I don't understand the long-running debate over Kant's "murderer paradox". I can understand Kant's position that the truth is the foundation of reason and human civilization. I happen to agree that lying is an abhorrent practice. However, I can't comprehend how Kant believes that lying to a murderer in order to protect the would-be victim falls into the realm of immorality.
I know I'm not the first to point this out, not even close to it. But a murderer is operating outside the realm of morality. You can't step outside the realm of morality and still expect to be protected by the rules of morality. So there is no obligation to treat the murderer with the same moral behavior you would use towards other humans.
If Kant were right, if it were immoral to treat a criminal immorally, then all forms of punishment we regularly use against criminals would be wrong. Nobody argues that it's wrong to lock criminals in cages. So why would anybody argue that it's wrong to lie to criminals?
Monday, July 28, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
A new sub-species of fallacy identified by science
Most folks are familiar with the "is-ought" fallacy. For those who aren't, it is the fallacy of saying that because something "is" it therefor "ought" to be. Here's an extreme case to demonstrate why is is a fallacy; pedophilia exists, it "is" a real thing in our world. Following the "is-ought" fallacy we can then conclude that pedophilia "ought" to exist.
Now even though only a handful of demented fucks believe pedophilia "ought" to exist there are a surprising number of people who believe "is" justifies "ought". I hope this over-the-top example clarifies that to adhere to the "is-ought" philosophy is to say that our current world is perfect in every way.
There has been a noticeable decline in the use of "is-ought" lately. But there's a sub-species of it that flourishes. If you simply change the tense of "is-ought" from present to future you get what I call the "can-must" fallacy. This fallacy is hugely popular on the left side of the political spectrum. Folks are very fond of saying that if you are able to do something, usually help the poor, then you are morally obligated to do that something.
To use another extreme example of why this is a fallacy; Germans "can" build gas chambers. It does not logically or morally follow then that they "must" build gas chambers.
A more realistic example; many people will say that if I "can" give a beggar a dollar, I "must" give a beggar a dollar. To demonstrate the disconnect between "can" and "must", I "can" just as easily kick the beggar in the crotch. But it does not therefor morally follow that I "must" kick the beggar in the crotch. Morality cannot be logically linked to ability because we are able to do many things we do not consider moral.
I said above that leftists are quite prone to the "can-must" fallacy. I'd go so far as to say it's their mantra. They are constantly saying that wealthy people "must" help the needy simply because they "can". They typically point out that wealthy people have so much money their lives wouldn't be negatively impacted if even half their wealth was forcibly confiscated for redistribution to the poor. And that may be factually accurate. But it does not logically follow that forcibly confiscating this wealth is morally righteous.
I'll prove this by using exactly the same logic applied to an entirely different situation. First, let's lay out the logic:
1) Group A has exclusive/disproportionate control over some resource that group B would also benefit from.
2) Group A "can" share this resource without noticeably reducing their own ability to use this resource.
Therefor;
3) Group A "must" share this resource with group B.
Those who propose a society based on "altruism by force" would read this as:
1) The wealthy have exclusive/disproportionate control over money that the needy would also benefit from.
2) The wealthy "can" share their money without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their money.
Therefor;
3) The wealthy "must" share their money with the needy.
Any disagreements with this? Is that not the logic they use? If that logic is the logic of morality then we have to apply it to everything if we want to create a moral society, do we not? So let's apply it to something else:
1) Women have exclusive/disproportionate control over vagina that men would also benefit from.
2) Women "can" share their vagina without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their vagina.
Therefor;
3) Women "must" share their vagina with men.
I, of course, do not advocate the idea that women should be obligated to provide needy men with vagina. But I also do not advocate the idea that wealthy people should be obligated to provide money to needy people. Because I do not submit to the fallacy that the ability to do something creates the obligation to do that thing. If you want to obligate people to do something you need actual moral justification for the obligation. "Well, they can" is as ethereal a reason as any other variation of "because".
Now even though only a handful of demented fucks believe pedophilia "ought" to exist there are a surprising number of people who believe "is" justifies "ought". I hope this over-the-top example clarifies that to adhere to the "is-ought" philosophy is to say that our current world is perfect in every way.
