The end of Philosophy(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The end of Philosophy
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html
6 comments
It's like The End of History; a silly title for a silly piece of writing.
"The Singularity is an end-of-history notion. And it is showing its age, as most end-of-history notions do."
-- Bruce Sterling
(video link: http://fora.tv/2004/06/11/Bruce_Sterling#chapter_01 )
-- Bruce Sterling
(video link: http://fora.tv/2004/06/11/Bruce_Sterling#chapter_01 )
When Francis Fukuyama said "the end of history" he meant that liberal democracy is the evolutionary end point of nation states. Meaning:
1. any nation state that is now a liberal democracy will remain so because there is nothing more advanced for it to evolve into
2. any nation state that is not a liberal democracy is merely not yet a liberal democracy and will eventually evolve into one
The singularity is the point at which rate of technological evolution becomes so rapid that it is essentially incomprehensible. That doesn't sound like an end of history notion to me.
1. any nation state that is now a liberal democracy will remain so because there is nothing more advanced for it to evolve into
2. any nation state that is not a liberal democracy is merely not yet a liberal democracy and will eventually evolve into one
The singularity is the point at which rate of technological evolution becomes so rapid that it is essentially incomprehensible. That doesn't sound like an end of history notion to me.
What's so silly about The End of History? Although the title is somewhat hyperbolic, I agree.
To paraphrase the article:
Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences.
If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become purely a matter of taste. One person has taste for self-determination and thinks that gays should marry and another thinks gay sex is gross and that it should be banned. They are both right and totally justified doing whatever they feel is aesthetically pleasing (ie murder) to accomplish their ends.
This is a problem to say the least.
Effectively this means that there is no such thing as right and wrong and what we are left with is shallow consensus (as opposed to a reasoned consensus) at best, and application of force at worst. Slavery becomes right, because I'm a sociopath with a gun.
Let's just say that I subjectively think that it is morally obligatory for people to accept an objective moral norm.
Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences.
If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become purely a matter of taste. One person has taste for self-determination and thinks that gays should marry and another thinks gay sex is gross and that it should be banned. They are both right and totally justified doing whatever they feel is aesthetically pleasing (ie murder) to accomplish their ends.
This is a problem to say the least.
Effectively this means that there is no such thing as right and wrong and what we are left with is shallow consensus (as opposed to a reasoned consensus) at best, and application of force at worst. Slavery becomes right, because I'm a sociopath with a gun.
Let's just say that I subjectively think that it is morally obligatory for people to accept an objective moral norm.
> Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences.
If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it. (But if you need a disproof, here's as close as I can get: I am 100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes with what's expected of the term and that implies the existence of some fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong. Just think about it for a while.
Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck they want.)
As you discuss, lack of objective morality is horrible. It still makes me feel weird when I think about it, and I decided that "ethics" was bullshit when I was thirteen. My brain is hard-wired to believe that certain actions are "right" and certain actions are "wrong" in a sense that encompasses more than just my brain's response to those actions, so thinking about (what I see as) the truth about morality causes a dissonance between my conscious and my subconscious.
In the same way, my brain believes very deeply that everything has a cause, so it believes that there's a meaningful answer to the question, "Why does the universe exist?"
But that question doesn't have an answer. And objective morality doesn't exist. Sorry.
If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it. (But if you need a disproof, here's as close as I can get: I am 100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes with what's expected of the term and that implies the existence of some fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong. Just think about it for a while.
Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck they want.)
As you discuss, lack of objective morality is horrible. It still makes me feel weird when I think about it, and I decided that "ethics" was bullshit when I was thirteen. My brain is hard-wired to believe that certain actions are "right" and certain actions are "wrong" in a sense that encompasses more than just my brain's response to those actions, so thinking about (what I see as) the truth about morality causes a dissonance between my conscious and my subconscious.
In the same way, my brain believes very deeply that everything has a cause, so it believes that there's a meaningful answer to the question, "Why does the universe exist?"
But that question doesn't have an answer. And objective morality doesn't exist. Sorry.
Why are you apologizing? Did you make reality this way? Are you God?! Or are you just condescending me?
If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it.
I'm going to disagree with you on this point, because not only the existence of objective morality, but the existence of object truth of any kind depends on its falsity.
