| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2010 06:46:26 PM · #276 |
Let's concentrate on one thing at a time. I want to hear Shannon's argument so as to know what we're talking about here.
Message edited by author 2010-09-19 18:46:58. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 07:01:24 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm struggling to figure out the underpinning's of Shannon's argument.
I believe he is saying that gender equality or equality in general is a good to be pursued. Because wearing a burqua does not encourage this idea, it should be banned despite any religious reasoning or even purported voluntary choice to do so. I believe he has argued it is wrong to allow such behavior regardless of local custom or law (ie. it was still wrong for the Taliban where it is actually the law to wear a burqua).
This is where I'm confused. Doesn't this sound like an argument for a moral imperative that is above culture and law? Shannon has often and vehemently argued that such ideals do not exist. What gives? |
I guess we read differently then, as I don't see that facet in Shannon's argument. Quite the contrary as he clearly stated that the wearing of the burqa is not a religious obligation.
Regarding the mores, morals, local customs and law, those are things that are specific to the environment in question, namely France... and if they opt to adopt a law that truly has no negative impact on the well being of the individual, and provides for better security, then I fail to see what the problem is.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 07:45:25 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe he is saying that gender equality or equality in general is a good to be pursued. |
Yep.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because wearing a burqua does not encourage this idea, it should be banned despite any religious reasoning or even purported voluntary choice to do so. |
Nope. Religious reasoning is an oxymoron and wearing a burqa is not a voluntary choice, but a restriction imposed on others against their will. It's like separate facilities for blacks before civil rights. See above note on equality. Don't even bother with the argument that preventing people from requiring separate facilities is also a "restriction imposed on others..." Abolishing slavery or torture and allowing the right to enslave or torture are not the same sort of freedoms (see equivocation fallacy mentioned earlier).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe he has argued it is wrong to allow such behavior regardless of local custom or law (ie. it was still wrong for the Taliban where it is actually the law to wear a burqua). |
See above note on separate facilities.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Doesn't this sound like an argument for a moral imperative that is above culture and law? Shannon has often and vehemently argued that such ideals do not exist. What gives? |
Decency, empathy, human rights, our evolved built-in sense of fairness... any of this ringing a bell?
Originally posted by scalvert:
I would prefer to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or nationality out of personal empathy and human decency. In other words: fairness. There is strong scientific evidence that a sense of fairness is both socially beneficial and biological in nature as toddlers and monkeys have demonstrated the ability to recognize an unfair situation, so no external authority is necessary to know that I wouldn't want to be treated as inferior. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
An expression of empathy in ANY animal suggests that such feelings are biological in nature and a product of evolution. You asked for the source of authority on morality, and I'm saying it's built-in. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I want to hear Shannon's argument so as to know what we're talking about here. |
You already have many times. One more isn't likely to change your evident confusion on the nature of morality, equality or freedom. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 08:01:40 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Doesn't this sound like an argument for a moral imperative that is above culture and law? Shannon has often and vehemently argued that such ideals do not exist. What gives? |
Decency, empathy, human rights, our evolved built-in sense of fairness... any of this ringing a bell? |
LOL. Yes, but they are no more evolved than our sense of self-preservation, lying, greed, and selfishness. Do any of those ring a bell?
You miss a very large point here. If a sense of fairness is built into our genome, there is no more reason to consider it "good" than our innate bias to lying is built into our genome. Why do we not consider lying to be "good" because of this?
We can't even look at human history to see a clear trend where equality has led to successful societies. The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. Even the concept itself is relatively new.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I would prefer to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or nationality out of personal empathy and human decency. |
It's a glaring omission that you would not prefer to see people treated equally regardless of their religion. It speaks to you heart.
So Shannon's argument goes like this:
1) We have a built in sense of fairness.
2) This makes equality "good".
3) Burka wearing does not show equality.
4) It should be banned regardless of anything else.
Of course we can make the equally valid argument:
1) We have a built in sense of domination (see long history of humankind and many examples of the animal kingdom)
2) This makes subjugation of others "good".
3) Burka wearing shows subjugation of others.
4) It should be allowed regardless of anything else.
These two arguments are exact mirror images of each other and one is no more or no less valid in itself. Only Shannon's own preference for fairness makes one a better argument in his eyes. Of course, on this point of burka wearing we are all mostly in agreement, but his larger argument to root the reasoning in our genetics is specious unless you are willing to celebrate our baser instincts as also being "good".
