We were talking about morals at tonight's Ideas Cafe. Some points from the discussion:
1. Morals is about how we relate to other "moral agents" in our society. For a person stranded on an island, he does not have any moral considerations as there are nobody else on the island except him. He does have to worry about morals if he include plants and animals on the island as other moral agents as he would then have to worry about not being cruel to them and not wasting them etc. He may also consider himself as a moral agent and therefore do not commit suicide as that will be killing himself as a moral agent.
2. The frequently used connection between sex and morals is actually not correct as morals should only be dealing with actions that result in possible harm to other moral agents. Morality is being incorrectly used to force ownership of women by man. Having lustful thoughts and consensual acts that do not harm others do not fit the definition of an immoral act that bring possible harm to others. Religion was another tool used towards keeping women as men's property.
3. Morals deal with a society with limited resources. If there are unlimited resources and choices, then all acts will be moral as no one will have to choose to do harmful acts to others. It is only in the choice of options involving compromises that the possibility of harm to others arise making an immoral act possible.
4. Morality is dependent on need. Earlier Eskimo practice of the older people sacrificing themselves in order not to be a burden to the rest of the family may seem extreme to us but is a necessity for survival. This is no longer required as our society become more affluent and we can afford to support the weaker members of our society without hurting large segments of the healthy popultion.
5. We feel the moral influences most with those immediately around us and fades as we look further and further beyond our immediate circles.
6. There are societies that respect their dead by eating the flesh of the dead as a sign of respect. They would consider our practice of burying or cremating our dead as disrespectful. It is therefore the intention rather than the act that makes it immoral or moral.
The topic is so big that I thought I would put some of these controversial points out to stimulate discussion rather than doing a long blog piece. We will let the discussion go where the interest is.
Post your thoughts so we can have a discussion!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Dec 22 Christmas myths and SFU Cafes
We just finished our Ideas Cafe tonight with discussions of various Christmas myths and stories. It is perhaps quite involved to verified the sources but the consensus is that Jesus was not born in December and it is not accurate to link his birth to the current calendar as the date was likely fixed about four centuries later.
Various sources seems to point to the Christians replacing pagan festivals around the winter solstice with Christmas in order to make it easy for the newly converted Roman pagans to Christians without missing their winter solstice celebrations.
For one thing, the shepherds would not be tending their sheep out in the open fields in winter?
Rafi pointed out that the Roman soldiers were having sex with women wherever they went so the Jews had a decree that all girls were virgins until they were married. Jews also follow the ethnicity of their mothers as that is the only verifiable way.
Then there was the discussion of the sources of Santa Claus, how St Nicolas was originally a saint in Turkey.
The discussion was very enjoyable but more due to the seasonal atmosphere and the comradery of the group.
Of more philosophical interest is the discussion at the Port Coquitlam SFU philosopher's cafe moderated by Graham Forst on Monday.
The discussion was around whether science is really progressive.
1. Science have been good in providing the "hows" but not answering the "whys". We may have better medicine, better machines, better living standards, but we cannot really answer the question of "why is it raining?" This is different from explaining low pressure systems, storm fronts and the like which explains how rain is formed. Graham wanted to ask "why" as in "did we anger the rain gods?", or "there is a master plan somewhere that determines weather". Shula's response is that asking these "why" questions presuppose that there is a supernatural being orchestrating everything and bypass the notion that maybe things happen without intention or reasons. It is just so.
2. Science is just another religion. Science is not absolute truth in that it is observation and logic that ultimately depends on some fundamental assumptions and axioms that occasionally changes with new discoveries. To depend on science is to believe the validity of these fundamental assumptions. However, Graham gave the metaphor early in the meeting that some white settlers in Africa found it convenient to explain the steam power boats to the natives by telling them that there is a devil in that steam engine that requires fuel to keep the devil going and water to quench its thirst. This is a believe system that is close to the that of the natives and makes sense to them. Science is perhaps a lot better at predicting at what the steam engine will need and do versus the devil metaphor but is still serving the same purpose as the devil metaphor. So if science is just a believe system like the devil in the steam engine, are the establish religions just a more complicated set of devils for life instead of steam engines and the priests are the "white man" explaining things to us "the natives"?
3. Imagination is needed for science but we are force feeding information in our schools with no room for discovering and trial and error. While many famous scientists have point out the importance of imagination in the discovery of science, it is important to recognise that discovering new things in science is completely different from learning off what other scientists have discovered up till now. To think about possible explanation for our observations and look for new discoveries require imagination and lots of it. Reading about other people's discovery require a lot less imagination and even less so when at the elementary and high school level. Here, the purpose is to catch up with the knowledge that has been accumulated and coverage (quantity) and can be as important as deep understanding (quality).