As you say, my brain makes certain a priori assumptions about reality. Among these, are the existence of object morality, the utility of the senses, and fundamental correctness of human reason. My belief in these are the default. If I am to doubt any of these things you must provide me with a concrete reason to do so.
All reasoning proceeds from assumptions and unless we make allowance for assumption, we must assent to solipsism (or something equally silly.) For, if we are to assume that all premises are false, unless proved otherwise, then what premises are true? People who hold the stance tend to make all sorts of assumptions that they don't realize are assumptions. Thus, I will maintain that rather than arguing from a 'nothing is true until proven' stance, that it is better to argue from a 'default brain state is true' until disproved stance.' Which, would then place the burden of proof on you.
* I am 100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes with what's expected of the term and that implies the existence of some fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong. Just think about it for a while.*
As you state, expectations can be wrong. However, for the sake of sanity, it is better to presuppose that they are less wrong than more wrong. The people nearly universally agree that both theft and murder are wrong, that they disagree on whether lethal force is justified in defense of property can be attributed to bias of experience.
Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck they want.
Except that I'm not a physicalist. If I were,I would already agree with you.
If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it.
I'm going to disagree with you on this point, because not only the existence of objective morality, but the existence of object truth of any kind depends on its falsity.
As you say, my brain makes certain a priori assumptions about reality. Among these, are the existence of object morality, the utility of the senses, and fundamental correctness of human reason. My belief in these are the default. If I am to doubt any of these things you must provide me with a concrete reason to do so.
All reasoning proceeds from assumptions and unless we make allowance for assumption, we must assent to solipsism (or something equally silly.) For, if we are to assume that all premises are false, unless proved otherwise, then what premises are true? People who hold the stance tend to make all sorts of assumptions that they don't realize are assumptions. Thus, I will maintain that rather than arguing from a 'nothing is true until proven' stance, that it is better to argue from a 'default brain state is true' until disproved stance.' Which, would then place the burden of proof on you.
* I am 100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes with what's expected of the term and that implies the existence of some fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong. Just think about it for a while.*
As you state, expectations can be wrong. However, for the sake of sanity, it is better to presuppose that they are less wrong than more wrong. The people nearly universally agree that both theft and murder are wrong, that they disagree on whether lethal force is justified in defense of property can be attributed to bias of experience.
Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck they want.
Except that I'm not a physicalist. If I were,I would already agree with you.
All right, I think I sort of screwed up my first post, because it failed to convey my most fundamental feeling about "morality": I think that the word "morality" (also "ethics") is, to a truly ridiculous extent, not well-defined.
That's why I asked you to define the word -- I can't argue about it otherwise. I really don't think there's any good definition other than, "A system of judging actions to be either 'right' or 'wrong,' such that actions that I am uncomfortable with are designated 'wrong'."
Well, there are variants of the above (change "I'm uncomfortable" to "some group of people, possibly directed by arbitrary external rules, is uncomfortable"), but the point is that I think any definition that roughly corresponds to the meaning we intuitively attribute to the word needs a lot of subjectivity in it.
As long as "morality" stays undefined, I obviously can't refute your premise that objective morality exists. I mean, it's your fucking premise.
That's why I asked you to define the word -- I can't argue about it otherwise. I really don't think there's any good definition other than, "A system of judging actions to be either 'right' or 'wrong,' such that actions that I am uncomfortable with are designated 'wrong'."
Well, there are variants of the above (change "I'm uncomfortable" to "some group of people, possibly directed by arbitrary external rules, is uncomfortable"), but the point is that I think any definition that roughly corresponds to the meaning we intuitively attribute to the word needs a lot of subjectivity in it.
As long as "morality" stays undefined, I obviously can't refute your premise that objective morality exists. I mean, it's your fucking premise.
I think that the word "morality" (also "ethics") is, to a truly ridiculous extent, not well-defined.
Or rather, people are dreadfully inconsistent about what they call morality. I can give you a definition of ethics, morality is trickier so I may be able to only summarize a few points.
Ethics is a system of determining right action for individuals and groups of individuals from a set of commonly held values. For example: if equity is a value, then preferential treatment becomes a wrong. Ethics works by finding common values and working from them. The fact that value is subjective has no bearing; ethical systems merely look for a common denominator and work from there. Different ethical systems are the product of applying different philosophical methodologies to different values sets.
