Critique of TSW Part 25a The Social Microcosm

Blog 20141231

Bill has trouble with jargon, microcosmic boundaries, and the significance of convergence for war and peace.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Social Microcosm (Part 1 of 7)

BW: This chapter is a messy jumble of ad-hoc commentary on a dozen topics, with no substantive point. Societies change, people move, there are wars, population and production rise and fall, gravity pulls, entropy pushes, etc., etc. I'll try to pick out some substantive statements, but they are mostly vague assemblies of jargon.

[GB: Jargon is defined as “special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.” In other words, jargon acts like a separate dialect or language. As scientists, we run into this all the time. Read any scientific paper and you will see jargon in abundance. Mostly, jargon is shorthand for concepts that have been worked out in previous papers. Without jargon, papers would be filled with definitions and reviews of previous work, making them so long that they would be too expensive to publish. Electronic publishing now allows almost any length (see our most recent colossus at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077914000472 ). Hopefully, electronic publishing will help reduce some of the problems involved with jargon.

Nonetheless, readers bring their own experiences with them when they try to understand the jargon common to a discipline. Because scientists deal with the real world, it is possible that we will eventually reach agreement on definitions and connotations. Where there is controversy, such as in philosophy, politics, and religion, folks may have opposing assumptions that prevent them from following the logical train of thought intended by the writer. That is why “The Scientific Worldview” starts out by firmly establishing the deterministic assumptions upon which it is based. Horse, water, drink… That does not automatically convert indeterminists to determinists, as you have demonstrated. Mental pathways developed over decades are unlikely to be abandoned overnight. Those confronted with opposing assumptions tend to automatically dismiss them, trying to forget them almost immediately. This removes the cognitive dissonance we all wish to avoid. The definitions that are necessarily part of a particular logical train of thought are then not understandable. They might even be labeled “mostly vague assemblies of jargon” as they fade from a memory not willing to accept the beginning assumptions in the first place. That is why determinists remain determinists and indeterminists remain indeterminists.

To switch from one track to another amounts to a revolution in thought, which rarely occurs for those sufficiently grounded in a particular discipline or philosophy. Thus, it might take decades for you to convince your theist friends to become atheists. It probably will take almost another half century to convince cosmologists to think outside the box and give up cosmogony ( http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2013/02/sidetracking-big-bang-theory.html ).]

TSW:  "... each human microcosm is ... part of the Social Microcosm ... not influenced by free will or by anything other than matter in motion within and without."

BW: It goes without saying that each human is a part of humanity. Every person who believes in causality agrees that all effects are caused by the (collisions of) matter in motion. Throughout the chapter, you make disparaging comments about "free will", as though it were obviously impossible and irrelevant. You never discuss the idea, nor even ask the obvious question "Free of what?" You simply assume that it's inconsistent with determinism or causality.

[GB: You are correct that I “assume that [free will] is inconsistent with determinism or causality.” It should be clear by now that the "Free of what?" question means free of physical causality, that is, collisions that determine events. How can you possibly see free will as consistent with determinism or causality? There are either physical causes for all effects, or there are not. If you wish to continue in your belief in free will, then you will have to show us how that can be in view of that contradiction. It cannot be done, of course, because you cannot point to something nonphysical that could be responsible for your magical free will. The belief in free will is indeterminism, pure and simple. It should be disparaged at every turn. No book with the title “The Scientific Worldview” should have any smidgeon of a hint that it is founded on indeterminism. To do that would be a sellout like the typical mishmash that regularly hits the bestseller list.]

TSW:  "While capitalists benefited ..."

BW: Specious rhetoric with no analysis, explanation, or discussion.

[GB: The complete quote is: “While capitalists benefited from the increased efficiency gained by organizing workers in centralized workplaces, they systematically propagandized workers against forming social combinations that would produce a similar effect in obtaining labor’s share of the increased productivity.” This quote is still true today—in spades. While productivity per worker has increased dramatically in the US during the last 30 years, salaries have stagnated, and union membership has declined while CEO wages have sky-rocketed. Most educated folks know this, but if not, they can Google it easily (or check their own wallet).]

TSW:  "From Hugh Miller to Robert Ringer, the message is pretty much the same: 'joining a group to accomplish any purpose is irrational.'"

BW: I don't know Hugh Miller (Christian Apologist?), but have read Robert Ringer (Atheist Sociologist), who says nothing of the sort.