4. Scientist have social responsibility for what they discover. Some argue at the meeting that scientists are curious people trying to discover things with no intention of what the discovery is going to lead to. Others think that we are letting the scientists off easy as they must know where their discovery is leading to. Here, I think we need to differentiate between basic science research and targeted product development. In fundamental research, we really do not know where things will lead and many of the discoveries are accidental. Once we want to try to cure cancer, or go to the moon, we are into targeted development with a goal in mind.
5. Should we stop researching into areas like genetic engineering? Should we stop scientific research altogether since we have so many negative fall out from scientific development? Rafi pointed out that not only have we been doing genetic engineering for thousands of years through grafting plants and breeding animals selectively, we have also engaged in genetic engineering of humans when we choose good looking, intelligent mates to produce our off spring. Science is only accelerating this process and making it better. For me, stopping scientific development due to some of the negative impact of science is definitely throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would recommend "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley for those who entertain the romantic notion that our society was better before the industrial revolution, electricity, atomic discovery and computers. We take these things so much for granted we need to fully appreciate the benefits first before balancing it off with some of the problems of scientific discovery.
It was a great cafe discussion.
Various sources seems to point to the Christians replacing pagan festivals around the winter solstice with Christmas in order to make it easy for the newly converted Roman pagans to Christians without missing their winter solstice celebrations.
For one thing, the shepherds would not be tending their sheep out in the open fields in winter?
Rafi pointed out that the Roman soldiers were having sex with women wherever they went so the Jews had a decree that all girls were virgins until they were married. Jews also follow the ethnicity of their mothers as that is the only verifiable way.
Then there was the discussion of the sources of Santa Claus, how St Nicolas was originally a saint in Turkey.
The discussion was very enjoyable but more due to the seasonal atmosphere and the comradery of the group.
Of more philosophical interest is the discussion at the Port Coquitlam SFU philosopher's cafe moderated by Graham Forst on Monday.
The discussion was around whether science is really progressive.
1. Science have been good in providing the "hows" but not answering the "whys". We may have better medicine, better machines, better living standards, but we cannot really answer the question of "why is it raining?" This is different from explaining low pressure systems, storm fronts and the like which explains how rain is formed. Graham wanted to ask "why" as in "did we anger the rain gods?", or "there is a master plan somewhere that determines weather". Shula's response is that asking these "why" questions presuppose that there is a supernatural being orchestrating everything and bypass the notion that maybe things happen without intention or reasons. It is just so.
2. Science is just another religion. Science is not absolute truth in that it is observation and logic that ultimately depends on some fundamental assumptions and axioms that occasionally changes with new discoveries. To depend on science is to believe the validity of these fundamental assumptions. However, Graham gave the metaphor early in the meeting that some white settlers in Africa found it convenient to explain the steam power boats to the natives by telling them that there is a devil in that steam engine that requires fuel to keep the devil going and water to quench its thirst. This is a believe system that is close to the that of the natives and makes sense to them. Science is perhaps a lot better at predicting at what the steam engine will need and do versus the devil metaphor but is still serving the same purpose as the devil metaphor. So if science is just a believe system like the devil in the steam engine, are the establish religions just a more complicated set of devils for life instead of steam engines and the priests are the "white man" explaining things to us "the natives"?
3. Imagination is needed for science but we are force feeding information in our schools with no room for discovering and trial and error. While many famous scientists have point out the importance of imagination in the discovery of science, it is important to recognise that discovering new things in science is completely different from learning off what other scientists have discovered up till now. To think about possible explanation for our observations and look for new discoveries require imagination and lots of it. Reading about other people's discovery require a lot less imagination and even less so when at the elementary and high school level. Here, the purpose is to catch up with the knowledge that has been accumulated and coverage (quantity) and can be as important as deep understanding (quality).
4. Scientist have social responsibility for what they discover. Some argue at the meeting that scientists are curious people trying to discover things with no intention of what the discovery is going to lead to. Others think that we are letting the scientists off easy as they must know where their discovery is leading to. Here, I think we need to differentiate between basic science research and targeted product development. In fundamental research, we really do not know where things will lead and many of the discoveries are accidental. Once we want to try to cure cancer, or go to the moon, we are into targeted development with a goal in mind.
5. Should we stop researching into areas like genetic engineering? Should we stop scientific research altogether since we have so many negative fall out from scientific development? Rafi pointed out that not only have we been doing genetic engineering for thousands of years through grafting plants and breeding animals selectively, we have also engaged in genetic engineering of humans when we choose good looking, intelligent mates to produce our off spring. Science is only accelerating this process and making it better. For me, stopping scientific development due to some of the negative impact of science is definitely throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would recommend "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley for those who entertain the romantic notion that our society was better before the industrial revolution, electricity, atomic discovery and computers. We take these things so much for granted we need to fully appreciate the benefits first before balancing it off with some of the problems of scientific discovery.