Message edited by author 2010-09-19 20:07:03. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 09:42:23 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These two arguments are exact mirror images of each other and one is no more or no less valid in itself. Only Shannon's own preference for fairness makes one a better argument in his eyes. |
The difference being of course that in the first instance the collective as a whole benefits from the altruism displayed, whereas in the second instance, there is no altruism, and the benefits to be derived are garnered only by those in the domineering positions.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 09:48:18 PM · #281 |
So I'm sure this doesn't jive with the rest of the thread (I get lost in the arguments for the sake of arguing on techicalities or whatever) but just wanted to point out that some people are simply better than others. More entitled. They have the right of way, regardless of the rules of the road because they simply are better. And have a nicer car. They also can take whatever parking space they want, including the handicapped one, because they'll just "be a minute" and those "damned handicapped people shouldn't be out anyway." And of course they can go ahead of you in line because while they're on their cell phone discussing mucho important business and stuff, well, they're just in more of a hurry than you. And more important.
Let us not forget that very valuable one car length advantage on a stalled going-nowhere-slowly freeway. VERY important, don't you know?
But please, continue with your arguments. I don't even remember what this thread started out about. Without going back and looking, do you? |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 09:51:41 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The difference being of course that in the first instance the collective as a whole benefits from the altruism displayed, whereas in the second instance, there is no altruism, and the benefits to be derived are garnered only by those in the domineering positions.
Ray |
Ray, that's not the point. We're all in agreement that liberty is better than slavery, that equality is better than inequality, all that stuff. Doc doesn't have a problem with any of that.
No, the issue he's trying to explore, and it's a very valid one, is that logic, in order to be rigorous, can't play favorites. What drives him batty about Shannon is that he'll use a certain form of logic to support causes he believes in, and then shred people who use the same type of argument, structurally, to defend positions he (Shannon) doesn't believe in. And he's so good at bobbing and weaving that he's apparently convinced even himself that he's not doing this.
R. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 09:54:14 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I don't even remember what this thread started out about. Without going back and looking, do you? |
Yup. Shannon quoted studies showing how ignorant Americans are about some very fundamental things. We pretty much all agreed, in the beginning, that this was true, and appalling. Then the ship began to drift, as it is wont to do :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-19 21:54:30. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 10:12:18 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Decency, empathy, human rights, our evolved built-in sense of fairness... any of this ringing a bell? |
LOL. Yes, but they are no more evolved than our sense of self-preservation, lying, greed, and selfishness. Do any of those ring a bell? |
You tell me:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I believe that the natural sense of fairness and empathy that motivates humans to help others tends to be overridden by a stronger natural desire to improve one's own situation- personal survival- and that leads to justification for subjugating others. The people we least identify with as "like ourselves" are the easiest to rationalize as inferior, so obvious differences like race and gender are always the first targets for discrimination by the more powerful group. The relatively recent development of civilization has allowed us the luxury to relax concerns of personal survival and start questioning those traditional justifications for discrimination that we've grown up believing make other groups less worthy of our innate fairness (including the very idea of basic human rights). The old barriers slowly fall and we again recognize former "inferiors" as very much like ourselves. Concepts of equality that were once considered outrageous become so obviously natural that it makes us wonder how our ancestors could have thought otherwise. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If a sense of fairness is built into our genome, there is no more reason to consider it "good" than our innate bias to lying is built into our genome. Why do we not consider lying to be "good" because of this? |
Because I'm not resorting to naturalistic fallacy. We DON'T consider our sense of fairness to be "good" any more than our sense of touch. Our individual sense of fairness defines what we consider good just as our sense of touch defines what we consider warm, and both will vary among individuals.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We can't even look at human history to see a clear trend where equality has led to successful societies. The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. Even the concept itself is relatively new. |
See first response above.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a glaring omission that you would not prefer to see people treated equally regardless of their religion. It speaks to you heart. |
I also left out age, political affiliation, handedness, hair color... It speaks to brevity (you only asked about sex).
1) We have a built-in sense of fairness.
2) It tells me that equality and freedom from torture are "good".
3) Burka wearing is subjugation by others.
4) It should be banned for the same reasons we banned segregation and slavery.
Now read my first response again:
1) We have a long history of domination resulting from our desire to improve our own situation for survival.
