I watched the Podish-Sortacast today because I thought it would be interesting to hear other FtBloggers talk about how they became atheists. The reason I bring that up is that, during the wrapup, PZ remarked that arguments for and against the supernatural really aren’t that interesting because they tend to be the same old arguments that have been made for centuries. Far more important these days are various social issues like humanism, ethics and social justice, which I agree with; so I thought I’d jump in with my own admittedly abecedarian understanding of ethics. Maybe commenters can help me get my thoughts more orderly.
Almost certainly because of the way that I was raised, there are a couple of points that I treat as if they were axiomatic:
1. People are more important than things.
2. It’s not all about me, and not all about my tribe.
Point 2 makes it easy for me to reject egoism and relativism as ethical principles; but between utilitarianism and a more Kantian approach, I confess to being very confused; and indeed I’m skeptical about both of them. “The greatest good for the greatest number” doesn’t really have any meaning absent a calculus for it; and it has always seemed to me to be a pretty good general principle that the consequences of my behavior matter.
But point 1 means that I have an obligation to get through the day without being a jerk…without causing harm to others, and particularly without exhibiting the pridefullness and hatefullness that we see in the loudest of the far right; and so, as a practical matter, I need to pick one. I tend to be more Kantian about big issues (things like hatred of folks not like me are just wrong); but I’m more utilitarian about smaller matters that are well understood. (Should I get my flu shot? Yeah, sure: herd immunity. That’s not the only reason, but it’s a sufficient reason.)
Have I gotten off on the right foot at least? I hope so because, at age 76, I’m pretty set in my ways. 😎
It all seems a bit vague and handwavy to me.
e.g.
Proposition: People are more important than things.
Purported implication: I have an obligation to get through the day without being a jerk…without causing harm to others, and particularly without exhibiting the pridefullness and hatefullness that we see in the loudest of the far right
I’m not seeing an inferential chain leading to that conclusion.
I think one could get through the day without being a jerk or causing harm to other or being prideful or hateful and not imagine without accepting that axiom, and conversely one could accept that axiom and still do any of those things nonetheless.
[ack!
and not imagine]On that last point, let me add another axiom that I find increasingly important:
“Just because it’s how we have done thing doesn’t mean it’s how we should do things.”
It seems to me that to get from A to B one must first pass through nihilism. And nihilism is a tough nut to crack.
My approach is to simply assert aesthetics, or reject nihilism as a position held by pusillanimous assholes (sort of the approach recommended by Nietzsche) – but acknowledge that approach is authoritarian and indefensible against a skeptical challenge. It’s not much consolation to mention that such challenges are also unoriginal, boring, and intellectually vapid. I believe that my view is similar to Mark Twain’s, where it is reflected in The Mysterious Stranger, or Iain Banks’ in his Culture books: there is a tension between authoritarianism and nilihism which rests on our being able to say “this matters to me because I choose to let this matter to me. Does it matter to you? Only inasmuch as I can make it matter to you, also.” Nietzsche went on and on about his dionysian ideal, but I think I agree except I boil it down to that I’m not willing necessarily to die for these beliefs but I’ll willingly enough kill you for them.
@4:
Hmm. The ethics rock-paper-scissors: nihilism-skeptical challenge-shotgun to the face.
John Morales @1:
Yeah, to me too. In my defense, let me say that I wasn’t trying for an academic treatise (which I wouldn’t be competent to produce in any event), but for a more chatty kind of discussion.
I take your point. Maybe “don’t be a jerk” is my actual starting point.
I also see that “people are more important than things” is a dichotomy that isn’t helpful, at least not for figuring out which entities deserve ethical treatment. What about other primates? Heck, what about spiders? 😎
I’m convinced that I need to get through the day with as much basic human decency as I can muster, but I confess to being very confused about the details of what that implies. My knee-jerk reaction is to try to avoid hating folks who aren’t like this cis, het, white boomer, and to avoid being cruel to animals that seem to be aware that they’re harmed by it. Maybe that’s enough. At least it gets me to vote against the likes of Trump and DeSantis. 😎
OT: Amtrak in upstate NY halted as tracks were washed out by “once-in-a-thousand-years” flood.
Fair enough, Bill.
That I like; not like I can dispute the proposition, either.
—
FWIW, my own stance for the last few decades has been sorta kinda based on enlightened self-interest. Helpfully, I have a conscience and actually enjoy being helpful, so it works well for me.
So, more of a “don’t be a jerk unless it’s appropriate”.
No deontology, no virtue, vaguely utilitarian, a tiny bit altruistic.
No codification, basically doing what seems best upon consideration based on life experience and circumstancial knowledge when a moral determination is required.
(Most moral codes don’t include life experience, which is why I mentioned it)
For me, it boils down to the axioms :
1) People are people are need to be treated as such and other living creatures also deserve respect and consideration.
2) World is already bad enough without anyone needing to make it worse or add toany misery or suffering.
(So)
3) Think and be kind to all people, living things and the world, indeed universe, we all have to share. Oneself included.