Why I am not a Christian

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


"The Selfish Gene?"

The Selfish Gene.

The Selfish Gene metaphor captures the fact that genes are selected for their ability to faciliate their own replication. It's genes that are "selfish", not (necessarily) the individuals carrying the genes, whereas ethical egoism as here discussed applies precisely to individuals.

Actually, the Selfish Gene POV offers a very simple explanation of why organism sometimes acts altruistically; by sacrificing themselves, they can improve their genes' chances, and genes causing such behaviour will, of course, be selected for.

Now, some people will say that acting to help the replication of their genes is to act for one's own benefit. This is the age-old practice of redefining the terms so that the linguistic form of your initial statement still stands after its content has been defeated. Individuals (human and non-human) simply do plenty of things that are not to their personal benefit in anything resembling the normal meaning of the word. At the most basic level, putting the welfare of your children before that of your own is in direct contradiction of the basic tenet of ethical egoism, yet it's a behaviour whose causative genes are frequently selected for.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Well I’m not sure of that… it’s a good line of reasoning but then I think it’s committing the relativistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy )

I think not.

which is something one should always be careful of when invoking relativism. For me as a relativist it’s a useful fallacy to be aware of. That the claim is relative and not absolute, allowing for equal validity of other claims out of context doesn’t mean that the claim is invalid or relative in context. Any logical claim rests upon its premises and argument, or the context, and its validity is in virtue of the context, and it is that which is relative. Accept the context and one may proceed unhindered.

Yes, I could accept the context and proceed. But the point is precisely that I do not accept the context.

He's basically asking me to accept his conclusion before the debate starts. I have no more reason to accept that than you would have, if you and I were to discuss God's existence, to accept the premise "God exists". Even if my position on ethical egoism, and yours on God's existence, should happen to be wrong, we're under no obligation to accept the charge they're inconsistent just because someone else comes bandying an axiom which, when added to them we accept, renders our positions so.

[Whaleboy]

I think there's a misunderstanding; I pointed it out on the previous page, but you initially said:

I've come to conclude that I'll never understand the view that ethical egoism is the "logical" choice.

Like every ethical system I've ever ran across, it's founded on an ad hoc assumption; specifcally, that I should strive for my own benefit, and only that.

That’s the foundation for your position here, in that this “ad hoc assumption” is relative. However, I think you are presuming that ethical egoism, and the notion of striving only for ones self-interest, is prescriptive. It is not. If it were, you would be absolutely correct and I’d be the first person to concur with you, and indeed it is an astute observation, but an easy misunderstanding. That we strive for our own benefit isn’t saying that we “should”. Indeed, it’s inconsistent with my position to introduce shoulds and shouldn’ts. Rather, it is a description of our actions and motivations. You cannot, in my mind at least, go from that to a prescriptive morality, hence my earlier “Cogito ergo sum -> solipcism -> egoism -> objective moral nihilism”.

My point about the fallacy was an error on my part; I forgot what you had said on the other page and my pointing out the misunderstanding. I was basically saying that stating that a thesis is relative does not necessarily validate the antithesis, true as that may be it was unnecessary here.

Now, some people will say that acting to help the replication of their genes is to act for one's own benefit. This is the age-old practice of redefining the terms so that the linguistic form of your initial statement still stands after its content has been defeated. Individuals (human and non-human) simply do plenty of things that are not to their personal benefit in anything resembling the normal meaning of the word.

Well I agree that it depends on the definition of the term “benefit” but the root of the word is “bene”, stemming from “good”. And good is relative . I don’t think that the statement selfish gene demonstrates egoism is borne out of some malicious redefinition, it seems a sensible way of using the concept. “Normal meaning of the word”, in the sense of what is popular, is troublesome, since normal meanings are dependent on various things, so it’s always a good idea in these discussions to be able to define ones own terms and what you mean by them, instead we'd be stuck in ambiguity and confusion of how a word is "normally" used. I make the distinction here between benefit as an outsider might view it (consequence) and subjective benefit (intent), which obviously works for subconscious and logic too.

At the most basic level, putting the welfare of your children before that of your own is in direct contradiction of the basic tenet of ethical egoism, yet it's a behaviour whose causative genes are frequently selected for.