Morality is very different. It is the object of the assumption that there is a universal set of rules and values to which all human beings must, for some reason or other, assent. What this universal code consists of, isn't necessarily universally accepted, but what is universally accepted, or nearly so, is the assumption that there is a universal code. That a physicalist, or mechanistic account of the universe cannot account for this is evident. That very few human beings actually accept a physicalist or mechanistic worldview, even if they claim to do so, is also evident. It presupposes some kind of telos, or universal purpose.
So what morality is, is this: an objective standard of behavior that is (instinctualy) assumed by everybody, agreed (in total; the vast majority hold a large number of principles in common and differ only on application, hence the need for ethics) upon by few, and can only be fully accounted for by some kind of metaphysics.
Edit: spelling and word usage
Or rather, people are dreadfully inconsistent about what they call morality. I can give you a definition of ethics, morality is trickier so I may be able to only summarize a few points.
Ethics is a system of determining right action for individuals and groups of individuals from a set of commonly held values. For example: if equity is a value, then preferential treatment becomes a wrong. Ethics works by finding common values and working from them. The fact that value is subjective has no bearing; ethical systems merely look for a common denominator and work from there. Different ethical systems are the product of applying different philosophical methodologies to different values sets.
Morality is very different. It is the object of the assumption that there is a universal set of rules and values to which all human beings must, for some reason or other, assent. What this universal code consists of, isn't necessarily universally accepted, but what is universally accepted, or nearly so, is the assumption that there is a universal code. That a physicalist, or mechanistic account of the universe cannot account for this is evident. That very few human beings actually accept a physicalist or mechanistic worldview, even if they claim to do so, is also evident. It presupposes some kind of telos, or universal purpose.
So what morality is, is this: an objective standard of behavior that is (instinctualy) assumed by everybody, agreed (in total; the vast majority hold a large number of principles in common and differ only on application, hence the need for ethics) upon by few, and can only be fully accounted for by some kind of metaphysics.
Edit: spelling and word usage
I don't understand how you claim that your sense of objective morality is on the same footing as utility of the senses and the fundamental correctness of human reason in terms of accepting them as a foundation for reasonable argument.
humans from different cultures will sense many things the same way. a small black dot will be a small black dot and so forth. likewise, i can believe that ancient japan would have invented a computer if given sufficient time in some alternate reality. once the appropriate questions had been asked and answered of course.
I don't see the same thing for morality though. Or at least not to anywhere near the same degree.
humans from different cultures will sense many things the same way. a small black dot will be a small black dot and so forth. likewise, i can believe that ancient japan would have invented a computer if given sufficient time in some alternate reality. once the appropriate questions had been asked and answered of course.
I don't see the same thing for morality though. Or at least not to anywhere near the same degree.
I can believe that ancient japan would have invented a computer if given sufficient time in some alternate reality. once the appropriate questions had been asked and answered of course.
The real issue is not whether Japan would have invented a computer in an alternate reality, but whether we have invented it in ours, and whether what we call a computer really is what we perceive it to be. If human reasoning was fundamentally incorrect, we wouldn't be able to detect it.
The real issue is not whether Japan would have invented a computer in an alternate reality, but whether we have invented it in ours, and whether what we call a computer really is what we perceive it to be. If human reasoning was fundamentally incorrect, we wouldn't be able to detect it.
It should be pointed out that postmodern subjective ethics is not the simple opposite of objective reality. While postmodern subjective morality has fundamental contradictions (as I outline in my other post here), that doesn't prove the existence of an objective morality. It merely shows that for any given thing that may be worth calling a "morality" there will be an objective component. If there is "an" objective morality, it will have to come from some other source.
One of the great accomplishments of mathematics in the 20th century was to establish that the self-referential paradox ("This sentence is a lie") was not merely a clever word game or unimportant paradox to be waved away as irrelevant, but a deep and profound true paradox with implications that challenged mathematics to the core and changed it forever. Merely reading a bit about Godel's proof isn't enough; you need to read enough history to realize that what was amazing about Godel's proof isn't what it proved, but instead the fact that it was a proof. Mathematicians and even "normal people" have of course known about the paradox for millennia. What Godel did was truly, finally make it inescapable. You can not have a nontrivial consistent theory while still waving away the self-referential paradox.