[GB: Hugh Miller was a self-helper from 1841 and the quote is directly (p. 132) from Ringer’s book “Looking out for #1.”]

TSW:  "Social microcosms, like all classes, are whatever we define them to be."

BW: In other words, superficial distinctions among humans tell us nothing. Correct.

[GB: Remember that social microcosms, like the “systems” in systems philosophy, are specific portions of the universe that we study. In univironmental determinism we concentrate on the relationship between the microcosm and its macrocosm. Sorry, but the distinctions among humans are seldom superficial. Thus, tribes that evolved in pastoral environments tend to survive on meat and have pastoral images for their gods, while those in the “concrete jungle” tend to survive on restaurants and may not have gods at all.]

TSW:  "Although the selection of univironmental boundaries, as always, is inherently subjective ..."

BW: Which means it has no relevance to any objective facts: it's purely arbitrary and subjective. Correct.

[GB: Not at all. Once we select a particular boundary for our microcosm of concern, we can study the relationship between that microcosm and its macrocosm. For instance, I can arbitrarily select a rock, pebble, or grain of sand for study. Once so defined, whatever I find out about any of those and their environments is as objective as the measurements I use to study them.]

TSW:  "Obviously, without a convergence of two or more microcosms, no new thing, no new microcosm can arise."

BW: If you're merely saying that different groups of people sometimes mix, that's obvious: humans migrate. If they don't mix, no new groups are formed ... by definition. However, this spatial fact is incidental and doesn't explain anything about convergence, competition, cooperation, or socialization.

[GB: The spatial fact is primary as well as obvious when studying microcosms and their combinations. That is one reason that I could not abide the Big Bangers’ claim that the whole universe came together by coming apart. Without convergence, there can be no competition, cooperation, or socialization.]

TSW:  "Convergence initially brings about competition: the struggle of microcosms for identical spatial positions."

BW: No two people can be in exactly the same place at exactly the same time, so I assume you're talking about groups of people "converging". But, you make no argument about any relationship between convergence and competition. Even in a totally isolated group of people, there is always "competition" for status, resources, and sexual companions. That doesn't change when two or more groups mix. Rarely does it have anything to do with occupying space.

[GB: On the contrary, a microcosm’s occupation of space and relation to its macrocosm is of the utmost importance. Convergence brings about a struggle over resources, often resulting in war, and finally, an exhaustion leading to the logical conclusion that cooperation is preferable. This idea helped me to understand how the US and Germany and Japan could now be such good friends and trading partners after the terrible carnage of world war.]

Next: The Social Microcosm (Part 2 of 7)

cotsw 057

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

Critique of TSW Part 24g The Mind-Brain Muddle: Ethics

Blog 20141224 

Bill once again mixes scientific analysis with politics to ill effect.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Mind-Brain Muddle (Part 7 of 7)

TSW:  "The real aim of the sociobiological analysis of altruism is a weather-beaten political one: to furnish the pretext for relegating the responsibility for social control entirely to the individual."

BW: I detect the scent of Marxism, a natural consequence of assuming that altruism IS morality and that social control is the only legitimate objective of human action. The individual is nothing (since he is automatically selfish) and the collective is everything (because it flows toward an equilibrium of needs).

[GB: Rorschach anyone? That makes no sense. The microcosm of the individual and the microcosm of the collective both have needs and exert social control to get them.]

BW: If altruism is merely a pretext for satisfying individual needs, how does that relegate "responsibility" to the individual? They aren't responsible for any of their acts (as you characterize it), so their acquisition of "social control" is entirely dictated by their proximity to whatever happens to be the "social equilibrium" of political power. An individual can't have any "control" over others, since the actions of all those others are predetermined by their social position: both the controlled and the controller are just selfish cogs in the collective machine, governed entirely by the pursuit of equilibrium.

[GB: Remember that altruism and selfishness are in the eyes of the beholder. They do not exist. They are motions. Again, nowhere did I ever claim that “altruism is merely a pretext for satisfying individual needs.” That would be a pretty nihilistic view, which I definitely do not have. Altruism and selfishness are not “things” that can be passed from generation to generation.]  

BW: You seem to be asserting that all animals (particularly humans) are naturally selfish, but pretend to be altruistic in order to acquire friends, who will fight other groups in the mindless pursuit of a collective equilibrium of power. That's a pretty bleak view of humanity, but probably consistent with the Marxist "class struggle".

