[96] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Objectivist morals (was RE: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benazeer Noorani)
Fri Apr 20 11:20:04 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <v04020a1db705fed22756@[18.238.2.202]>
In-Reply-To: <ppw3db3prdk.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:14:08 -0400
To: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
From: Benazeer Noorani <benazeer@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Josiah D. Seale" <jdseale@MIT.EDU>, "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>,
<mit-talk@MIT.EDU>, "Ray Jones" <rjones@pobox.com>
At 10:39 AM -0400 4/20/01, Ray Jones wrote:
>"Josiah D. Seale" <jdseale@MIT.EDU> writes:
>
>> a) The moral contracts exist because without them society breaks down
>>
>> b) Without a higher being, there is no "purely objective" reason to follow
>> morals beyond your own convenience.
>>
>> b')Without a higher being, the alleged "instilled morals" come from the
>> self-same evolutionary patterns that came up with social contracts (and I
>> should only follow them if doing so helps me in the Darwinian race.)
>
>This statement can be adjusted and applied to theism almost as
>effectively. A theist should only follow moral precepts set down by
>their flavor-of-the-millenium as far as it helps them achieve
>happiness in life and/or afterlife, assuming they believe in one.
>
How then, do you explain those theists who don't expect their religion to
increase their happiness in the afterlife? I grew up in a Muslim home. The
way I was taught the Koran, there was no guarantee whatsoever that Allah
was going to help you in any way. You live your life following a set of
extraordinarily strict and apparently arbitrary rules., and hope you've
done it well enough to get to paradise and haven't inadvertently done
anything to make Allah smite you and send you straight to hell. If people
only chose religion based on what's going to increase their happiness, I
would argue we should all be Hindus, because with reincarnation you get an
infinite number of chances to get your life right.
My point here is, most theists would say they act consistently with a set
of morals because they believe their religion is true. The increase of
happiness in the afterlife is only secondary to this.
>The problem is that people are so fucking bad at discerning the actual
>metaphysical rules that apply to the world. This is obvious if you
>consider the largest group that holds a single set of beliefs, subject
>to a reasonable window of variance. Let's assume that this largest
>group (which is some small fraction of the entire human population) is
>also the one whose beliefs are most correct. That means that everyone
>else is basically fucked. They've got it wrong, some by a little,
>some by a lot. You'd expect a little humility in believers, since in
>the giant crapshoot of life, they're most likely losing. [*]
Actually, any person who has true faith in a higher being of some sort
really shouldn't admit the possibility of being wrong. Once you've made the
decision to "wager" your soul's eternal destiny (if you believe in souls
and eternity) on the existence and benevolence of one being, it seems
kinda silly to also believe that you may in fact be wrong. At the very
least, it would certainly piss off the god you subscribe to.
>
>This is why I'm an agnostic. It's not like I could possibly be that
>much more wrong than your average theist.
At least the average theist is placing a bet. If you sit on the sidelines,
there's zero chance that you'll win.
I have less respect for agnostics than atheists because I see agnosticism
as a copout. I only have anecdotal evidence to support my opinion, but the
majority of agnostics I"ve met have been too lazy to really examine issues
of eternity, hell, good, evil, God, etc. and come to an intelligent
conclusion of their own. Agnosticism is an intelliectual equivalent of
sitting on the fence. Of course, I have equally little respect for anyone
who blindly follows the religion of their parents without really examining
whether they believe it to be true or not.
-Benazeer
>
>Ray Jones
>
>[*] This paragraph is a paraphrase of a famous quote which I can't
>find right now.