I wish this style of proof would penetrate through to postmodern philosophers. If everything that one person chooses to believe is true for them, and that person chooses to believe that there is an objective truth that precludes this statement, then you have a problem. This is not wordplay or an irrelevant point, any more than Godel's proof was. Either there are false statements about morality, or your claim that everything is subjectively true is also false. It's not a trivial point.
And I find that in practice, what gives is that postmodernists do in fact believe in absolute morality and it's all just a game to fool themselves and you into thinking otherwise. I see no reason to play that game any more, especially as I think most people would be repulsed if they took the time to work through what postmodern morality really is, instead of what it claims to be.
(This doesn't mean that we automatically know what the objective morality is, or whether there is one or many. It simply means that true subjective morality is fatally and irretrievably flawed. I say "true" because the moment you introduce an absolute, it is no longer subjective. Any absolute will do. Moralities can be quite complicated and nuanced, like utilitarianism, even as a utilitarianist must inevitably take their utility measurement as an absolute axiom. There isn't much "absolute" there, but it is non-zero.)
That said, reading the original article, I'm not sure that David Brooks would necessarily disagree with what I just wrote. I'm not sure he's advocating total relativism so much as observing that whatever concretes may exists seem to bear no particular relationship to the concretes that are claimed by anybody, religious (or aggressively non-religious), philosophical, or otherwise. I think there's a difference between merely observing and making claims about what should be true, and this op-ed strikes me more as an observation. So I guess I'm responding more to your comment than the article.
I wish this style of proof would penetrate through to postmodern philosophers. If everything that one person chooses to believe is true for them, and that person chooses to believe that there is an objective truth that precludes this statement, then you have a problem. This is not wordplay or an irrelevant point, any more than Godel's proof was. Either there are false statements about morality, or your claim that everything is subjectively true is also false. It's not a trivial point.
And I find that in practice, what gives is that postmodernists do in fact believe in absolute morality and it's all just a game to fool themselves and you into thinking otherwise. I see no reason to play that game any more, especially as I think most people would be repulsed if they took the time to work through what postmodern morality really is, instead of what it claims to be.
(This doesn't mean that we automatically know what the objective morality is, or whether there is one or many. It simply means that true subjective morality is fatally and irretrievably flawed. I say "true" because the moment you introduce an absolute, it is no longer subjective. Any absolute will do. Moralities can be quite complicated and nuanced, like utilitarianism, even as a utilitarianist must inevitably take their utility measurement as an absolute axiom. There isn't much "absolute" there, but it is non-zero.)
That said, reading the original article, I'm not sure that David Brooks would necessarily disagree with what I just wrote. I'm not sure he's advocating total relativism so much as observing that whatever concretes may exists seem to bear no particular relationship to the concretes that are claimed by anybody, religious (or aggressively non-religious), philosophical, or otherwise. I think there's a difference between merely observing and making claims about what should be true, and this op-ed strikes me more as an observation. So I guess I'm responding more to your comment than the article.
> If everything that one person chooses to believe is true for them, and that person chooses to believe that there is an objective truth that precludes this statement, then you have a problem.
I can't parse this sentence at all -- mostly, I think, because "true for them" doesn't seem to mean anything. Can you clarify? Also, what's the problem you're talking about?
I can't parse this sentence at all -- mostly, I think, because "true for them" doesn't seem to mean anything. Can you clarify? Also, what's the problem you're talking about?
Simplified postmodernism says that something can be "true for you" but also "not true for me"; it's the subjectivity of truth. "Abortion is an absolute human right" can be "true for you" but not "true for me".
This is the contradiction I refer to. You can't have truth-entirely-relative-to-a-person and even one person claiming that he believes his truth applies to all. There are options, but they all involve some other sort of absolute axiom that force you to judge some people's beliefs as false as a consequence. Postmodernists try to have it both ways, deflecting all moral criticism with "it's all relative" while still fairly freely wielding absolutes with abandon.
(Incidentally, even if you can't find an academic who actually wrote this down somewhere in some pithy form that could be cited, I have dealt with plenty of people in person at university who did this repeatedly and, to my mind, blatantly. I know I'm glossing over the belief system a bit since this is a comment on the web and not a dissertation, but I know people with this belief system exist. I've personally encountered them.)
