Posted on 07/29/2002 7:27:13 AM PDT by Gumlegs
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present The Censor's Creed!
There's nothing in that statement that can't be applied to a news story as easily as a girlie mag. It depends entirely on the attitudes and whims of the person making the declaration.
Labeling it "the materialist problem" does not change the fact that religionists face precisely the same problem. You assert that God told you that all men are equal in His judgment. Someone else asserts that God told him that infidels are subhumans worthy of death. Unless God chooses to clarify the matter in person; your assertion is left as just that -- an assertion -- and you are back in the same position as the materialist.
If you're going to accept the sufficiency of this pragmatic argument -- treating people as if they have free will works better than the alternatives, so we'll ignore the issue of whether it's true or even whether its truth or falsity is knowable -- then your position isn't really any different than that of the materialist.
And if you assume either illusory or real free will, should society regulate those things that make it more likely to choose vice over virtue -- drugs, porno, homosexuality, etc?
Your arguments aren't going to get anywhere if you don't properly distinguish between "society" and "government".
First, these are good ripostes and I'll do my best to answer them. First I want to see if "Physicist" will post his reply.
Cheers.
It's more than just fuzzy. The location of a particle might have a probability distribution with widely (even cosmologically) separated peaks, with zero probability in between. It's not a matter that the particle has a location, but you don't know what it is. It's that the particle cannot be said to have a location until its wavefunction is forced to have one ("collapsed into an eigenstate" is the technical term).
Now, you might say, "oh, but that's just theory. You can't prove that the particle wasn't in an eigenstate all along. You just didn't know what it was." But in fact, such "hidden variable" models behave in some very different ways from the way quantum particles behave.
I believe this is the most widely held argument in the free-will/determinism debate. It's compelling, but still denies free will.
In which case, I'll have to ask for a rigorous definition of "free will". I myself define "free will" as "that process by which I make conscious decisions." Stated that way, it isn't possible to deny free will. The question that remains is, "what is the structure of free will," and I haven't seen anything (except what I know about quantum mechanics) to say that it couldn't be deterministic, at least at some level.
Why are two people equal before the law?
Because human life is the only consistent standard of value. The rest follows from that.
In my opinion, religious people like myself get a bad rap for moralizing (getting back to the original dispute), yet it seems that Judeo-Christianity provides the only solid answers to these questions.
Have you heard of Objectivism? From where I'm sitting the Objectivist approach outlines a far more basis for individual rights than any "received" religious text. The choice of a book is arbitrary, while reason stands on its own merits.
The only problem: the soul can't be proven, yet. But assuming the soul makes for a good society.
It takes an unusually candid Christian to promote the utility of his religion over its truth, but coming from a lawyer it's extraordinary, extraordinary. :-)
And if you assume either illusory or real free will, should society regulate those things that make it more likely to choose vice over virtue--drugs, porno, homosexuality, etc?
Plato made exactly the same argument for a ban on music in any but the three standard modes (and I don't think he was too sure of the Phrygian mode, either).
I personally don't accept that drugs, porn or homosexuality constitute or even lead to immorality. But getting back to the issue at hand, aren't you denying free will?
Give me twenty or so minutes.
What the heck is that?
- if you are an atheistic materialist, you believe that all things precede in cause-and-effect manner from the Big Bang. Thus, how can what a rapist, or a murderer, or a child molester do be described as "evil"? - 16
Non sequitor. - You can be non religious, believe in 'cause-&-effect' and still hold that there is a logical, rational basis for free will, and that violations of rights, as you list above, are evil.
Still, it doesn't solve the materialist problem with libertarianism.
Again, - You presume there is a 'problem', Libertarians have many different views on free will. Why generalize?
Why are two people equal before the law?
It's self evident that we all have free will, and the ability to learn to avoid violating anothers rights, lest we have our own rights violated.
- We use reason to establish that we should grant each other equal rights.
Why is someone with Down's syndrome be equal to you, a highly trained physicist? The person with Down's syndrome is a net drag on society, whereas you are a net plus.
You assume that 'society' has some 'right' to establish a humans 'net drag' or plus? Why?
We have given neither state nor society such power. In fact, we deny them such power under our constitution.
I'm a lawyer, so I'm at the top of the list of net-drags on society, but I digress. Anyway, under utilitarian ethics the child with Down's syndrome should be put to death at birth, shouldn't it?
Nope, - not in a constitutional republic, based on libertarian principles. As we originally had in this country.
In my opinion, religious people like myself get a bad rap for moralizing (getting back to the original dispute), yet it seems that Judeo-Christianity provides the only solid answers to these questions. We have free will, and thus a difference between good and evil, because we have a soul from God that knows between right and wrong.
It does not take a belief in a god to know right from wrong.
People are equal before the law, because again we all have a soul and are thus ontologically equal, not just physically equal.
We have developed philosophies through reason, not through faith in a soul, imo.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Steve's arguments 1&2 are epistemological questions, i.e. how do you know that there is a God; how do you know that his word is Truth? I will concede that at this point that God is not falsifiable. Steve also makes a rather useful argument re: infidels.
The Christian faith, in word although not always deed, prohibits the killing of innocents and most everyone else. The translation of the Commandment from the Greek is literally: "Thou shalt not murder". Not kill, murder. The Islamic faith, as Steve infers, instructs that the killing of infidels is acceptable, or even required.
So, the epistemological question: who's correct? Again, God is not falsifiable, but which society would you rather be born into? One where you could be arbitrarily killed, as the pagan Romans did to their children, or one where your basic worth is assumed?
