Who needs god to be good?

Here's, perhaps, the most insulting of all claims made by the religious - that without god there is no morality. I'm sure everyone in this group feels they have their own moral code which they do their best to live up to. Many (including me) would suggest that it is actually far more moral to treat others well out of empathy and understanding than to do so simply because yoor god tells you you must. I think it's a point that deserves its own thread. Go for it!

I agree wholeheartedly, Booksloth. Do unto others before they do unto you.

No, but seriously folks, I have problems with morals. (I don't mean I'm a totally ammoral person, although there are those that might say otherwise.) What is the basis of morality? What is deemed to be moral or otherwise?

Every society has some form of code of behaviour, defined or otherwise, but not all codes of behaviour are the same. In some societies it was considered ok to eat your enemies. Such a thing would not be considered moral in the general Western society.

The point I'm trying to make is that "morals" are based on someone's or some group's view of what morality is and does not have to be based on a "god is good" basis, but often would be somewhere a particular religious outlook is prevelant. On that basis, having a set of morals in a society could result in a moral code, which is based on someone's or some group's view of what morality is, being imposed on individuals who do not necessisarily agree with that moral code.

Morality really doesn't have much to do with religion, it is simply a system of "right conduct" -- but which system one follows depends can be socially determined, religiously dictated, or personally applied. It's when you follow one, but the rest of the community follows another that people get into trouble. Socrates, refusing to recant to the Athenians. Antigone, defying her father the king. People who volunteer for military service. People who pay their taxes without cheating. "Patriotism" has a hefty dose of moral imperative behind it. I suppose every martyr thinks their sacrifice is a moral act. After all, "doing what's right" is a powerful motivation that justifies many many selfish and even heinous acts.

When I run up against this issue with religious people--in several threads here lately especially in the Religion group--the main complaint against a personal, relativistic morality is that I can't know that what I think is right and good is, actually, right and good. That I have nothing to justify my personal ethics over that of, say, neonazi skin heads. This really seems to freak some people out. Their adherence to their religiously-based code of morality is grounded in the idea that there is an "absolute moral good" called god. So they know they are on the right path.

It isn't so much that they need someone or something to tell them to be good. Really most people are inclined to be "good" rather than "bad" -- It's that they crave the certainty that there is a good path and they are on it.

It must be a very, very heady feeling, to always know that you are walking the righteous path. I don't have that kind of certainty, personally. I'm forced to constantly evaluate my actions and be content with the knowledge that I might be wrong, and in being wrong might really hurt someone. A religious person following a religiously defined moral code (or, a secular person following a civic defined one) can go through life without ever needing to question his actions, and secure in the knowledge of his moral righteousness, and thus in the knowledge that anyone outside his code is, by definition, immoral.

I prefer my state of uncertainty to his state of confidence though, because self-determination is vastly important to me and I think you sacrifice that when you subject yourself to someone else's moral code.

>3 southernbooklady:: I don't think even the secularist following a civic defined moral code has quite that certainty (in the way the religious person might), because he knows the civic moral code is generated from the collective opinions of other people, similar to him.

#2 In some societies it was considered ok to eat your enemies. I've never understood that one - I've always imagined my enemies would taste horrible. Eating friends, on the other hand . . . I actually see more logic in the societies where you ate the remains of a person you had loved and admired in the hopes of taking on board some of their good qualities. For me, the rule is 'don't eat someone you wouldn't kiss'. Definitely more on this subject later (I mean the subject of morality, not necessarily the subject of eating people).

#5 How often do you invite friends around for dinner?

#6 Often. Oddly though, they rarely accept.

#7 I suppose they only ever accept once.

I don't need a god to tell me to be good. I am an empath (sceptics - I think that most healers are) and know how I would feel if the same hurt was done to me so I don't do it - or not intentionally, anyway.

Just a note about empathic healers; I worked as a physiotherapist in a psychogeriatric hospital where most of my patients were suffering advanced dementia so I had to use gut feeling coupled with my training to locate the source of the problems. I know that this sounds unbelievable but I could locate pain by touch. I realise that it may have been some subtle reaction from the patient but I could "feel' the pain.