You reference a "problem"; were you actually referring to astine's "This is a problem to say the least."? I can't answer to that, those aren't my words.
This is the contradiction I refer to. You can't have truth-entirely-relative-to-a-person and even one person claiming that he believes his truth applies to all. There are options, but they all involve some other sort of absolute axiom that force you to judge some people's beliefs as false as a consequence. Postmodernists try to have it both ways, deflecting all moral criticism with "it's all relative" while still fairly freely wielding absolutes with abandon.
(Incidentally, even if you can't find an academic who actually wrote this down somewhere in some pithy form that could be cited, I have dealt with plenty of people in person at university who did this repeatedly and, to my mind, blatantly. I know I'm glossing over the belief system a bit since this is a comment on the web and not a dissertation, but I know people with this belief system exist. I've personally encountered them.)
You reference a "problem"; were you actually referring to astine's "This is a problem to say the least."? I can't answer to that, those aren't my words.
Effectively this means that there is no such thing as right and wrong and what we are left with is shallow consensus (as opposed to a reasoned consensus) at best, and application of force at worst.
I think that society defines morality - society defines what is wrong and what is right, and its criteria is fuzzy and shallow and unreasoned, and fluctuates over time. Since society is an aggregation of individuals, a society's definition of right and wrong is an aggregation of it's members definition of right and wrong (sometimes enforced by law.)
Slavery becomes right, because I'm a sociopath with a gun.
That's effectively what happened in the 18th century in Europe - it wasn't considered a problem then, but it is now because people's (and therefore society's) outlook on slavery has changed.
I don't think that the fact that society decides what is right and wrong is right (as in, it doesn't square with my own personal definition of what is morally right), but I can't think of more accurate definition that is also practical (and practicable.)
I think that society defines morality - society defines what is wrong and what is right, and its criteria is fuzzy and shallow and unreasoned, and fluctuates over time. Since society is an aggregation of individuals, a society's definition of right and wrong is an aggregation of it's members definition of right and wrong (sometimes enforced by law.)
Slavery becomes right, because I'm a sociopath with a gun.
That's effectively what happened in the 18th century in Europe - it wasn't considered a problem then, but it is now because people's (and therefore society's) outlook on slavery has changed.
I don't think that the fact that society decides what is right and wrong is right (as in, it doesn't square with my own personal definition of what is morally right), but I can't think of more accurate definition that is also practical (and practicable.)
Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"?
"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."
It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capable of answering. The contents of the article (though not scientific) have been shaped by scientific insights. Doesn't it sort of back up the idea that we can do morality without god? if anything, wouldn't that give the "new" atheists some backing?
"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."
It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capable of answering. The contents of the article (though not scientific) have been shaped by scientific insights. Doesn't it sort of back up the idea that we can do morality without god? if anything, wouldn't that give the "new" atheists some backing?
I was also annoyed by that -- the implication seems to be that atheists are necessarily cold, calculating and logical.
I don't find that accepting the existence of emotions in decision making has any impact on my religious beliefs.
I don't find that accepting the existence of emotions in decision making has any impact on my religious beliefs.
Sam Harris covered this stuff in The End of Faith. It's depressing how few critics of "new atheists" have read the people they have beef with; then again, it's even more depressing how few atheists make successful communication a priority.
They don't have to proselytize.
True, the income and security brought in by followers is a powerful incentive. Whereas if you communicate clearly about atheism all you get is fewer people hating you for no damn reason.
I am glad that I live in a country more tolerant to atheism. Berlin has even been described as the world capital of atheism in the Economist.
"[The former chancellor of Germany, Schroder,] did not add the optional phrase So wahr mir Gott helfe ('so help me God') when sworn in as chancellor for his first term in 1998." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der)
"[The former chancellor of Germany, Schroder,] did not add the optional phrase So wahr mir Gott helfe ('so help me God') when sworn in as chancellor for his first term in 1998." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der)
It has everything to do with "new atheism".
Theists, for the most part, have their moral outlook determined by their respective religions. Which is stupid, but at least it's standardized.
Many atheists believe that their morality is determined by reason. Brooks' point is that there's no such thing as morality determined purely by reason. There are necessarily some subjective premises in there.