2) Industrialization and social support has reduced concerns over personal survival.
3) This has allowed us to re-evaluate traditional subjugation of others, resulting in democracy, women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, torture and apartheid, etc.
4) Religion doesn't get a free pass to avoid the re-evaluation of #3.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
his larger argument to root the reasoning in our genetics is specious unless you are willing to celebrate our baser instincts as also being "good." |
You're committing a naturalistic fallacy. A natural sense of fairness tells me that inequity/torture/coercion is bad. That sense itself is neither good nor bad (as you're implying), it just is. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 10:30:54 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, the issue he's trying to explore, and it's a very valid one, is that logic, in order to be rigorous, can't play favorites. What drives him batty about Shannon is that he'll use a certain form of logic to support causes he believes in, and then shred people who use the same type of argument, structurally, to defend positions he (Shannon) doesn't believe in. |
It's not the same form of logic. I never said anything about fairness being good because it's natural (which is exactly what Jason is implying). That's a naturalistic fallacy. Our sense of fairness and empathy tells us that a given action is good, and it would still do so whether that sense were natural, engineered, or programmed by aliens. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:18:16 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I don't even remember what this thread started out about. Without going back and looking, do you? |
Yes ... ignorance. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:19:27 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, the issue he's trying to explore, and it's a very valid one, is that logic, in order to be rigorous, can't play favorites. What drives him batty about Shannon is that he'll use a certain form of logic to support causes he believes in, and then shred people who use the same type of argument, structurally, to defend positions he (Shannon) doesn't believe in. |
It's not the same form of logic. I never said anything about fairness being good because it's natural (which is exactly what Jason is implying). That's a naturalistic fallacy. Our sense of fairness and empathy tells us that a given action is good, and it would still do so whether that sense were natural, engineered, or programmed by aliens. |
But you ignore the fact we also have a sense of domination. If your explanation of things is correct, that would also tell us that a given action is good. You cannot deny this as our species obviously is wont to such activity. The examples in our history and in the animal kingdom at large to make others subject to our control is overwhelming, yet I doubt you (or many others) think that this sense of domination should be listened to when judging the "rightness" of an activity.
Look at it this way. Shannon tells us we should not allow burqas because we have this innate sense of fairness and this sense tells us such actions are not good. But he ignores that we also have an innate sense of domination and this sense tells us the opposite. What reason do we have to listen to one over the other? The answer, invariable, is that one is more "beneficial" to us, but this is where the tautology or circular reasoning comes in. Fairplay is beneficial. What is the definition of "beneficial"? That which is fair.
Message edited by author 2010-09-19 23:35:49. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:19:34 PM · #288 |
So, shall I assume that the following quote is reflective of reality then:
"Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world"
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-09-19 23:19:50. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:20:25 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. |
And in the end they've all failed. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:23:18 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. |
And in the end they've all failed. |
In the end, all societies will fail. :P
1/3rd of all people on earth currently belong to two societies and neither practices equality in any manner your or I would be comfortable with.
Message edited by author 2010-09-19 23:28:06. |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:38:00 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We can't even look at human history to see a clear trend where equality has led to successful societies. The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. Even the concept itself is relatively new.
|
True equality strictly defined would in all likelihood degenerate into utter chaos. The fulfillment of any structured society requires that some assume control of the helm and navigate the course.
We must also not forget that a society need not be homogeneous to be equal... individuals can assume differing roles within a society and still be considered equal.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:40:15 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. |
And in the end they've all failed. |
In the end, all societies will fail. :P
1/3rd of all people on earth currently belong to two societies and neither practices equality in any manner your or I would be comfortable with. |
Ahhh, but you might if that was all that you had experienced.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/19/2010 11:45:17 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. |
And in the end they've all failed. |
In the end, all societies will fail. :P
1/3rd of all people on earth currently belong to two societies and neither practices equality in any manner your or I would be comfortable with. |
Ahhh, but you might if that was all that you had experienced.
Ray |
Possibly, but I might be comfortable wearing a burka then too, wouldn't I? Do you disagree with Shannon or agree with his argument about the burkas?
Personally I believe moral precepts rise above societal lines, although societies may have different opinions. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:03:35 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The greatest societies of human history have not practiced equality. |
And in the end they've all failed. |
In the end, all societies will fail. :P
1/3rd of all people on earth currently belong to two societies and neither practices equality in any manner your or I would be comfortable with. |
Ahhh, but you might if that was all that you had experienced.