I recall in my school days being taught about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It seems to me that those of us who are non-theistic and non-religious, are internally motivated to practice kindness and good ethics towards others -- these actions are their own reward and we enjoy doing them. (Some) people who follow organized/authoritarian religions seem to need an external motivation for being "good" (commandments or restrictions by an authority; rewards or punishments in an afterlife; and so on).

Actually, I get a bit nervous when encountering folks who say things like, "Admit it, if {Jesus/the Qur'an/my rabbi/whatever} didn't forbid it, we'd all be out there raping and stealing and killing like crazy, and so would you!" I tend to back slowly away from such people. And honestly, if that's their take on it, I hope that such people do keep following their chosen religion. Yikes. :/

For many of the rest of us, "be good for goodness' sake" is enough.

#9 An 'empath' isn't a word I've come across before. For we ignoramuses (ignoramii?), can you enlarge upon what one does and what evidence there is for the success of the treatment. I take it from your post to mean something about watching for signs in the patient's body that you have hit the source of the pain. If the patients are unable to communicate, how do they confirm or deny that the practitioner has hit upon the right spot? How does the practitioner deal with a lack of response - eg if that particular touch does not cause a response, how do you know whether that is because of a lack of pain in that place or a simple lack of response? You mention this is connection with physiotherapy - is it a part of physio treatment or are other treatments, meds, etc used in conjunction with it?

An empath is someone who has a heightened sense of empathy. (OED definition: The power of identifying oneself mentally with a person or object of contemplation).

I can hardly believe it myself but when I hit the right spot I could usually sense the pain - almost feel it at the same spot on my own body. But being a sceptic I am assuming that there was some sort of reaction, some sort of sign from the patient or maybe the area was fractionally warmer and I was able to subliminally pick it up. I don't know and I don't understand how or why; I just knew ... but, hey, I knew the approximate area to target. Have you never cringed when you watched a sportsman twist his knee or ankle?

i didn't see someone sitting in a room and immediately know that he had a sore shoulder. Knowing that someone had been referred to me for a sore shoulder I could usually pick the exact position of the trigger point or sore spot to treat.

I suspect that vets, like me who are not able to communicate with their patients verbally, do the same thing.

Empaths are found in the same zoo as psychics, mind readers, fortune tellers, tarot readers etc., none of which I believe in but, once again, the good ones are able to pick up subliminal information and use it. Just feeling the body rather than the mind through the hands.

And yes, I have learnt Reiki. As I was in a 'hands on' profession I figured that I had nothing to lose and it just might do something helpful.

http://www.empathguide.com/

>10 Essa: Isn't a shift from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation a normal part of maturation? Those who rely on authority as a basis for their morality would seem to be morally stagnant.

> 12: Not wanting to rain on your party, but my preliminary "theory" * is that so-called empaths are people who "just happen" to be very good at reading body language and such. It's a real talent, for sure, but I don't see anything supernatural just yet.

* I could be wrong.

#14 but my preliminary "theory" * I could be wrong.

Does that make it an hypothesis?

#14 Did I ever say that there was anything supernatural about empathy? I certainly don't think that there is; I am just not sure how it works in a physical sense.

> 15: Probably, but I'm not stricly playing by the rules here, so I'm hesitant to call it that too.

> 16: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did.

I read Truth About Stories by Thomas King a few years ago. Apart from its main theme, i.e. that every story one hears changes one, albeit imperceptably, it presented a number of Native North American creation myths. It was one of those books that I've read and come away with a new perception on life and a realisation that I may not actually be the centre of the universe, known or otherwise.

I mention it hear because it is a book about assumptions and societal myopia. The title of the thread is, "Who needs god to be good?" In one's responses one may be thinking of the topic with a very Christian image of god. King's book rattles the reader's cage and brings home the fact that people may think of things in a different way. A key example of this is his story in which god is demonstrated to be an incompetent bungler and the creation of the world is only organised properly when a girl who is frustrated with the bad job god is making of it takes over and sorts things out. (I think I married that girl.)