There has been a noticeable decline in the use of "is-ought" lately. But there's a sub-species of it that flourishes. If you simply change the tense of "is-ought" from present to future you get what I call the "can-must" fallacy. This fallacy is hugely popular on the left side of the political spectrum. Folks are very fond of saying that if you are able to do something, usually help the poor, then you are morally obligated to do that something.
To use another extreme example of why this is a fallacy; Germans "can" build gas chambers. It does not logically or morally follow then that they "must" build gas chambers.
A more realistic example; many people will say that if I "can" give a beggar a dollar, I "must" give a beggar a dollar. To demonstrate the disconnect between "can" and "must", I "can" just as easily kick the beggar in the crotch. But it does not therefor morally follow that I "must" kick the beggar in the crotch. Morality cannot be logically linked to ability because we are able to do many things we do not consider moral.
I said above that leftists are quite prone to the "can-must" fallacy. I'd go so far as to say it's their mantra. They are constantly saying that wealthy people "must" help the needy simply because they "can". They typically point out that wealthy people have so much money their lives wouldn't be negatively impacted if even half their wealth was forcibly confiscated for redistribution to the poor. And that may be factually accurate. But it does not logically follow that forcibly confiscating this wealth is morally righteous.
I'll prove this by using exactly the same logic applied to an entirely different situation. First, let's lay out the logic:
1) Group A has exclusive/disproportionate control over some resource that group B would also benefit from.
2) Group A "can" share this resource without noticeably reducing their own ability to use this resource.
Therefor;
3) Group A "must" share this resource with group B.
Those who propose a society based on "altruism by force" would read this as:
1) The wealthy have exclusive/disproportionate control over money that the needy would also benefit from.
2) The wealthy "can" share their money without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their money.
Therefor;
3) The wealthy "must" share their money with the needy.
Any disagreements with this? Is that not the logic they use? If that logic is the logic of morality then we have to apply it to everything if we want to create a moral society, do we not? So let's apply it to something else:
1) Women have exclusive/disproportionate control over vagina that men would also benefit from.
2) Women "can" share their vagina without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their vagina.
Therefor;
3) Women "must" share their vagina with men.
I, of course, do not advocate the idea that women should be obligated to provide needy men with vagina. But I also do not advocate the idea that wealthy people should be obligated to provide money to needy people. Because I do not submit to the fallacy that the ability to do something creates the obligation to do that thing. If you want to obligate people to do something you need actual moral justification for the obligation. "Well, they can" is as ethereal a reason as any other variation of "because".
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Unbelievably believable
I just learned about a study on how people think. It wasn't about the mechanics of thinking, but rather they were looking at how people reacted to thinking without any outside distractions. What they learned both amazed and disgusted me.
It turns out that twenty-five percent of women and two-thirds of men would rather administer electrical shocks to themselves than "suffer" their own quiet reflections. That's right, given the option of sitting quietly and thinking to themselves or pressing a button to receive a jolt of electricity a significant portion of the human population would rather get a shock than think.
If you are one of the ones who can handle thinking, consider what this means. Two-thirds of the men you meet are so uncomfortable using their own brain they would rather get an electrical shock than think. Two-thirds! How the fuck can I respect a person who is afraid of their own brain? I certainly can't treat them as an equal. I guess there's more hope for women since only twenty-five percent of them wish they were retarded.
What are the ramifications for society when a huge block of the population refuses to think? Refuses to think! What the hell separates you from the chimps at the zoo if you don't think? Is it any wonder the world is so fucked up?
Here's the article I read if you want to check it out yourself.
It turns out that twenty-five percent of women and two-thirds of men would rather administer electrical shocks to themselves than "suffer" their own quiet reflections. That's right, given the option of sitting quietly and thinking to themselves or pressing a button to receive a jolt of electricity a significant portion of the human population would rather get a shock than think.