[GB: Again, I do not agree with any of these assertions. Perhaps a little review of univironmental analysis would help return the discussion to the scientific plane. Remember that the universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. That includes individuals and groups, each of which is an xyz portion of the universe (e.g., microcosms). In politics, you are free to use subjective terms such as good, bad, selfish, and altruistic, but that ain’t science.

Remember also that there is only one fundamental question that applies to all political systems: “Should we do it together or apart?” The answer to that question, like the answer to ethical questions, changes through time. Each political or ethical decision amounts to an experiment. As scientists, we can attempt to provide the data for both, but we cannot make such decisions in our capacity as scientists. Those decisions are for each individual and each group to make in their capacities as citizens.]   

TSW:  "As reciprocal interactions between the individual and society, the production and sponsorship of altruistic acts are the obligations of both."

BW: After assuming that altruism is the primary characteristic of ethics (morality), and then asserting that every altruistic act is a mere pretext, you now assert that it is an obligation. Strange. Of course, in your view (as presented above), all acts are determined. Therefore, there can be no such thing as an "obligation", which is a requirement imposed on others. Human actions dictated by others are irrelevant if every act is determined.

[GB: Sorry, but I defined ethics as a road map for navigating the social landscape. Ethical behavior can be viewed as either altruistic or selfish, with neither of those judgmental terms being primary characteristics useful for scientific analysis. Again, altruism as pretext is your idea, not mine. I do agree with you that the quoted sentence needs revision. Although the statement may be true in a political sense, it is not true in a scientific sense. In the next edition, I will change “obligations” to “properties.” I also will change “altruistic acts” to “what are viewed as altruistic acts,” since altruism is a subjective term and not a scientific one.

Sorry, but "obligations" or requirements imposed on others are a necessary part of nature. It makes no difference whether human actions are dictated by others or thought to occur as a result of some magical “free will.” All human actions, like the motions of all microcosms, are univironmental, being determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. It is definitely not true that “human actions dictated by others are irrelevant.” Try going through a red light sometime.]

TSW:  "Society can sponsor those actions it considers altruistic by providing the kind of macrocosm in which altruism is likely to occur."

BW: If EVERY individual is merely faking altruism (as you suggest), then why would society - or political leaders - be any less devious? In some respects, politicians are even more hypocritical, since they *never* sacrifice their own money for altruistic motives: they simply take it from one group and give it to another. IF altruism makes any sense at all, why shouldn't the poor "fake" altruism by giving their money to the rich?

[GB: Whew! That was quite a load. Feel better now? BTW: I checked the entire book and found no place where I suggested that altruism was always “faked.” Indeed, upon many occasions I included the words “viewed as” to make it clear that the classification of behavior as either “selfish” or “altruistic” was subjective, not objective. It is true that as we grow out of our infantile solipsism, we need to develop concern for others. At first, this may seem like a kind of fakiness as we learn the social graces. As the saying goes: “Learn to fake sincerity and you’ll have it made.” Nonetheless, whether actually fake or actually sincere, the social graces need to be learned and applied.]

BW: For that matter, if everything is predetermined, why bother to propose what society can or should "sponsor"? You seem to grant the collective (society) a legitimate ethical motive - and a choice in the matter - that you don't grant to any individual member of that same society. I suppose you could say the "sum is Greater than the Parts", but it's difficult to argue that the "sum is the Opposite of the Parts."

[GB: Wow! Where did you get that from? The subject in that section dealt with behaviors generally not attributed to individuals outside a social context. Furthermore, the behaviors of microcosms, whether they are individuals or groups, can be viewed subjectively as “selfish” or “altruistic.” A working society needs to sponsor behavior that it sees as altruistic and unselfish. For instance, all societies seem to require public employees (e.g., fire, police, and military) whose personal sacrifices are regarded as especially altruistic.]

BW: Just for context, I think the altruistic ethic is incoherent, illogical, and perverse. For the most part, I agree with Ayn Rand (though I disagree with her improper use of the word "selfish"):

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

[GB: Egads!]

TSW:  "The basic point of this chapter is that humans are microcosms too: portions of the universe, matter in motion."

BW: Except that *everything* is a "microcosm" - and simultaneously a "macrocosm" - relative to something else that is smaller/inside or bigger/outside. Certainly, there are vastly more internal mental processes (matter in motion) for humans than for any other entities in the universe.