Apologies if I have been a bit too tangential to the topic but I felt is was related. By the way, Kings book is really interesting. He also makes the point that the Native North American people in the US are still present and that their numbers are only dwindling in reports and the censu because of legal definitions being used to reduce the numbers of people who can officially declare themselves to belong to specific tribes: a sort of bureaucratic ethnic cleansing.

#12/13 I do think the discussion has taken a very interesting turn here because I'm willing to bet we all have some things we believe, or that have worked for us, that sit uncomfortably with our ideas of ourselves as sceptics. We wouldn't be worthy of group membership if we didn't ask ourselves and each other certain pertinent questions about those beliefs.

Pinkozcat, the questions I asked in #11 were genuine ones that, I thought, might help to give us an understanding of what is going on here, and I would very much like to hear your answers. I don't know what, if any, empirical tests have been done on this particular skill or how even its own practitioners can be sure about whether what they do works. I also don't know what treatments, if any, follow the initial diagnosis. It seems to me that these are important questions.

Judging by the amount of information you give, my initial guess would be similar to yours; it doesn't seem impossible to me that a practitioner can train themselves to be sensitive to unspoken communications - as you say, vets do it all the time (as well as looking at visual signs of illness, carrying out scientific tests and listening to an owners account of symptoms and circumstances). However, I can also see that, unless some kind of testing and comparing is carried out, it would be easy for an unscrupulous or deluded person to claim they were helping a patient where there is no evidence for that being the case (a large number of faith healers, mediums, dowsers etc are also perfectly sincere in their beliefs and when they are shown under lab conditions to have no more than an average rate of success, they appear to be genuinely shocked).

You also mention Reiki and I do know that some testing has been done on this (see, for example, William T. Jarvis, Ph.D. - National Council Against Health Fraud). So far the tests have used fairly small samples and have had various methodological problems but, to date, no evidence has yet been found that Reiki has any higher success rate than any other placebo. My initial tentative conclusion, therefore, is that Reiki probably joins the catalogue of spurious treatments but further testing would give a clearer picture either way.

Did you know that placebos work in about 40% of cases so any scientific testing would be difficult.

The hospital pharmacy used to give some people vitamin tablets clearly labelled "Placebo" and they still worked. I don't know if Reiki works or not; I never told people I was using it - just another string to my bow and I figured that if I was massaging someone (the laying on of hands) I had nothing to lose and there might be something in it. Who knows.

I did find out that no Italian patient ever improved without massage - it seemed to be a part of the deal.

And yet tests have been done on many similar practices. This is done in most cases by comparing a group who have received the studied treatment with another group that has been given a sugar pill, or similar. Scientists agree that in the case of treatments that involve touching as opposed to pills, it is indeed difficult to set up a comparable set of trials but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Similar problems have been noted with other treatments (acupuncture is one - how do you set up a control group that has needles inserted in the subjects' bodies without unintentionally using the very techniques being tested?

There seems to be very little doubt that the placebo effect is very real and very effective. Even, as you say, when the placebo is clearly labelled as such (and making allowances for people who simply don't read those things and for those who haven't a clue what placebo actually means) there's a great deal of evidence in favour of people having their symptoms relieved because they believe that is what will happen.

So an obvious question in my mind is, what harm can it do if it makes people feel better? For a great many patients, I suspect it makes very little difference at all - feeling better is what they want, after all. On the other hand, there are very real dangers if belief in these things makes a patient ignore or turn down other proven treatments. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you would advise your patients to do this but there are practitioners who do just that and if there is no actual evidence for what actually works and what doesn't, then there is no real way to tell the genuine ones from the less scrupulous.

Perhaps less importantly, though in these austere days, still pretty crucial, is the question of practitioners taking money for a treatment that has not been proved to do any good. Of course, for those patients for whom the placebo is effective, they have got their money's worth, but what about the ones who see no real effects from the treatment? If a patient is given a pill that doesn't work for them then, as long as that pill can be scientifically demonstrated to work in the majority of similar cases, any financial cost to them has still been well spent because they were giving themselves a good chance of a 'cure'. On the other hand, if no real testing has been done on a particular procedure then this makes the morality of charging patients for the treatment becomes questionable.

