10 Responses to “We'd like to welcome….”

1. keiths Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 4:17 am

   This is impossible. You can't be both a carrot and a Stick.

Comment by keiths — May 4, 2007 @ 4:17 am

2. keiths Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 4:19 am

   By the way, is that Salvador?

Comment by keiths — May 4, 2007 @ 4:19 am

3. neddy Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 9:57 am

   Keiths, you gotta be kidding! That's not Salvador.

Comment by neddy — May 4, 2007 @ 9:57 am

4. Thought Provoker Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pm

   Hi All,

   Thank you Mike for allowing the use of the rabbit's threads as an outlet for off-topic comments. If I have overstepped my bounds, please feel free to flush this down the memory hole.

   In another thread I wrote…

   I am attempting to use words and labels to communicate thoughts and ideas.

   "Ethics" verses "Morality" is a very good example. More than one person has indicated that they are the same thing, no difference. While it could be my ignorance of the English language, I think there are two very distinct concepts that could use two separate labels.

   At the risk of straying way off topic. In the second Aliens movie Ripley stumbled upon the Queen's lair. In this scene, Ripley and the Queen had a moment of non-verbal communication. Ripley let it be known that if the Queen's guards attacked her, she would use the flame-thrower on the Queen's eggs. The Queen told the guards to back off. Ripley used the flame-thrower anyway.

   Agreeing for the moment with the movie's premise that the Aliens embodied pure evil, Ripley's actions were moral. Even so, I would say they were unethical (and probably stupid).

   I can accept the concept that morality must come from a religious sense of good and evil. Therefore, I can understand why people question the ability of Atheists to be moral. However, by my definitions, Atheists are quite capable of being ethical. Even more so, because without a belief in a source of Good, all they can do is try to be ethically consistent.

   Roger Rabbitt wrote…

   Sorry, I guess I was too subtle there. Yes, I got that. But why the labels, instead of using words to explore the thoughts and ideas themselves. Simple labels rarely work for complex issues, especially those with a history of conflict.

   If you meant your "subtle" comment to be an insult, you will need to be less subtle.

   I disagree that "Simple labels rarely work for complex issues, especially those with a history of conflict." In fact, I suggest just the opposite. Simple labels work very well at communicating to the target audience and motivating them into action. Take the label "Intelligent Design" for example. It is pure PR genius. But I digress. We are here to talk about morality and ethics.

   Roger Rabbitt wrote…

   How would science study "ethics" What do you mean by "ethics"

   I will offer a brief answer until I get a better understanding of where you are coming from. A scientific study of Ethics would be something similar to Dawkin's Meme. There is an evolutionary survival aspect of having individuals in a community behaving in a ethically consistent manner. There have been scientific investigations into how humans and apes are preprogrammed to react negatively to unethical behavior. To me, morality is something significantly different.

   Why? Can't [Athiests] also be ethically inconsistent? Or unethically consistent? Scientifically, what difference does it make?

   I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the movie scene you describe. Maybe another simple scenario, after you define ethics, could help us progress.

   I will gladly go into why I think it is beneficial for a species to act ethically consistent and how that could be empirically possible and scientifically detected if this conversation continues.

   As to the movie example. I provided everything you needed to know about the scene. It is my attempt to explain the difference I see between terms "Ethics" and "Morality". If it was easy to put into words, I could probably provide you links to dictionary definitions. Alas, I don't think it is that easy.

   Eric wrote…

   The question is not whether atheists can act according to their chosen morality (e.g. pay their taxes, help others, etc.). The question is whether atheists have any basis for calling any behavior objectively wrong, as distinct from just "contrary to my code or preference".

   IOW, does the atheist have any basis for the belief that there is objectively a way that humans ought to behave? Or is it just one evolved preference compared to many others?

   I think you are touching on the difference I am trying to get at. There is no "right" and "wrong" to my version of ethics. Just beneficial to the species or not. However, I think there is some innate "permission" to punish unethical behavior.

   Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 5:35 pm

5. RogerRabbitt Says:
   May 6th, 2007 at 9:44 am

   Thought Provoker Says:

   If you meant your "subtle" comment to be an insult, you will need to be less subtle.

   No, I meant it to say we are apparently not communicating effectively. And apparently that is still the case.

   I disagree that "Simple labels rarely work for complex issues, especially those with a history of conflict." In fact, I suggest just the opposite.

   Of course the problem is, your counter-example represents a situation not at all comparable with the context here at TT. I've already told you it is hampering communications between us.

   I will offer a brief answer until I get a better understanding of where you are coming from.

   You made the statement:

   As to the "answer to everything", science is careening towards answering the origin of life, universe and, well, everything with maybe the exception of beauty and morality. IMO even ethics is subject to scientific study but, I differentiate between ethics and morality (a NOMA habit I have acquired).

   Where I'm "coming from" is to try to clarify your statement that ethics, but not morality, is subject to scientific investigation. Is there any substance to it, or is it definitional / tautological. If the former, there may be some productive dialogue that can take place. If the latter, probably not.

   Till you can provide some sort of objective definitions for "ethics" and it various forms, and how it differs from "morals", your statement is meaningless.

Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 6, 2007 @ 9:44 am

6. Thought Provoker Says:
   May 6th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

   Hi RodgerRabbitt,

   Excuse me for not noticing your reply earlier.