It was a great cafe discussion.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
First post for Ideas Cafe
Hi,
The Ideas Cafe was started a little over a year ago in New Westminster, BC, Canada.
We wanted to have a gathering to discuss various interesting aspects of life, philosophy, and society. We meet every Wednesday and skip the third Wednesday of the month to attend the local Simon Fraser University's Philosopher's Cafe.
Please feel free to look at www.ideascafe.net for a feel of the topics we discuss.
Last Wednesday, Mano moderated the SFU cafe about honesty.
While we all know that an honest person do not lie and that Kant made it a categorical imperative that one should never lie because a single lie will make one a dishonest person and we all know that we cannot trust a person that have lied.
In other words, if someone comes to you to say that he had lied to you before but he is now telling you the truth. Do you trust him that he is not lying to you now?
This seems such a simple logical issue. Why would a person of integrity ever want to lie at all?
Unfortunately, as we all know, life is just not that simple.
The other side of the argument is the "murderer at the door" scenario. If the Nazi SS is knocking on your door asking if you are hiding any Jews in your house and you have Anne Frank in your cellar, what should you do?
Or, perhaps even less dramatic, do you tell your friend that his new car is awful, or someone's elaborate makeup just don't quite do them justice?
Do you give up your reputation as "the honest person" in these circumstances as surely this reputation will be ruined. Is a white lie still a lie? How big a white lie has to be to break a person's honesty reputation?
An illuminating comment at the cafe was made by Andrew who said "would we really trust our information with someone who cannot lie?"
The complicated reality of our lives is that there are conflicting considerations in most of our actions and as Shula said; "do no harm", or "do the most good" is very often the better strategy than following some black and white principle.
When and how we compromise our principles is dependent on our discretion and perhaps we should trust someone with discretion rather than someone who is "principled" to a fault.
But how do we judge someone's level of discretion? Does one less than perfect judgment make someone indiscreet forever?
We wish for the silver bullet to give us that one perfect answer but it never is.
I cringe to admit that there was a time when I would use the "slippery slope argument" as a reason for not doing something that may drift or degenerate into something far worse.
Now I look at life as full of slippery slopes that we have to navigate through, careful not to slide to the bottom but also understand the unusual circumstances that led some of us to slide further down the slope than others while we all try to make it over to the other end of the slope rather than not trying at all.
Clear as mud is the conclusion which is great opportunity to explore the topic again!
Oliver.
The Ideas Cafe was started a little over a year ago in New Westminster, BC, Canada.
We wanted to have a gathering to discuss various interesting aspects of life, philosophy, and society. We meet every Wednesday and skip the third Wednesday of the month to attend the local Simon Fraser University's Philosopher's Cafe.
Please feel free to look at www.ideascafe.net for a feel of the topics we discuss.
Last Wednesday, Mano moderated the SFU cafe about honesty.
While we all know that an honest person do not lie and that Kant made it a categorical imperative that one should never lie because a single lie will make one a dishonest person and we all know that we cannot trust a person that have lied.
In other words, if someone comes to you to say that he had lied to you before but he is now telling you the truth. Do you trust him that he is not lying to you now?
This seems such a simple logical issue. Why would a person of integrity ever want to lie at all?
Unfortunately, as we all know, life is just not that simple.
The other side of the argument is the "murderer at the door" scenario. If the Nazi SS is knocking on your door asking if you are hiding any Jews in your house and you have Anne Frank in your cellar, what should you do?
Or, perhaps even less dramatic, do you tell your friend that his new car is awful, or someone's elaborate makeup just don't quite do them justice?
Do you give up your reputation as "the honest person" in these circumstances as surely this reputation will be ruined. Is a white lie still a lie? How big a white lie has to be to break a person's honesty reputation?
An illuminating comment at the cafe was made by Andrew who said "would we really trust our information with someone who cannot lie?"
The complicated reality of our lives is that there are conflicting considerations in most of our actions and as Shula said; "do no harm", or "do the most good" is very often the better strategy than following some black and white principle.
When and how we compromise our principles is dependent on our discretion and perhaps we should trust someone with discretion rather than someone who is "principled" to a fault.
But how do we judge someone's level of discretion? Does one less than perfect judgment make someone indiscreet forever?
We wish for the silver bullet to give us that one perfect answer but it never is.
I cringe to admit that there was a time when I would use the "slippery slope argument" as a reason for not doing something that may drift or degenerate into something far worse.
Now I look at life as full of slippery slopes that we have to navigate through, careful not to slide to the bottom but also understand the unusual circumstances that led some of us to slide further down the slope than others while we all try to make it over to the other end of the slope rather than not trying at all.
Clear as mud is the conclusion which is great opportunity to explore the topic again!
Oliver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)