Thank you so much for being willing to discuss this. Please don't think I am including you among the 'less than scrupulous' practitioners of any alternative treatments; I am just concerned as to how a prospective patient is to differentiate a sincere health worker who (as it seems to be in your case) perhaps combines these treatments with others that have been tested and shown to work, such as physiotherapy, from any unqualified person who chooses to set up as an expert in one of these treatments and charges large amounts of money while convincing the patient that they don't need standard, possibly life-saving treatment.

I know - it is difficult to know just what works. But hope is a very real factor in treating illness.

I worked in a government hospital so costs didn't come into it at all and I was given a pretty free hand as to what I did so I could tailor my treatments and used a variety of different techniques such as Feldencrais (which does work), especially with older people as I could re-teach them normal movement. My favourite psychiatrist used to say that walking was the most normal thing which a person could do and getting people back on their feet helped to normalise their behavior. That was my job.

The mind/body interaction is fascinating and working in a psychiatric hospital it became very clear to me just how much the mind governs the body.

I really hate "To the Best of Our Knowledge" lately, because it unblinkingly accepts fairly irrational assertions and gives a side-eye to the skeptics (lately my local NPR has been playing the "Neuroscience" series on my way to work on Sundays), but last week they reported about some placebo studies that show it's as much the human interaction as it is the placebo, and it was a less credulous, woo-based report than they have been doing. But apparently the study measured how much caring patient interaction happened along with the placebo treatment - whether or not the patient was told that they were receiving a placebo, I think it was a series of studies.

Anyway, apparently just feeling cared for and comforted can do a lot towards helping our bodies fight ailments, and often treatments that are indistinguishable from placebos in studies otherwise are accompanied by the listening ear and compassionate touches.

The scientist's argument at the end of the piece was that placebos can have their uses (for pain management where the pain is a manifestation of stress or whatever), but the really important part is that physicians should spend time with their patients and provide a listening ear for the best care. And I wonder if that isn't part of what pinkozcat is seeing, as she has suggested herself.

I'm not sure I can really say much regarding the debate in #21 and 22, but I thought this study was interesting about how placebos work the way they do.

> 13 Isn't a shift from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation a normal part of maturation? Those who rely on authority as a basis for their morality would seem to be morally stagnant.

I don't know. I'm tempted to say that yes, an inner-guided sense of ethics is superior and less shallow than an exterior-motivated one, but I suspect that would be merely my own biases talking. ;) It is possible, though, that an inner-motivated ethical sense is more ... stable? if that's the right word.

E.g., a devoutly religious person whose ethical guidance comes from within, goes on acting the same as before even if s/he loses faith or abandons the religion. A person who depends more on exterior authorities for ethical guidance may react differently, or experience more anguish, if they lose faith or abandon whatever their external source was.

That's just a guess, though, and may hold no reality-based water at all.

One of the things I have great faith in, and which is borderline pooh-poohed by certain sceptics, is osteopathy. Not only did it work for me, but it very probably saved my life. I'm not telling this story by way of claiming my anecdote is proof of anything apart from my own very subjective experience, but it does illustrate (I think) how intertwined touch, empathy etc are with other forms of medical treatment when it comes to healing.

17 years ago, after no real problems other than occasional backache like everyone else, I woke up one morning in excruciating pain. Over a matter of days the pain worsened until every movement was agony. My doctor prescribed painkillers that didn't do much other than take the edge off. After two weeks off work, during which time the pain remained the same, I went back knowing that whatever this was wasn't going to get cured overnight but working life was difficult if not downright impossible.

Over the next few months my doctor had nothing better to offer than a change of meds, my boss made it very clear she didn't believe anything was wrong with me and life became unbearable. During those months I tried physiotherapy, acupuncture (not because I necessarily believed it would work but because I was offered it and was willing to try anything that had a chance, hydrotherapy, TENS machine, anti-inflammatories (till I discovered I was allergic to them) and several other therapies I can't even remember any more. I won't say I felt suicidal because that's a word I don't bandy about casually, but I was vertainly beginning to understand how people might feel this wasn't a life that was particularly worth living.