[GB: You are getting close, except that the last sentence probably is not true. Surely there must be some aliens who are smarter than us.]

TSW:  "The mind is the motion of matter within the brain. Sensory motion from the macrocosm is neomechanically transferred to the brain where it alters the brain’s physicochemical properties and is thereby stored as knowledge."

BW: Generally true, but this ignores the *kind* of processes that occur in every brain. Human brain processes are obviously quite distinct from those of other animals, or vertebrates, or simians. What you assert here may be true for all of them, but it doesn't enlighten us on the unique *human* qualities of mind.

[GB: Sorry, but, according to the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), mental processes are similar throughout the universe. While each microcosm in the universe is unique, that uniqueness is not absolute, as you imply. Each microcosm is the result of the univironmental interactions that have occurred along its evolutionary path. The major differences between the brains of various species is a matter of size and complexity. Your emphasis on dissimilarities is somewhat valid, but it is not evidence for the traditional “soul” that the priests claim or the “free will” that you claim to have.]

TSW:  "... altruistic acts [are] ... univironmental interaction in which the motions of the microcosm appear to benefit the macrocosm."

BW: Your jargon is getting in the way of what you're trying to say. Is it that individuals (microcosms) "appear to benefit" the collective (macrocosm)? Are you saying that's just an illusion, or is it an intentional deception, as you seemed to advocate earlier? Why is self-sacrifice *by everyone* a benefit to everyone in composite? Won't "gives" and "takes" equal out in the end, with a zero-sum game the only result?

[GB: My cautious use of the words "appear to benefit" is in tune with my earlier claim that altruism and selfishness are not proper scientific terms. Like the verboten words “good” and “bad,” those have subjective implications not helpful for objective analysis of what are simply acts. Maybe this example will help: The microcosm of the cells that make up the skin protect the macrocosm of the muscles from damage, sometimes being destroyed in the process. It would be silly to claim that such a univironmental relationship involves illusion, sacrifice, or your jaded “intentional deception.” Above all, when taking our analysis to a higher level involving human interactions, we must be careful to not let our politics get in the way.]

BW: I'm going to postpone the next chapter to offer my view of free will, determinism, and ethics. Then, I'll resume discussion of your chapter on The Social Microcosm, which offers little more than flippant dismissals of "free will" and a superficial analysis of social interaction.
  

Next: The Social Microcosm

cotsw 056

Critique of TSW Part 24f The Mind-Brain Muddle: Ethics

Blog 20141217 

Bill’s belief in free will gives him big trouble in sorting out the difference between objectivism and subjectivism.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Mind-Brain Muddle (Part 6 of 7)

TSW:  "... if only one reaction is possible for each movement, then actions seen as altruistic must be regarded as the only ones possible under existing conditions."

BW: In which case, there is no such thing as ethics. If humans are just "atoms" bouncing against each other in pursuit of equilibrium, then there can be no "guidelines" for human behavior: you always do what you have to do. No human action can be considered altruistic or selfish, since those are motives in the pursuit of beneficial objectives (either for self or others). By your characterization, humans can't chose to benefit self or others, they must do what they are required to do. Whatever they do is "correct" and necessary, so no human action is good or bad. The serial killer is just as good as the creative inventor.

[GB: Sorry, but ethics are road maps to appropriate behavior. People find them extremely useful whether they believe they have free will or not—makes no difference. The map will get you to the same place regardless. We determinists have all kinds of guidelines (that is why we are still alive). We judge behaviors as altruistic, selfish, good, or bad just like normal folks, which is what we are required to do by the causal chain that determines our behaviors. Our unfree will has trained us to lock up those serial guys so they won’t harm us or anyone else. Our decisions each have an infinite number of physical, material causes that we can never hope to discern, although we will not deny that they have occurred.]

TSW:  "... it all depends on the observer’s point of view."

BW: Subjectivism. But that's just an illusion, as you describe it: no action a person takes is motivated by their point of view (about ethics or anything else): every action is necessary.

[GB: Sorry, Bill, but a person’s “point of view” is a very real entanglement of nervous interconnections in the brain. Every “action a person takes is motivated by their point of view.” A dead brain has no point of view and no motivation. Again, you seem to be thinking that the alternative might be some kind of magical, free, motivation floating around in the air. I guess you would need something like that to be a believer in free will. Maybe this will help: The word “motivated” suggests a physical cause, as in Newton’s Second Law of Motion. What gets the ball rolling? Motivation is required for action. That is why motives are of primary concern in detective work.]