If you are one of the ones who can handle thinking, consider what this means. Two-thirds of the men you meet are so uncomfortable using their own brain they would rather get an electrical shock than think. Two-thirds! How the fuck can I respect a person who is afraid of their own brain? I certainly can't treat them as an equal. I guess there's more hope for women since only twenty-five percent of them wish they were retarded.
What are the ramifications for society when a huge block of the population refuses to think? Refuses to think! What the hell separates you from the chimps at the zoo if you don't think? Is it any wonder the world is so fucked up?
Here's the article I read if you want to check it out yourself.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
The movie that wasn't there
I just finished watching "The God Who Wasn't There" on Netflix. I was hoping for an in-depth look at the historical evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence of Jesus. What I got instead was pathetic christophobia.
I've been an atheist for decades. I'm no fan of what the Abrahamic religions have done to this world. But why is it that the "enlightened" few who seek to counter these philosophical abominations always resort to the same tactics as the philosophies they despise? You can't claim the moral high ground and wallow in the mud at the same time. You can't claim dominion over the realm of reason while resorting to hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Easily the most despicable part of the movie, the part that destroyed it for me, was in the opening segment. The director took pains to lump the victims of the Mt. Carmel slaughter in with the likes of Charles Manson. He called the 86 men, women, and children who died at the hands of a secular, leftist regime "crispy fans" of the same dogma as Manson and other fundamentalists. I can't comprehend the utter disregard for human life, the lack of compassion that it takes to dismiss such a heinous crime simply because the victims didn't believe what you believe. The Branch Davidians had lived peacefully in their own little world since 1935. They may have read the same bible as the more vitriol-spewing fundamentalists. But they lived as peacefully as Buddhists. They did nothing to deserve what was wrought upon them. And they certainly deserve better than to be called "crispy fans" by some pseudo-intellectual filmmaker.
I can't recommend this film to any critical thinker. It offers nothing new. It's the same "aren't we atheists so smart!" nonsense that has been repackaged time and again. We see little evidence to support the claim made by the title of the movie. It would have been most helpful if he had explored why none of the contemporary Greek, Roman, or Egyptian scribes ever mentioned Jesus. But that never happened. Aside from briefly discussing the gap between Jesus' alleged lifetime and the first appearance of the gospels we get no mention of the lack of historical evidence. The entire movie is dedicated to the narrator/director/producer driving home the point that Christians believe what the believe based on pure faith and that the bible says some decidedly evil things. Boring. Pointless. Trite.
I've been an atheist for decades. I'm no fan of what the Abrahamic religions have done to this world. But why is it that the "enlightened" few who seek to counter these philosophical abominations always resort to the same tactics as the philosophies they despise? You can't claim the moral high ground and wallow in the mud at the same time. You can't claim dominion over the realm of reason while resorting to hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Easily the most despicable part of the movie, the part that destroyed it for me, was in the opening segment. The director took pains to lump the victims of the Mt. Carmel slaughter in with the likes of Charles Manson. He called the 86 men, women, and children who died at the hands of a secular, leftist regime "crispy fans" of the same dogma as Manson and other fundamentalists. I can't comprehend the utter disregard for human life, the lack of compassion that it takes to dismiss such a heinous crime simply because the victims didn't believe what you believe. The Branch Davidians had lived peacefully in their own little world since 1935. They may have read the same bible as the more vitriol-spewing fundamentalists. But they lived as peacefully as Buddhists. They did nothing to deserve what was wrought upon them. And they certainly deserve better than to be called "crispy fans" by some pseudo-intellectual filmmaker.
I can't recommend this film to any critical thinker. It offers nothing new. It's the same "aren't we atheists so smart!" nonsense that has been repackaged time and again. We see little evidence to support the claim made by the title of the movie. It would have been most helpful if he had explored why none of the contemporary Greek, Roman, or Egyptian scribes ever mentioned Jesus. But that never happened. Aside from briefly discussing the gap between Jesus' alleged lifetime and the first appearance of the gospels we get no mention of the lack of historical evidence. The entire movie is dedicated to the narrator/director/producer driving home the point that Christians believe what the believe based on pure faith and that the bible says some decidedly evil things. Boring. Pointless. Trite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)