All that this observation does is counter-refute atheists' refutation of the idea that atheists can't be moral. The idea that atheists can't be moral is still stupid (IMO), but not for the reason that some atheists say.
Theists, for the most part, have their moral outlook determined by their respective religions. Which is stupid, but at least it's standardized.
Many atheists believe that their morality is determined by reason. Brooks' point is that there's no such thing as morality determined purely by reason. There are necessarily some subjective premises in there.
All that this observation does is counter-refute atheists' refutation of the idea that atheists can't be moral. The idea that atheists can't be moral is still stupid (IMO), but not for the reason that some atheists say.
I don't think it even does that though.
if the ability to absorb a system of ethics is an inherited trait, then atheists have presumably inherited the ability as well and would therefore be (from a statistical perspective) as ethical as everyone else.
the basis of his claim (snyde corner of the mouth slander, really) undermines the claim itself. the whole thing cancels out rather nicely.
if the ability to absorb a system of ethics is an inherited trait, then atheists have presumably inherited the ability as well and would therefore be (from a statistical perspective) as ethical as everyone else.
the basis of his claim (snyde corner of the mouth slander, really) undermines the claim itself. the whole thing cancels out rather nicely.
"Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know."
Speak for yourself, Brooks. Apparently he was the kind of kid who put ketchup on everything and never really grew out of it.
Speak for yourself, Brooks. Apparently he was the kind of kid who put ketchup on everything and never really grew out of it.
[deleted]
I was thinking this sounded familiar and then I realized the main source, Jonathan Haidt, did a similar TEDTalk on the roots of liberal and conservative morality. I thought it was pretty interesting:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mor...
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mor...
I don't agree with his premise that people can't use reason to come to good moral principles, and then act on them.
Figuring out morality his way--by emotion--would be abdicating your power to make positive change and leaving everything to random influences upon your life. A woman was mean to me as a kid? Well, I'll hate women. Everyone I know goes to church, and I have come to love Jesus? Well, that must be the right answer, then. That's what happens if you go by emotion.
Figuring out morality his way--by emotion--would be abdicating your power to make positive change and leaving everything to random influences upon your life. A woman was mean to me as a kid? Well, I'll hate women. Everyone I know goes to church, and I have come to love Jesus? Well, that must be the right answer, then. That's what happens if you go by emotion.
On the other hand, you're an evolved being with innate biases. There are solid natural reasons that most people share similar moral intuitions (read: emotions). If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions.
Brooks' premise is naturalistic, that man is more complex than an avatar of pure reason. I think he's right.
Brooks' premise is naturalistic, that man is more complex than an avatar of pure reason. I think he's right.
"If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions."
It is mistaken to deduce morality from emotions, because (for one thing) emotions are largely a product of random chance. Emotions haven't been "validated."
Rather, we should deduce morality from reason and reality. We /ought/ to do what /is/ good for human life. (This isn't self evident, but I do think it's true.)
It is mistaken to deduce morality from emotions, because (for one thing) emotions are largely a product of random chance. Emotions haven't been "validated."
Rather, we should deduce morality from reason and reality. We /ought/ to do what /is/ good for human life. (This isn't self evident, but I do think it's true.)
He just messes up and shows his ignorance/stupidity when he tries to say that "man is more complex then an avatar of pure reason" implies "the processes by which man was created are more than is understandable by pure reason". believe what you want but thats a shoddy piece of reasoning.
Strictly speaking, everything is more than is understandable by pure reason.
How so? Isn't it just a matter of having enough "reasoning power" and information? What do "everything" and "understandable" mean in this sentence?
"everything" might be more then is understandable by pure reason, i have to give you that.
I essentially see this as an extension of the naturalistic fallacy. "we should surrender to human nature because it is better than anything human reason can come up with."
such claims are not new, and they are not right.
such claims are not new, and they are not right.
It also seems to confuse moral philosophy and moral psychology. The former can use reason and arguments to attempt to justify practical principles and actions (at least somewhat) independently of how, psychologically, human agents, in fact, make moral judgements in real-life situations.
"The End of Philosophy" is a silly title because, for a start, what is discussed is only relevant to moral philosophy; and secondly, whatever firm scientific results may be produced regarding moral psychology, there are still endless issues that moral philosophers can continue to sensibly discuss, for example, the semantics of (what appear to be) deductive moral arguments.