TSW:  Whitehead ('in one of his better moments'): "Every organism requires an environment of friends, partly to shield it from violent changes, and partly to supply it with its wants."

BW: Except Whitehead's characterization isn't consistent with your description. One can't acquire "friends" unless they have good will or respect for your actions. That isn't possible, since none of your actions are chosen, so there can be no relationship based on good will or respect. Anyone "friendly" to you *must* be friendly: they have no choice in the matter. So, Whitehead's premise that all organisms (specifically, people) "need" friends does not require that they *seek* friends, by any means or mode of conduct. By your formulation, they *have to be* friends, irrespective of whether you want them as friends or they want to be friends; totally independent of anything you or they might do or say, intend or desire.

[GB: Huh? This was one of the few times that Whitehead was correct. Again, it looks like your free will idea has once again gotten the better of you. Your statement clearly shows the resulting confusion and error of your analysis. Like other indeterminists, you apparently are attempting to put “choices” on some non-existent, imaginary, higher non-physical plane. Again, return to univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Even without my physical or your magical choices, some microcosms will find themselves in a more favorable macrocosm than others. The ones existing in a “friendly” (cocktail party?) macrocosm are likely to survive longer than the ones in an “antagonistic” (battlefield?) macrocosm.] 

BW: Standing alone, Whitehead's statement is an assertion of natural *selfishness*. He says you only create the illusion of being altruistic because you need others in order to achieve your own security and obtain values from them: selfishness. So, on his statement alone, there are no ethics, only illusion, subterfuge, deception, and exploitation. And you call his statement a "better moment"?

[GB: Gee, you sure got a bunch of stuff out of his simple innocuous statement about how nice it is to have friends. Are you sure there wasn’t a bit of Rorschach at work there? One can always see other’s behavior as either good or bad. In scientific analysis, we try to avoid making such judgments. Words such as “selfishness,” “altruism,” “good,” and “bad,” often say more about the person using those terms than it does about the person they are used upon. That is why scientists such as Margaret Mead and Jared Diamond avoid those terms when studying foreign cultures. Their job was descriptive, not prescriptive. There may be occasion to be prescriptive—even a radical social activist, but we should not claim that our “good” and “bad” proclamations have any foundation in scientific analysis.]   

TSW:  "Sociobiologists have interpreted this as a genetic rather than a spatial relationship. By their reckoning your genes somehow prompt you to be the most altruistic to those with whom you share the most genes in common."

BW: What they're claiming is not that genes themselves are "little buggers" that motivate altruism, but that having genes in common (being one of a "kind") facilitates "empathy". That is probably true for vertebrate offspring (though not every organism), since children have a natural affinity for their mother (as noted above), who suckles and coddles them. So, they equate survival and pleasure with the maternal (to some degree paternal) relationship ... which automatically gets applied to others of the same "kind" (species). Genes don't "know" or "care" about anything, self or other: they are inanimate chemicals.

[GB: Remember that the horrible title of Dawkin’s book is “The Selfish Gene.” Now tell me again that he didn’t really mean that. Actually, my main beef with all this stuff is that behavior is motion and motion cannot be inherited. Behavior is a univironmental interaction between a microcosm and its macrocosm. The behavior never occurs unless both the microcosm and the macrocosm have properties and motions that allow the microcosm to move in a particular way. One can inherit genes and perhaps whole neurological scripts with algorithms that swing into action when triggered by a change in the macrocosm. This is analogous to your computer, which does not do anything until you turn it on. Although infinitely more complicated, the relationships you describe are not the only ones possible. Adopted children perform all the behaviors you mentioned and our relationships with other species often are not all the different either. As I maintained in "The Scientific Worldview," the love (pleasure association) and altruism displayed in all these relationships is more dependent on physical distance than anything to do with genes.]

BW: Of course, it is true that sentients (conscious vertebrates) "share" more with those in proximity. That's just a physical reality: if they don't ever encounter a particular member of their species, how can they have any "feelings" about them at all?

[GB: Now you are getting somewhere.]