There is no tenet of ethical egoism, that implies that it is a moral system with “oughts” and “shoulds”, it is not. Consider that if one did *anything* at all it boils down to self-interest, is incompatible with the notion of a moral system, or compliance to a system with tenets. That we do things for other people, our children, strangers, with no apparent self-benefit does not preclude the idea of egoism and does not support altruism.

[Last Conformist]

We'd then seem to have different ideas of what "ethical egoism" is. The usage I'm familiar with - which might not be the commonest one; I've never studied philosophy in any formal setting - is precisely the prescriptive one; that one should act for one's own benefit, and only that. Anyway, whether it's the most appropriate term or not, it would seem to be the position Elok was thinking of.

As an example of the attitude he gives this:

"Create a better world for our children?" Why should I care? I'll be dead.

It goes without saying that this attitude will not be selected for in the world of the selfish gene.

Regarding the appeal to the everyday meaning of words, yes, it's dangerous, since everyday meanings are often shifting and imprecise, but it's even more dangerous to give words definition that clashes with everyday usage; it's asking to be misunderstood.

Now, if you find it sensible to say that a mother giving her life to save her children is acting egoistically, fine, but you're in the minority. Similarly for if you find it sensible to say that a man who avoids having children so that he can afford more icecream for himself is acting selflessly.

[Whaleboy]

We'd then seem to have different ideas of what "ethical egoism" is. The usage I'm familiar with - which might not be the commonest one; I've never studied philosophy in any formal setting - is precisely the prescriptive one; that one should act for one's own benefit, and only that.

Ah that’s ok…. like I said emotivism does not make “ought” statements.

Anyway, whether it's the most appropriate term or not, it would seem to be the position Elok was thinking of.

"Create a better world for our children?" Why should I care? I'll be dead.

It goes without saying that this attitude will not be selected for in the world of the selfish gene.

Assuming it’s a genetic trait, agreed. An example of the difference would be that emotivism/egoism in the proper sense (descriptive) would not be saying “you shouldn’t care”, it is instead analysing the desire to create a better world for our children. It’s consequence may be one of helping other people (and that’s certainly our conscious experience of performing tasks to that end), but that’s obviously not the whole picture, since an action is predicated on the intent, which is by definition self-interested.

Now, if you find it sensible to say that a mother giving her life to save her children is acting egoistically, fine, but you're in the minority. Similarly for if you find it sensible to say that a man who avoids having children so that he can afford more icecream for himself is acting selflessly.

Well I don’t think that majorities or minorities have anything to do with it but…

Regarding the appeal to the everyday meaning of words, yes, it's dangerous, since everyday meanings are often shifting and imprecise, but it's even more dangerous to give words definition that clashes with everyday usage; it's asking to be misunderstood.

Misunderstanding is always a risk and if you can give me a dictionary term for benefit that works better I’d be happy to use it. If you like, treat my usage interchangeably with “advantage” but I don’t think my usage clashes with everyday usage (and “advantage” is also operating on the same subjective notion of “good”. “Benefit” is ambivalent and often undefined, a constituent part of that is my definition with I isolate with an explanation, hence (one hopes) avoiding the risk of misunderstanding.

if you find it sensible to say that a man who avoids having children so that he can afford more icecream for himself is acting selflessly

I’m not sure that’s a fair example since the purpose of egoism here is to show that it’s not comparable and not dualistic to altruism, rather the latter is comprised of the former.

It would probably be more advantageous in this debate whenever someone mentions egoism (and it's ethical description) one assumes the proper, descriptive sense. I don't like the term "ethical egoism" since it implies prescription, and I've done my best to avoid using it, I think the term is a misnomer here.

[BeBMan]

Just curious, what is your problem with (edit) prescriptive statements or "shoulds"?

[Whaleboy]

A few, but two are relevant. One is general, and that is that one conclusion with given premises cannot logically supercede another sound conclusion, on top of other given premises. This could mean cultures relative to history, or individuals relative to experience etc.

One specific, and that is that it is an inconsistent fallacy to claim that egoism -> "ought to act in self interest" (along the lines of Hume's "is-ought" gap), because that would mean it is a choice between egoism and altruism which is obviously inconsistent. Accept that altruism = egoism in that sense, and it boils down to descriptive egoism and objective moral nihilism.