Depression has a tendency to go hand in hand with chronic pain and, for many people, one of the chief causes of that is not being believed. This is especially true in the case of back-pain - everyone's had 'a bit of backache' at some time so people think they know what you're going through and, although acknowledging that it isn't pleasant, they don't really get why you seem to be making so much fuss. On top of that, back pain is notoriously hard to diagnose and is portrayed by the media (here in the UK at least) as the go-to condition for fakers and skivers. To be in severe pain is bad enough - to try to carry on with your normal life and work and not only get no thanks for that but to actually be believed by all around you to be making a mountain out of a molehill goes right to the heart of your self-belief, especially when you're someone who has never taken sick leave before and you've never faked so much as a sniffle or a headache. To make a very long story a little shorter, I'll just go on to say that during those six months I could easily have become prey to anyone offering any kind of cure, no matter how unreasonable it sounded, out of sheer desperation. In fact, being me, I went in the other direction and having given a reasonable try to everything the NHS suggested, I became very wary - and very aware - of the number of quack treatments around. When my husband suggested I try an osteopath I was - well . .. . sceptical. Although I am a great believer in the power of the mind, I do think that if I was susceptible to placeboes there should be no reason why all those earlier treatments hadn't worked for me and yet this was the one thing that ever helped me in any way.

After an interview and taking lots of general details, this wonderful man felt his way up and down my spine and told me not only where I hurt, but described the types of pain I was feeling in every place (a sharp pain, a burning pain, a dull ache etc). He manipulated my spine and, from having to be helped into the surgery by my husband because I couldn't walk unaided, I walked out unsupported. It wasn't a miracle cure and he never hinted that it would be. Over 14 years until I finally got the NHS to listen to me, agree there was something wrong and offer surgery, he was the only person who gave me any help or relief and, although I still had 24 hour-a-day pain, when it became unbearable, he was always able to improve things. However, the single most important thing he ever did was to believe me and acknowledge what I was going through and that gave me a much more positive attitude to the problem and to my life in general. Being labelled a fake and a scrounger (have they any idea how much we pay in the hopes that something might help?) are massively contributing factors in the depression and many suicides or suicide attempts that can be linked to chronic pain. I actually believe that the physical benefits of the treatment (and I do believe there were some) were secondary to the fact of having someone who didn't think I was faking, who had time to listen and react to what I tried to tell him and who involved me in my own treatment.

So how can I say those things are fraudulent? Does it really matter if the things making you feel better are a skilled therapeutic touch and an attitude of mind? As far as I can tell, it isn't osteopathy in general that sceptics have a problem with but cranial osteopathy, which is a rather different thing, but - to be honest - I haven't read a lot of literature on what independent testing has been done on this treatment because I think I'm actually a little scared of finding out that it is all thought to be nonsense. In the meantime (sadly, the surgery only helped a little and because of the metalwork I now have in my spine I am unable to get treated by my osteopath for the same condition) I would certainly return to him without hesitation for treatment that involved other parts of my body and I'd unhesitatingly recommend him to others.

Incidentally, my dog is currently nursing a painful wound. Apart from painkillers and ointment recommended by our excellent vet, when he becomes distressed by the pain (the dog, not the vet) and not being allowed to scratch I sit beside him and stroke him. I have no illusions that that will heal the wound or the accompanying excema but it calms him and it certainly makes me feel I'm doing something ever so slightly helpful. My only quibble with the sceptics' position on these things (including my own) is that I am concerned about throwing out the baby with the bath water in cases where pure comfort and physical contact do a great deal more good than harm.

Sorry this is so long.

One of the reasons that people were referred to the hospital where I worked was that their behavior could not be tolerated in a nursing home.

There was one woman who was sent to us because she spent most of her time wandering around touching the other residents in her nursing home annoying the heck out of them. Her history revealed that she had lived on her own for many years with family who never visited and she was craving human touch; no one had touched her for years.