Next: Ethics (Part 7 of 7)

cotsw 055

Critique of TSW Part 24e The Mind-Brain Muddle: Ethics

Blog 20141210 

Bill has trouble with social control, supports ethical absolutes, and  gets mixed up on whether it was determinists or indeterminists who argued that there were genes for altruism.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Mind-Brain Muddle (Part 5 of 7)

TSW:  "Any person or any group that unilaterally promulgates a moral code may be rightfully charged with committing an ethical offense."

BW: Still confusing ethics, morals, and political rules. To "promulgate" is merely to advocate. It may be wrong, but it can't be unethical. To use political power to unilaterally and arbitrarily *impose* rules is an ethical offense. Since you advocate a moral code, I guess you're admitting an "ethical offense".

[GB: Huh? Where in “The Scientific Worldview” did I advocate a moral code?]

TSW:  R. J. Ringer: "Your moral standards should be what you define them to be. Don't allow others to be so presumptuous as to set them for you."

BW: I agree with his intent, which is to discard authoritarian dictates (whether religious or political) and that every individual is responsible for "defining" and deciding which types of conduct are evidently and logically good or bad. However, I disagree with his emphasis on pure subjectivity and selfishness as a valid guideline.

[GB: Glad to see you don’t buy Ringer’s selfishness completely. Of course, the idea that one really could decide the difference between good and bad conduct completely isolated from everyone else and everything that went on before is completely bonkers.]

TSW:  "[Ringer] implies that morals are 'self-generated' and thereby acausal. They are formed in a vacuum ..."

BW: I don't think he says that, nor even implies it. My recollection of his writings is that he advocates rational analysis of what is proper (moral) human action, based on evidence of the natural characteristics of human beings and the logical means of achieving general human happiness ... hardly an acausal "vacuum".

[GB: Reread Ringer’s statement above and then tell me where he acknowledges the wishes of other folks at all. His statement implies that he and he alone decides what his ethics will be. That is totally delusional—one could not even drive down the street without acknowledging other drivers and the “ethics” that allow one to get a drivers license.]

TSW:  "Loeb suggested a few [ethical absolutes]: the 'instinct of workmanship, ... love of a mother for her children, ... struggle for justice and truth ... arising out of the compulsion 'to see our fellow beings happy.'"

BW: Your objection is that these aren't "absolutes" because people disobey them. Loeb isn't advocating some "hypothetical world" in which everyone complies with his guidelines: he saying that they *should* do those things, not that they actually *do* those things, so the objection is frivolous. I don't necessarily agree with Loeb, but it's no argument at all to say his ethics aren't valid because they aren't followed.

[GB: Sorry, Loeb presented those as “absolutes,” unchanging rules for all folks at all times, which you yourself acknowledge to be impossible. His ethics may be fine, but absolutes they ain’t. Folks can propose any ethics they wish, and the rest of us will take them under advisement, but they better not force them upon us as being better or more important than anyone else’s.] 

TSW:  "Whether they can be observed in reality is another thing."

BW: Simpson's views are ridiculous, but you haven't offered any alternatives. As best I can determine, you don't believe there is any human act that is inherently good or bad, it's all an issue of power relationships: whoever has the power sets the rules, so there is no such thing as true and valid guidelines to human behavior. If you can get away with "bad" conduct, that's just the way it is and should be.

[GB: Again, as scientists, we see no part of the universe as being good or bad. There are no “true and valid guidelines to human behavior,” absolutes that could remain unchanged for all time. For instance, in WA and CO the majority once considered smoking pot to be “bad,” even illegal, now it is “good,” and legal. All around me I see what I personally believe to be bad behavior perpetrated by those who proclaim ethical absolutes. The current religious wars are outstanding examples. Often, it seems the more aggressive and “absolute” the proclamation, the worse the behavior used to enforce it. As in the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism, the struggle over ethics is interminable. Our progress toward civility continues as we replace the ethics of barbarism with the ethics of modern society. Its working too, if the decline in global violence is any measure (Pinker, Steven, 2011, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined: New York, Viking).]

TSW:  "Our ethics are a result of all that has occurred in our past, not something we make up willy-nilly in spite of it."

BW: Obviously, they're based on past experience and knowledge ... they could hardly be a result of anything that might occur in the future. Babies are not born with an innate sense of what kinds of conduct are ethical ... they have to be taught. Because they are not innate - or even obvious - does not mean that one set of ethical principles is just as good as another. Blind faith and obedience to the authoritarian dictates of the past would be impossible: they are prolific and contradictory. The alternative is not to make them up "willy-nilly", but to decide which are right and which are wrong; which are true and which are false; which achieve survival and happiness and which do not. If you advise that we simply accept every ethical assertion we're offered as true, you're arguing for blind ignorance.