Ray |
Possibly, but I might be comfortable wearing a burka then too, wouldn't I? Do you disagree with Shannon or agree with his argument about the burkas?
Personally I believe moral precepts rise above societal lines, although societies may have different opinions. |
I tend to agree with the views expressed by Shannon in this instance based on a variety of reasons. There is no demonstrable religious reasons that calls for the wearing of the burqa, there are security implications to be considered, and surely modesty can be achieved without resorting to such draconian measures.
In closing, I would be interested in knowing "which moral precepts" you allude to in your closing statement, since these vary substantially from one society to the next.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:04:21 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But you ignore the fact we also have a sense of domination. |
Sense of domination?!?! Like a "sense of torture" or a "sense of owning pets"? What we have (this is the third time I'm writing it) is a natural desire to improve one's own situation- personal survival- and that leads to justification for subjugating others. Greed, selfishness, and lust for power all come down to the desire for a better life for ourselves and our children... even if it's at the expense of others. Thus, even actions we might otherwise agree to be moral are often contingent upon not making our own situations worse, and we rationalize "reasons" to justify the oppression. Hence, some Americans justify torture if it stops a terrorist attack and plantation owners justified slavery to ensure their livelihood.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your explanation of things is correct, that would also tell us that a given action is good. |
Despite all that, you're still going with the naturalistic fallacy? Things are NOT necessarily good or bad just because they're natural. Having a sense of empathy enables us to judge what's good just as a sense of humor enables us to judge what's funny. The sense of humor itself is no more "good" than a sense of fairness is funny.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about our innate hardwiring to lie? Does this sense tell us that an action (saying you didn't chop down the cherry tree) is also good? |
Same naturalistic fallacy. Lying is also an element of self-presevation. We lie to avoid negative consequences (see first response above) that might make our own situations worse. The will to live itself is neither right nor wrong. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:12:24 AM · #296 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's not the same form of logic. I never said anything about fairness being good because it's natural (which is exactly what Jason is implying). |
You're just blowing smoke, Shannon. That's not the core of the argument. It's not relevant to the logical structure of the argument. You're just defining and refining things to suit your perception of reality. It's spin-doctoring.
R. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:23:44 AM · #297 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You're just blowing smoke, Shannon. That's not the core of the argument. It's not relevant to the logical structure of the argument. You're just defining and refining things to suit your perception of reality. It's spin-doctoring. |
Put up or shut up: show me where I've ever said our sense of fairness is a good thing.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If a sense of fairness is built into our genome, there is no more reason to consider it "good" than our innate bias to lying is built into our genome. Why do we not consider lying to be "good" because of this? |
Jason is employing a classic naturalistic fallacy, and the comparison is invalid:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Things are NOT necessarily good or bad just because they're natural. Having a sense of empathy enables us to judge what's good just as a sense of humor enables us to judge what's funny. The sense of humor itself is no more "good" than a sense of fairness is funny. |
Message edited by author 2010-09-20 00:27:33. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:27:35 AM · #298 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are you not reading the posts? |
I'm reading the posts, in great detail. I don't agree with you. It's amazing how, when someone doesn't agree with you, your presumption is that they are not following closely enough. That's really demeaning, Shannon.
R. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:28:55 AM · #299 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm reading the posts, in great detail. I don't agree with you. It's amazing how, when someone doesn't agree with you, your presumption is that they are not following closely enough. That's really demeaning, Shannon. |
Then you should have no problem complying with my challenge below. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:34:55 AM · #300 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You're just blowing smoke, Shannon. That's not the core of the argument. It's not relevant to the logical structure of the argument. You're just defining and refining things to suit your perception of reality. It's spin-doctoring. |
Put up or shut up: show me where I've ever said our sense of fairness is a good thing. |
I'm not saying you did. I'm saying these issues are irrelevant to the core structure of the argument. I'm saying you use a certain logical structure to support your strongly held beliefs, but when someone else uses the exact same structure to support beliefs with which you do not agree, you debunk the argument by saying the logic is faulty. You can't have it both ways, and it has nothing to do with your "naturalistic fallacy" or any other fallacy you care to name. I readily concede that you can list-by-name WAY more fallacies than I can.
R. |
|
