During the last season of “West Wing,” reporters tried to pin down candidate Arnie Vinnick (Alan Alda) on the subject of his religious beliefs. Vinnick–who wanted to keep the fact that he’d lost faith in God under wraps–stated that his personal views on God were off limits, he’d never discuss them, that they weren’t relevant to the job he was to do as president, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of it. To all intents and purposes it was. It never came up again in the series.
I commented at the time that in the real world, that would never happen. That such an assertion would only be the beginning of the story, not the end of it.
Now it seems that we’re seeing the scenario played out in real life as Rudy Giuliani asserts that his personal religious beliefs are just that–personal–and should have no bearing on his campaign.
This promptly became front page news on “Newsday” and now we’ll see just how fast the question goes away. I suspect it won’t anytime soon.
The ironic thing is that Giuliani is both right and wrong. The fact is that his personal beliefs *shouldn’t* be a factor. If he doesn’t want to discuss them, he should be entitled to that. The problem becomes that the automatic assumption is that he is either agnostic or atheist, and in a society where the vast majority of people assert a belief in SOME sort of divine spirit, that’s not going to go over very well.
On the other hand it really IS a relevant question because look who we’ve got running the country now: A man who believes that he’s operating at the personal behest of God. Bush doesn’t simply believe in God; he KNOWS there’s a God and that he and God are tight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, too much “knowledge” can be a lethal thing.
If Giuliani is an atheist and doesn’t want to discuss that beause he figures it’s nobody’s business and that it might cost him votes, I can understand both viewpoints. Still, knowing that a candidate will not run this country and world affairs under the belief that he’s taking his marching orders from God might not be such a bad thing.
PAD
• 
There’s also a third view on government and morality: Certain things will go on whether or not they’re legal. If they are legal, then the government can make sure they’re regulated to attempt to keep the worst abuses in check (and also get some tax revenue from them); if they’re illegal but go on anyway, in theory anything goes (the “you may as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb” approach). This approach is typified by the Netherlands: if you disapprove of something, get it out where you can keep an eye on it rather than driving it underground.
“Uh, yeah, you haven’t disqualified, or demonstrated how your criticism applies to, anything I’ve said.”
Sure I have, repeatedly. But more importantly you did, in every one of your posts.
There is not one person on the board, including its owner, who thinks your bizarre logic makes any sense (no matter how many times you’ll twist Bob or Sean’s words to try to prove the opposite). The criticism is not only mine, it is almost a consensus on this board.
Like when?
Yeah, but no one can demonstrate how I’m wrong.
I can demonstrate how Bobb’s arbitrary cheese comment makes no sense because no one qualifies cheese by the direction of the rising and setting sun. What have you disqualified by any means like that, or by any reason?
“If autonomy is a moral virtue — as you agreed Micha insisted “
No, I did not agree. I quoted you. Unless you want to take the position that quoting someone means you agree with them? I didn’t think so.
“then suspicion, trust’s polar opposite, would qualify as immoral, and would therefore be illegal.”
For the sake of argument, assuming autonomy is a moral virtue, then wouldn’t suspicion…not exist? Because no one would care what anyone else was doing, because they’d all be autonomous. It wouldn’t matter if my neighbor were a lying, cheating, swindling bášŧárd, because I would not care. I’d be worried only about me. So long as he keeps his lying, cheating ways clear of me and mine, there’d be nothing wrong with his actions.
Now, if autonomy were a moral virtue, then it would be illegal to interfere with another’s self. Your example has no link to the assumption you credit to micha…which I have not ever agreed with you on.
But you know what? I guess I set out today to try and prove to you that you dig your own holes, and that for whatever reason, you’re not your usual dense, impenetrable self today, and I find it’s a little like picking on the smallest kid in the class. So I think I’ll go back to ignoring Mike again.
“Like when?”
Is it your wish to go over every one of our previous engagements? What’s the point. You lack the ability to comprehend it anyway, even if I explained it to you again.
You have a very convenient system. You are the prosecutor and the judge. You make an absurd statement, which is evidently absurd to anybody but you, and which often involves misinterpreting something someone else wrote. Then somebody else points out the absurdity of you statements. But, since you have arbitrarily nominated yourself the sole judge of what makes sense and what dosn’t — although your mental deficiency precludes you from making very kind of judgement — you always reject the sensible arguments of others while accepting your increasingly absurd arguments, and then you praise yourself for the ‘distlled purity of your ‘reason.’ In this way, in your mind, you win every argument. However, meanwhile, back in a little place we like to call Earth, not one person is convinced by your absurd arguments.
“Yeah, but no one can demonstrate how I’m wrong.”
Sure they can. You simply are incapable or unwilling to understand their demonstration.
