate.

Or maybe you are denying the existence of objective morality (which is hardly rocket science), although in a fairly convoluted way. If by morality you mean objective morality, then yes you can argue that I cannot objectively prove why it is good not to arbitrarily kill babies. Ultimately subjectivity will enter the argument somewhere, as in your opening quote from Hobbes, which incidentally I agree with Polycarp that you will be struggling to use to adequately define and value personhood.

Subjective morality is such that I don’t need to objectively prove my beliefs and values, I simply need to hold them. So what ? Your agreement with Hobbes as to the worth of a person is just as unprovable and therefore irrational.

If I’m an objectivist I’ll gather as many like-minded people to enforce my version of morality. If I’m a subjectivist I’ll gather as many like-minded people to enforce my version of morality.

I won’t argue that objective morality exists, however subjective morality definitely exist. There seems adequate evidence for this, being the fact that people have personal values and codes governing their behaviour.

Are you saying that subjective morality is irrelevant to infanticide ?

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>