As soon as the nurses realised the reason for her behavior they started sitting with her, holding her hand, hugging her, stroking her and generally being very 'hands on'. Almost immediately her behavior stopped.

Touch is vitally important and this is why cats and dogs are so good for lonely people. OK, birds maybe but you can't cuddle them. My friend the Clinical psychologist calls them 'companion animals'.

Booksloth, your osteopath was an empath. I was never able to do it with backs but I have seen it done and been amazed.

#26 your osteopath was an empath. That's certainly one possibility. To me (and to him, I understand) the likelier one is that he is a good osteopath who was able to detect, through touch, areas that displayed some abnormality and to know, through study and experience, the types of pain that were commonly associated with these abnormalities. His diagnoses were eventually confirmed through other tests (MRI scans, discography etc).

I hope further testing will be carried out on these methods. If we can get scientific proof that they work no-one will be happier than me; if not, I guess there is still a possibility that I will cling on to my (perhaps) irrational belief that his treatment worked for me. I certainly don't understand, if empathy is all that is needed, why anyone would be able to do the same thing with other parts of the body but not with backs, or any other area. Why should empathy be fussy about which part of the body it responds to?

Many treatments that are now accepted in the medical world started out as intuitive therapies. Tests are required. not only to see if these things work but, how they do so (if they do), so that they can then be studied further and improved upon. If tests confirm they work they 'pass', if not they don't. At the risk of muddying the waters by quoting a comedian (though a delightfully sceptical one), Tim Munchkin puts it like this: "Know what they call alternative medicine that has been tested and shown to work? Medicine." That's why I believe testing is vital, so that any proven benefits can be investigated and replicated and so that the good practitioners can understand what it is they are doing and have their own abilities tested in order to distinguish them from the fakes.

>20 pinkozcat: There's actually a pretty well established explanation for the placebo effect. Simply put, placebos work because they're given to the sick. Depending upon the malady, sick people as a group will tend toward improvement even in the absence of medication.

>26 pinkozcat: I can provide testimonial evidence gathered over 14 yrs. to support the efficacy of snuggling with your companion animal. Very little improves my mood and general outlook more than an afternoon nap with my old dog.

>28 MartyBrandon: Very little improves my mood and general outlook more than an afternoon nap with my old dog.

They are excellent in bringing down your blood pressure, aren't they?

>29 southernbooklady: I tried to maintain a skeptical demeanor by qualifying it as a "testimonial", but in reality I'm thoroughly convinced.

100% agreed on the dog theory. Oddly, that's an area in which a lot of research has been done and convincing results shown. And it's certainly not the only time intuition has been proved to be based in fact, nor will it be the last.

Re #20 As you say, if any ailment is left alone, the tendency is for the patient to get better or die. And, of course, you don't get to hear the testimonials of the ones who die. As pinkozcat has argued so elegantly, there are also enormous benefits to be gained through simple human interaction - touch, a sympathetic attitude, listening etc. These benefits should never be underestimated.

The way this thread is going I'm getting a bit sceptical about the scepticism of the sceptics.

;)

#32 I second that ... :)

Which neatly brings me to water divining...

Go for it pgmcc!

As we are all confessing the fuzzzy edges of our scepticism I have to own up to my experiences with water divining. In many parts of the country (Ireland) one always calls for the local water diviner when deciding where to sink a well. I have never known them to fail.

Being a sceptic I looked up the research and while some tests demonstrate conflicting results, others totally dismiss divining, and yet others confirm it as a phenomenon that happens but cannot be explained, my experience, and the practice in the countryside, indicate it works.

The practitioners I know do not claim to know how it works, but simply accept that it does. They are inclined to believe they are sensitive to some sort of fluctuation in the local magnetic field. They do not claim any sort of supernatural power, which is interesting as some of the articles I have found state that some organisations (not in Ireland) are trying to discourage the practice and condemn it as an evil practice of supernatural powers. (Even dogs bark at what they don't understand.)

While I have no rational explanation for it I have witnessed it working many times with different diviners independently finding the same spots for springs and I have to conclude that we just haven't found the rational explanation yet. I have also been present when people have decided not to dig where the diviner has indicated the spring is and the diviner has checked the spot and told them correctly that they would not find water there.