   You wrote…

   Where I'm "coming from" is to try to clarify your statement that ethics, but not morality, is subject to scientific investigation. Is there any substance to it, or is it definitional / tautological. If the former, there may be some productive dialogue that can take place. If the latter, probably not.

   Till you can provide some sort of objective definitions for "ethics" and it various forms, and how it differs from "morals", your statement is meaningless.

   This is getting a little frustrating. I am trying to explain the "substance to it". Of course if is going to involve "definitional/tautological" because words and labels are all we have to work with. If you refuse to accept the possibility of any difference between what I label "ethics" and what I label "morals" than I am probably wasting my time trying to communicate.

   However, there is Plan B. Making an argument that both ethics and morals are subject to scientific study. Personally, I prefer to leave morals to the religious, but late_model asks "…what then do we make of evolutionary psychology or sociobiology and writers such as E.O. Wilson, Steven Pinker and Marc Hauser?" I looked into some of their work. They are definitely appearing to be using science to study morality.

   Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 6, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

7. RogerRabbitt Says:
   May 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

   If you refuse to accept the possibility of any difference between what I label "ethics" and what I label "morals" than I am probably wasting my time trying to communicate.

   That conditional statement is certainly true. It would also be a waste of my time. So it's beyond me why you felt the need to state that conditional. I'm perfectly willing to let you define the terms differently. I just can't seem to get you to actually define them differently, or define them at all. That's the hold up. You said upthread:

   It is my attempt to explain the difference I see between terms "Ethics" and "Morality". If it was easy to put into words, I could probably provide you links to dictionary definitions. Alas, I don't think it is that easy.

   See, you say you are using words to communicate ideas, then you say you can't seem to. It's not an unwillingness on my part to consider different definitions for ethics and morality, but your failure to offer them.

   From Wikipedia:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

   Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠθική [φιλοσοφία] "moral philosophy", from the adjective of ἤθος ēthos "custom, habit"), a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility.

   I don't offer that as the last word in definitions that you have to accept. I offer that as a common understanding that you are going to have to modify in your definition, in order for any progress to be made in discussing the issue.

   Now, I'm not unsympathetic with being faced with trying to define a difficult word or term. I'm not sure I can give a good definition for "intelligence" or "consciousness" that would be completely consistent with the issues in scientific discussions. But keeping that in mind, I would refrain from making the absolute claims you made about the accessibility, or lack thereof, of the two terms to scientific investigation. Trying to have it both ways is what I object to.

Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 7, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

8. Thought Provoker Says:
   May 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

   Hi RogerRabbitt,

   You wrote…

   But keeping that in mind, I would refrain from making the absolute claims you made about the accessibility, or lack thereof, of the two terms to scientific investigation. Trying to have it both ways is what I object to.

   This is what I wrote that started all of this…
   "IMO even ethics is subject to scientific study but, I differentiate between ethics and morality (a NOMA habit I have acquired)."

   I am taken aback that you would consider this me making "absolute claims" about anything.

   I suspect I have figured out where you are coming from. I suggest that you are uncomfortable with the concept that an Atheist, like me, can have a scientifically justifiable code of ethics that is more than "just morality w/o the belief in the FSM".

   Well, I happen to believe just that. Not an absolute claim, just a belief.

   If you are ethical enough to stick with it and actually try to understand why I believe the way I do, I will attempt to explain it to you. I will even attempt to come up with a dictionary type definition (it will not match the one you provided).

   However, please don't make me jump through hoops just so you can continue to believe what you want to believe. That would be unethical.

   Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 7, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

9. RogerRabbitt Says:
   May 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

   Thought Provoker Says:

   I suspect I have figured out where you are coming from. I suggest that you are uncomfortable with the concept that an Atheist, like me, can have a scientifically justifiable code of ethics that is more than "just morality w/o the belief in the FSM".

   Nice try, but I think you've trapped yourself with your own labeling. I couldn't care less whether an atheist, agnostic or theist is ethical, moral, neither or both. And I certainly wouldn't be uncomfortable with "a scientifically justifiable code of ethics" because I have no clue what it means. Where I'm coming from is exactly where I said above:

   Where I'm "coming from" is to try to clarify your statement that ethics, but not morality, is subject to scientific investigation. Is there any substance to it, or is it definitional / tautological. If the former, there may be some productive dialogue that can take place. If the latter, probably not.

   Thought Provoker Says:

   However, please don't make me jump through hoops just so you can continue to believe what you want to believe. That would be unethical.

   You are free to quit jumping at any time. It has nothing to do with what I believe a priori. It has to do with what you said initially. And I'm willing to concede I may have assigned more objective surety to your words than they initially contained. But the ball is still in your court with respect to whether you can or want to try to explore what you said, or just leave them as a bit of fluff to which no substance attaches.

Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 8, 2007 @ 5:41 pm

10. Thought Provoker Says:
    May 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    Hi RogerRabbitt,

    You wrote…

    It has nothing to do with what I believe a priori. It has to do with what you said initially. And I'm willing to concede I may have assigned more objective surety to your words than they initially contained. But the ball is still in your court with respect to whether you can or want to try to explore what you said, or just leave them as a bit of fluff to which no substance attaches.

    Since I have too many irons in the fire as it is I suggest we label this exchange a "draw". But I will hold in reserve your invitation for me to explain to you why my code of ethics is more than "a bit of fluff to which no substance attaches."

    Regards,
    TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 8, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.