It doesn’t matter how many times it will be demonstrated to the satisfaction of everybody else on this board, still you will not comprehend them, and in your mind it will seem arbitrary. Under the circumstances discussion with you is futile.
————
Mike,I will give you two examples of your deficiency, though I’ll doubt if you’ll understand them.
In one of our previous discussions I said that you were perfectly clear about something (I don’t remember what). You replied that you are not a Platonist.
Now, the phrase ‘perfectly clear’ is pretty common in English. For you to comprehend it as a reference to Platonism indicates that you have deficient command of spoken English.
In another instance you failed to use google correctly because you insisted on reading only a section of the instructions while ignoring the rest. This problem has plagued you when reading other texts, and is indicative of a deficiency in your ability to read texts in general.
“So I think I’ll go back to ignoring Mike again.”
Me too.
———————-
Posted by: Doug Atkinson at June 22, 2007 09:52 AM
“There’s also a third view on government and morality: Certain things will go on whether or not they’re legal. If they are legal, then the government can make sure they’re regulated to attempt to keep the worst abuses in check (and also get some tax revenue from them); if they’re illegal but go on anyway, in theory anything goes (the “you may as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb” approach). This approach is typified by the Netherlands: if you disapprove of something, get it out where you can keep an eye on it rather than driving it underground.”
There are two arguments used to justify an extremely liberal society.
One is to say that the government should not interfere with the atonomous decision of its citizens to do certain things, since it is their moral right to decide by themselves if to do it.
The second argument says that the government should not interfere in drugs, alcohol, gambling and prostitution because it doesn’t have the technical capability to prevent them anyway, regardless of the moral question.
The second argument is an attempt to avoid arguing morality by fousing on technical ‘objective’ matters. But the truth is that there still has to be a moral decision that drugs, gambling, prostetution etc. do not merit the involvement of the government.
In the case of prostitution there is a problem. If the prostitutes are victims, isn’t it the duty of the government to act?
Posted by: Micha at June 22, 2007 11:01 AM
Under the circumstances discussion with you is futile.
That’s IT! Mike… is a BORG!
I can just hear Mike intoning, “I am Ridiculous… of Borg. Logic is futile. Your discussion as it has been is over. From this time forward, Peter David’s discussion threads… will service me.”
Except rather than having Data plug into Mike’s consciousness (which would be cruel to Data!) in order to destroy him, we can just let Mikey self-destruct.
Remember when Spock said that if a computer were based on McCoy’s neural patterns, the resulting stream of illogic would be “fascinating?” Wonder what he’d’ve said about the prospect of a computer program based on Mike’s brain.
Brrrr….
Autonomy is not, to my understanding, moral. It is the ability to act independantly. Morality enters into the fray when one makes decisions.
Trust is not moral, nor is ti right or wrong. It is belief based on tangible (experience, physical evidence) and intangible (emotion, instinct) qualities, suspicion is doubt or disbelief based on the same qualities.
Trusting or suspecting a person does not make you good or bad.
Autonomy is not, to my understanding, moral. It is the ability to act independantly. Morality enters into the fray when one makes decisions.
Trust is not moral, nor is ti right or wrong. It is belief based on tangible (experience, physical evidence) and intangible (emotion, instinct) qualities, suspicion is doubt or disbelief based on the same qualities.
Trusting or suspecting a person does not make you good or bad.
“Wonder what he’d’ve said about the prospect of a computer program based on Mike’s brain.”
“Captain, among the aincient computer programmers of your planet was an early understanding. There was even a phrase to describe it–GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.”
Posted by: Manny at June 22, 2007 02:10 PM
“Autonomy is not, to my understanding, moral. It is the ability to act independantly. Morality enters into the fray when one makes decisions.”
The right of the individual to make his own choices and or the belief that the individual should make his own choices is a moral issue that should not be taken for granted. Slaves do not have it. People who live in a paternalistic society do not have it.
The idea and ideal that people should make their own moral choices and that this right should be protected, is a corner stone of several moral and political system. Conversly, in other moral and political systems it is stated that the autonomy of the individual should be restricted because it is bad for them to have freedom to decide on their own.
In the US constitution it is assumed that individuals inherently have an inalienable moral right for liberty and pursuit of happiness — i.e. to choose to pursue happiness as they see fit.
The philosopher Hobbes said that by nature people have the right to do anything they want. But this natural state leads to a life that is short, nasty and brutal. For people to live together they must transfer that right to an absolute ruler who should make the decisions.
“Trust is not moral, nor is ti right or wrong. It is belief based on tangible (experience, physical evidence) and intangible (emotion, instinct) qualities, suspicion is doubt or disbelief based on the same qualities.”
Let’s clarify.
Some people believe that lying or cheating is immoral, while telling the truth and being trustworthy is moral.
This question is an issue pertaining to the philosophy of morals — ethics.