[BeBMan]

Hm, I was asking more generally - but that would probably be another debate then...

[Whaleboy]

Hehe yes... on a personal level I can't help myself, I have the annoying habit of picking holes in arguments that are there to tell other people what to do.

[BeBMan]

Yeah - and often this is justified to refute that one side comes along and claims it has all the truth on its side. But - generally speaking - people debate all the time about what "should" be, and to some extent this is of course neccessary.

[Whaleboy]

Ah yes of course, and I do that sometimes too, but then whenever that happens I see it as people saying which "choice" they prefer - in my mind it's always subjective and contextual so I take it with a pinch of salt.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Assuming it’s a genetic trait, agreed.

If it's not genetic, it won't be selected for either, on account of NS only working on genetic traits.

Well I don’t think that majorities or minorities have anything to do with it but…

It relates to the risk of misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding is always a risk and if you can give me a dictionary term for benefit that works better I’d be happy to use it.

I don't think one'll find a dictionary definition that's strict - dictionaries, after-all, try their best to capture the sometimes rather nebulous semantic fields that words cover in everyday language - but one might attempt the formulation of a strict defintion that agrees better with everyday usage. The obvious candidate would be identifying "benefit" with maximization of long-time pleasure.

It would probably be more advantageous in this debate whenever someone mentions egoism (and it's ethical description) one assumes the proper, descriptive sense. I don't like the term "ethical egoism" since it implies prescription, and I've done my best to avoid using it, I think the term is a misnomer here.

But I want a term that imples prescription. I am, after all, talking about prescriptive ethics.

[Whaleboy]

I don't think one'll find a dictionary definition that's strict - dictionaries, after-all, try their best to capture the sometimes rather nebulous semantic fields that words cover in everyday language - but one might attempt the formulation of a strict defintion that agrees better with everyday usage. The obvious candidate would be identifying "benefit" with maximization of long-time pleasure.

In my experience this is why dictionaries give multiple definitions. Remember that words are contextual too. Certainly "benefit" or "advantage" fits in with this, but if you want to identify it with hedonistic utilitarianism, then you're getting into a big debate there, and I don't think it follows from the term "benefit". You have the debate between intent and consequence, and then different kinds of utilitarianism.... if one person accepted preference utilitarianism and one accepted personal utilitarianism, another yours... then you have a massive difference there.

But I want a term that imples prescription. I am, after all, talking about prescriptive ethics.

You won't find it with egoism, since to prescribe with egoism implies the presence of altruism, which egoism holds as self-beneficial so it's a contradictary argument. To closest I can give you is a categorical (Kantian argument), if you imply the existence of the other people, on top of that you can further imply "do unto others as you would have done yourself". It's not watertight, but it's the closest to prescriptive ethics you're going to get from this, remember obj. moral nihilism denies such prescription.

[bayraven]

Edit- full representation of quote

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Ordinarily I say that there are two types of debates, a debate like this one, which is more like a game of chess that is very interesting to those who like the game, or a popular debate designed to recruit, as a marketting tool. On this topic, my gut tells me that if the undecided are looking in, the best bet would be a cross between the two, but I have a personal hostility toward popularism, democracy, public opinion and the marketing that goes along with it.

Would you say the Russell debates were more of the chess game type for his own amusement, or the proposition of a idea for public consumption?
If the latter, I can assume the hostility applies?

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see why not. Jefferson did it, after all. Buddhists don't believe Buddha was a god, either. Being an "ist" or "ian" denotes being a follower, not necessarily a worshipper, IMO.

The tenants of Buddhism do not proscribe him as deity. The NT makes it clear the Jesus was God. The comparison is apples and pomegranates. If a previous president were to have pronounced belief in say, Hinduism, we would not reconsider that religion based on his permutations.

So by all means, folks who want to follow the example of Jesus that's described in the Bible should be allowed to call themselves Christian, whether they believe in his divinity or not.

I think all Hebrews should profess belief in Jesus as the messiah, but that doesn’t change the tenants of their religion.

Maybe if more people did that instead of just worshipping him in name only, there would be a lot less of those horrible things you mentioned in the world.

I can agree the world would be a better place if more people would follow the example of Jesus’ life.