So, yes Steve, you are correct; without concrete proof of which faith has the best claim on truth, I am back in the position of the materialist. But guess what--that's where you are as well. And you still haven't explained why children with Down's syndrome shouldn't be euthanized; or simply unwanted children for that matter (as uber-utilitarian Peter Singer argues). I'm right with you, true. But I'm assuming your basic worth is the same as mine as everyone's, at many times *against my own self-interest*(more on this later). And again, because belief in God is not falsifiable (more on this later as well), I have no proof. But unless you too make this universalization that there is an ineffable quality in each human being, you're left with the unpleasant reality of might-makes-right. And you may end up on the other side of might one of these days.
On the definition of government v. society, I'll have to hold that for another post.
Physicist:
"In which case, I'll have to ask for a rigorous definition of "free will". I myself define "free will" as "that process by which I make conscious decisions." Stated that way, it isn't possible to deny free will. The question that remains is, "what is the structure of free will," and I haven't seen anything (except what I know about quantum mechanics) to say that it couldn't be deterministic, at least at some level."
That's more or less what I was trying to say here. Free will does refer to the ability to make conscious decisions; it is obvious that much of who we are is nature/nuture. We can't control our physical makeup, but we both agree conscious decisions are possible. No controversy here.
"Human life is the only standard of value".
Why? If it's nothing but material, what value is it? Rand put a high premium on reason. Again, what about people with genetically low I.Q.'s? Why is your intrinsic value as a highly educated professional the same as a derelict? The soul assumes ontological equality; materialism does not.
"Have you ever heard of Objectivism"
Boy howdy. Yeah, I've read everything she's ever written in book form. In fact, I used to be an Objectivist before I converted to Catholocism (I'm sure this is enough to raise the hair on your neck). So, yeah, I know all kinds of ugly little contradictions that Rand put up. Here's one: Rand states that conflict is impossible between rational men. Yet when she was asked what she thought of Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalistic theories of privatized armies and police forces, she flatly stated that such an arrangement would lead to a civil war. But I thought if everyone was Mr. Spock, no disagreements would be possible?
In fact, if you truly believe that men are perfected by reason (as opposed to indoctrination and 'proper education' as held by leftists), the Constitution would be unnecessary. Why separate governemental powers, when men are perfectible through reason? If men aren't perfectible through reason, and reason is flawed, then how can we establish an individual's worth, the necessary basis for ethics? To this you would reply: well, we'll just assume that everyone's equal intellectualy, even though we know that materially people are of different worth. Which society would you rather live in: one that pays lip service to equality before the law, or one where people truly believe that they are equal before God?
Another conundrum. Natural-law theorists such as myself hold that because we are all equal before God, we are equal before the law. Thus, the state cannot take away what only God can give. But if you deny God, where do your rights come from? The state? You, an Objectivist, trust the state with your rights? But you say--everyone else will assert that they deserve equal rights before the state? But how do you know? How do you know what each person's worth is before the state? Reason?
And what about charity? What is the objectivist justification of charity? As I remember, there isn't any. I would remind you that the main reason that Christianity spead quickly throughout the Roman world was that it was the first organization in history to develop large-scale charity for the poor.
"It takes an unusually candid Christian to promote the utility of his religion over its truth, but coming from a lawyer it's extraordinary, extraordinary. :-)"
That doesn't mean I don't believe it; I do. But because God is not falsifiable, the pragmatic argument has to be mentioned, as Steve pointed out.
"I personally don't accept that drugs, porn or homosexuality constitute or even lead to immorality. But getting back to the issue at hand, aren't you denying free will?"
I disagree on the first part; on the second part, no. But things such as these can bias a person towards immoral choices. By the way, can a heroin user be an Objectivist? He can be a Christian, that's for sure, albeit one in need of great help. An Objectivist? That's a pretty exclusive club methinks.
Finally on the non-falsifiability of God, we Christians call this the revealed truth. I know it took a long time, but I'll finally use the F-word: faith. But then again, if God and His Revealed Truth were falsifiable, then they would be of this world and thus I'd be setting squarely with the materialists.
And, at long last here's one thing I find amusing about Objectivists and libertarians, although not in a condescending way.
Let's start with Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, which was a theoretical prison where the guards could see the inmates wherever they went. Bentham's plans are available on the internet. Orwell expanded on this concept in his 1984 novel. Now, a 1984-like world, or a universal Benthamite Panopticon, is the big fear of libertarians. But here's the truth: there's always been a Panopticon. Before technology, it was called God. But it's actually better than technology because God sees into our hearts as well. For instance, I could do all kinds of immoral things if I wanted to, but I firmly believe that God is watching and judging my actions. Atheistic libertarians don't believe that. Either God is the Panopticon or the State is. Rand loved to fetishize 19th century America as the freest society that ever existed. What she neglects to mention is that there were no fewer than three massive religious revivals during that century, and America was heavily and devoutly Christian.
Thomas Jefferson wondered how freedom could be purchased without virtue. Answer: it can't.
Cheers.
Why do you anarchists cry "censorship!" whenever somebody tries to advance parents concerns over this culture? The point was that children do not have any "moral compass" or sense of rational self-interest. Society is obligated to take their well-being into account. As to news stories: what about libel? Does freedom of expression include the right to libel or fabricate stories? Just how free is your press in your Utopia?
Why? Did Drudge just report record lows in hell? ;)
Seriously, those were bright guys. Hopefully I'll get a response, either private or public.
'It takes a village,' is what you're saying.
As to news stories: what about libel?
Libel violates the rights of an individual. Next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.