Some believe that it is the government should maintain the trustworthiness of contracts, and should prevent cheating, as in the case of fraud, for example, or lying in court.
The question pertain to the philosophy dealing with the running of states — politics.
“Trusting or suspecting a person does not make you good or bad.”
This is a different question than the one above.
In some circles people who are trusting or have faith are more admired than people who are sceptics. Perhaps people who are trusting are considered more trustworthy. This is also an issue dealt with by ethical philosophy. But in our context the issue of trust relates more in people being trustworty than of being trusting.
In my discussion with Mike, we discussed the issue of philosophers who believed in objective morality. Mike provided a quote from wikipedia which was meant to show that Spinoza was not an example of objective morality, but of subjective morality. He asked me to provide a quote to prove the opposite. I later replied that I thought Spinoza was not a good example of objective morality, because his ideas had several layers. In any case, here are two quotes from Britannica. One about Hobbes, who believed in subjective morality, and one about Spinoza:
“from ethics: The British tradition: from Hobbes to the Utilitarians
Hobbes
Hobbes’s account of “good” is equally devoid of religious or metaphysical premises. He defined good as “any object of desire,” and insisted that the term must be used in relation to a person–nothing is simply good of itself independently of the person who desires it. Hobbes may therefore be considered a subjectivist.”
“from ethics: The continental tradition: from Spinoza to Nietzsche
Spinoza
The first of these contrasts with Hobbes is Spinoza’s attitude toward natural desires. As has been noted, Hobbes took self-interested desire for pleasure as an unchangeable fact about human nature and proceeded to build a moral and political system to cope with it. Spinoza did just the opposite. He saw natural desires as a form of bondage. We do not choose to have them of our own will. Our will cannot be free if it is subject to forces outside itself. Thus our real interests lie not in satisfying these desires but in transforming them by the application of reason. Spinoza thus stands in opposition not only to Hobbes but also to the position later to be taken by Hume, for Spinoza saw reason not as the slave of the passions but as their master.
The second important contrast is that while individual humans and their separate interests are always assumed in Hobbes’s philosophy, this separation is simply an illusion from Spinoza’s viewpoint. Everything that exists is part of a single system, which is at the same time nature and God. (One possible interpretation of this is that Spinoza was a pantheist, believing that God exists in every aspect of the world and not apart from it.) We, too, are part of this system and are subject to its rationally necessary laws. Once we know this, we understand how irrational it would be to desire that things should be different from the way they are. This means that it is irrational to envy, to hate, and to feel guilt, for these emotions presuppose the possibility of things being different. So we cease to feel such emotions and find peace, happiness, and even freedom–in Spinoza’s terms the only freedom there can be–in understanding the system of which we are a part.”
And here is a quote concerning the US constitution:
“Natural Law
in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humankind and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law….
…The Declaration of Independence of the United States refers only briefly to “the Laws of Nature” before citing equality and other “unalienable” rights as “self-evident.” The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen asserts liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression as “imprescriptible natural rights.”
Unless ending a noun with an apostrophe ess no longer indicates possession or attribution, Counselor, I am portraying accurately your confirmation the controversial notions exist, and that they belong to Micha.
So if something is a moral virtue, it’s adopted by everyone? That would mean no one here could give or take credit for any moral virtue… that I didn’t also do.
If you “don’t remember,” how can you deny “it never took place?”
Micha, you’re insisting I comply with a level of invulnerability you don’t qualify for. You issued a denial that was completely compatible with the statement you tried to rebut:
An offense is only made more severe by its denial. As I have not denied my transgression, my offense is less severe than yours. Otherwise, as nothing else I’ve said depends on never making the mistake you cite, thank you for demonstrating the validity of everything else I’ve said.
Bill, the google error Micha cites was one I did not hesitate to acknowledge, demonstrating my independence from the pretense of infallibility. Your qualification for a strength that exceeds mine simply does not exist.
Micha, The analysis you cite demonstrates Hobbes confirmed, as I said, “Morality [implies] one who wants something,” and portrayed Spinoza denying the future can be anything other than what will be experienced — rendering both the desire and the morality of Hobbes irrelevant.
All I’ve been saying is that morality, as represented by Hobbes, and objectivity, as represented by Spinoza, are incompatibile. Now you are presenting analysis that says the same thing. You’ve just settled the issue: you’re wrong.
You’re an idiot. You’ve confirmed it yet again.
This discussion is over. I said what I have to say to the people intelligent enough to benefit from it.
Goodbye.
I can demonstrate how Bobb’s bizarre cheese comment makes no sense by citing how no one qualifies cheese by the direction of the rising and setting sun.
As far as you are unable to disqualify reasoning you portray as severely bizarre or idiotic, it sucks to be you.
Gee Mike, what color is the sky in your world?