[GB: Agree, except I don’t see where I said that we should accept “every ethical assertion” as true. On the contrary, I am skeptical about most ethical assertions simply because they are often promulgated by the powerful to satisfy their own dubious ends.]

TSW:  "Morality is the inevitable result of past and present univironmental relationships that are not dependent on innate altruism or on an equally mysterious 'free will.'"

BW: Strange. I read this as: "Don't ask *why* a moral guideline is true, just accept it as an evolutionary fact." Discard rationality, evidence, reason, and every criteria you might use to judge whether something is right or wrong: the rules you adopt will always be determined in advance by social dictates.

[GB: The quote is correct. That is exactly how ethics evolve. It includes our propensity to question moral guidelines, using rationality, evidence, reason, and our judgments about right and wrong. The rules we adopt will always be determined by social dictates, which we will be partly responsible for. Again, ethics evolve in the social context, with each of us making our tiny contributions. That is why ethics tend to be conservative, with often needed changes occurring slowly (e.g., the elimination of racism, sexism, and homophobia).]

TSW:  "Social control is obviously what ethics are all about."

BW: Not by any of the common definitions (above). Granted, ethical values are frequently applied to laws, which are imposed on people against their will, but that isn't ethics. In fact, it isn't even ethical, if virtue can only be found in *willfully* doing good. Do people try to impose their ethics on others? Sure, but that's only because their ethics condone coercion "for a good purpose".

[GB: The quote is correct. Every social interaction involves social control, ethics. As a social road map, ethics continually remind us of the behaviors we should use to be successful in our various relationships. Thus, when meeting someone new, you are expected to shake hands even if that is against your will. Nowadays, laws are the black and white versions of ethical rules favored by the majority. The fact that a minority might be opposed to a particular rule instituted by a vote that was against their will does not make the rule unethical. The ethics signified by that rule reflect the power relationships in society. The stop light on the street corner provides necessary social control. Most of us consider it unethical, or at least “bad behavior,” to go through the intersection when the light is red. Reread your definitions of “ethics.” Everyone of them involves social control.]

TSW:  "For the indeterminist, altruism is a microcosmic, absolutely unselfish regard for the welfare of others."

BW: That is essentially what it means:

al.tru.ism (n)
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism

Your sentence assumes that morality is solely comprised of altruism, which is not necessarily the case. It also characterizes the altruist ethic as "indeterminist", when it is explicitly endorsed by most determinists who consider it a "natural evolution" of animalistic empathy.

[GB: I don’t see how you got that out of it. I was using the words “microcosmic” and “absolutely unselfish” to highlight the tendency for indeterminists to ignore the univironmental social relations that actually produce altruism. Altruism is neither indeterministic nor deterministic. I can’t imagine how you could think otherwise. On the other hand, maybe you really do believe that altruism pops up out of nowhere and that it really is a “microcosmic, absolutely unselfish regard for the welfare of others.”]

TSW:  "For decades indeterminists have argued that there are genes for altruism."

BW: Actually, *determinists (materialists) have argued that case for decades. Dawkins, an atheist, is the most extreme proponent of the idea, but nearly all "secular humanists" consider altruism a de-facto "social ethic" that is independent of mysticism or acausality. They also tend to be subjectivists, in the sense that any particular set of beliefs are neither right nor wrong; they simply happen to be the social norm adopted by a majority. I disagree with them, but they are NOT indeterminists, who believe that altruism is a moral obligation demanded by God.

[GB: A bit off point, don’t you think? Here is the context:

“For decades indeterminists have argued that there are genes for altruism. According to sociobiologists, altruism can be inherited in the same way as physical traits such as body size and hair color. Instead of viewing altruism as a univironmental interaction, they view it as a property of the microcosm. It is the neovitalist story all over again. But if the movements of microcosms are in every case toward univironmental equilibrium and if only one reaction is possible for each movement, then actions seen as altruistic must be regarded as the only ones possible under existing conditions. Each microcosm provides a macrocosm for other microcosms. By its movements, each microcosm controls the movements of others.” (“The Scientific Worldview”, p. 267)

  

Next: Ethics (Part 6 of 7)

cotsw 054