Posted by: Bladestar at June 23, 2007 07:50 PM
Gee Mike, what color is the sky in your world?
Tuesday.
“We, too, are part of this system and are subject to its rationally necessary laws.”
While at it’s heart, I can understand that statement, but does Spinoza go further by explaining which laws these are, or is there an acknowledgement that some of these laws may be indecipherable, at least at this time? Or am I just reading too much into it? There are answers to our questions about the universe, but there are also answers to the questions we’re either not ready to or smart enough to ask yet. Does Spinoza come across as “THIS IS THE WAY, THE ONLY WAY?”
The sky is a kind of deeply-toned gray-blue. What color is the sky in your world, Bladestar? How’s Ringo?
Arbitrary ridicule from you, Bill, in the same thread you publicly pat yourself on the back for acknowledging your vulnerability? That’s… so like you, unfortunately, isn’t it?
Unless there is more than one interpretation of “This means that it is irrational to… presuppose the possibility of things being different” the passage portrays Spinoza denying the future can be anything other than what will take place.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 23, 2007 08:59 PM
“We, too, are part of this system and are subject to its rationally necessary laws.”
Sean: “While at it’s heart, I can understand that statement, but does Spinoza go further by explaining which laws these are?”
Sean, you have to remember that Spinoza lived in a time when the idea that you can describe the universal laws of nature in mathematical terms, and describe the working of nature like a mechanical machine were new ideas. The line between physics and other sciences were still blurry, and some philosophers dabbled in mathematics.
Spinoza took this idea to the extreme. If everything that happens in nature can be described and explained in terms of cause and effect according to absolute scientific rules, than nothing can happen in any other way except according to those rules and the chain of causes and effects, so eveything in nature is predetermined. And since nature is everyting, this applies also to god and to humans.
Spinoza thought nature was like mathematics or more specifically geometry, where you start with a few axioms and then build everything from there. Everything in geometry, including later developments by mathematicians, including theorems that have not yet been discovered, and even those that will never be solved, come from these few axioms and are based on them. And he thought the whole natural world is like that.
“is there an acknowledgement that some of these laws may be indecipherable, at least at this time?”
I don’t remember hearing anything specifically related to this question. Spinoza knew that the sciences have not yet explained everything. I don’t know if he expected that they would evetually be explained. I think he only expected to set the basic principles. Geometry starts with a book by Eucllid. He wanted to be like Euclid for metaphysics, so he wrote his major book like a geometry book.
The revolutionary thing about his philosophy is the idea that nothing is beyond the laws of science, nothing is mysterious or supernatural, including god and human nature. This was pretty daring for its time.
Today nobody believes in Spinoza’s philosophy, but the basic daring ideas are still with us. When Luigi Novi suggested to Ben Lesar that human morality can be explained by scientific, Darwinian principles, he was following in Spinoza’s (and other contemporary philosophers) footsteps.
“Or am I just reading too much into it?”
No, you’re not. The only point in reading this stuff is to get you thinking about things in different ways.
“Does Spinoza come across as “THIS IS THE WAY, THE ONLY WAY?”
Yes, yes and no.
First, Like I said, Philosophically speaking, Spinoza thought that everything is predetermined by the laws of science, there are no real options, no free will.
Secondly, I think it is safe to assume that he thought that his philosophical ideas were the right ideas, and the ideas of other philosophers were wrong.
But as a person Spinoza supported the most tolerant, the most open minded, most free thinking and most unorthodox elements of his time and country. This is part of what makes him a cool guy.
Here was a guy who was kicked out of the Jewish community in Holland for asking questions. And what did he do? He didn’t convert to the religion of the majority — calvinism. He started hanging out with the people who held the most radical and unorthodox theological ideas of the time. People who were against organized religion and strict orthodoxy in a society that was very religious. He didn’t think in forcing religion on people, but believed that people should be allowed diverse religious opinions. He also supported freedom of speech and a democratic government. I like Spinoza.
I hope I explained well Spinoza’s idea oabout everything being determined. But if not, he is a good metaphor.
Imagine a pool table. Now the movements on the balls on the table are supposedly determined by the laws of physics, right. tha’t means that from the moment the white ball is struck and until the balls stop moving, all their movements cannot happen in any other way except according to these laws. This seems to mean that all their movement are pretty much predetermined the minute the white ball is hit by the player. But Spinoza says that the movements of the players are also determined by scientific laws, and so do the movements of everything and everybody else, all the way and including god. People don’t have an option to act differently anymore than the balls on a pool table. If the balls had consciousness, Spinoza says, they might think that they were moving out of free will, but they’re not. And even god can’t decide to act differently or change the necessary laws of the system. No miracles, no supernatural powers, no free will.
It’s all very weird, but it get’s you thinking, which is the point of philosophy.