OK! So I'm outed.

I grew up on a farm in South Australia and both my grandfather and father used a water diviner when they needed another well or bore. And everyone in the district used him - and it worked; he was very skilled.

My husband, who is an engineer used to use a bent wire coathanger to locate pipes and conduits on construction sites.

I don't know how it works but I know that some people have the skill to locate water underground, sometimes in the most unexpected places. My grandfather's experience reflects pcmcc's story and the well went in about 50 metres from the spot where he assumed that it would be found.

Did I walk into the wrong room? Have we actually got any sceptics here?

From The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll - "Every controlled study of dowsers . . . has shown that dowsers do no better than chance in finding what they are looking for" . . . "Typical {of these tests} is what happened when James Randi tested . . . dowsers using a protocol they all agreed on. All the dowsers failed the test, though each claimed to be highly successful in finding water using a variety of nonscientific instruments, including a pendulum. Says Randi, "The sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it" (my underlining).

So, assuming that last comment is correct - that you have a much better than average chance than not of finding water wherever you choose to drill for it - what happens if you and a friend who claims to be an accomplished dowser both go looking for a source? The chances are that you will both find one. Does that mean you are also a dowser but just didn't realise it? What is more, if the person you send to dowse for your water source has a good reputation for doing this, then the chances are good that, if s/he tells you to dig at a particular spot, you will dig longer and deeper at their suggestion than you would if you had picked that spot more or less randomly yourself.

It is partly because underground water sources are so plentiful that it is so difficult to conduct any meaningful test that would just involve dowsers working under their normal conditions. This is why artificial sources of water have to be used as in the many tests that have been conducted (and in which all the participants agreed they thought was a fair test of their 'skills') using water in containers or specially laid underground pipes. In every one of these tests so far, the dowsers have been no more successful than if they had relied on sheer chance to find what they were looking for.

So, if the person looking for water finds it, is happy to pay someone else to locate it (where payment is asked for) and feels they have not been cheated, what is the problem? The problem is in seeing the practice as something semi-mystical that can only be done by the favoured few. For this kind of attitude, there is quite a simple method of reasoning, which is to ask, Which is more likely - that there is a perfectly natural, scientific reason for their success (perhaps, as Randi claims, because it would probably take more skill not to find water than to actually find it)? Or that some people have some kind of magical skill that enables them to pinpoint something rare that would be almost impossible for anyone else to trace. And let's not forget, of course, that we all love to think we're special and that the idea of being seen as someone with some special kind of sensitivity that others don't possess is extremely appealing to human nature.

Another little anecdote by way of an example. When I was about 15 I lived in a very small village with a few farms, a tiny estate of houses and lots of fields and lanes. As there was very little else to do a lot of 'underage' kids frequented the pub where we could get soft drinks as long as we sat in the passageway and didn't go inside the bar. On a Friday my mum and I used to walk to the pub where she would have a half of bitter and I would have a coke, then we'd walk back home again. On one occasion in the winter (dark nights) we were walking back home up the lane when we both saw a grey (white) horse in the road ahead of us. We knew all the local farmers and couldn't think of anyone who owned such a horse but, nonetheless, we followed it up the lane because, like all good country people, we knew that it could have escaped from a field and should be shut back in. Very shortly the horse went round a curve in the lane andf when we followed it around the corner it seemed to have disappeared. There was a field nearby with an open gate so we assumed it had gone in there, shut the gate and went home. It was probably a minute or so later that we both realised at the same moment that there had been no sound of hooves.

So, do I believe we saw a ghost? No. There are lots of explanations for what we saw and didn't hear, perhaps the most likely one being that we were so intent on getting the horse to safety, together with being surprised at finding it there in the first place, that we simply didn't mentally register the sound of its hooves. Doubtless one of us must have been first to mention that and the other, because they also hadn't noticed, would have agreed that there was no sound, rather than the more obvious solution that we just hadn't noticed it. Even setting aside that possible explanation, it seems more plausible that the horse was wearing bedroom slippers than the much less likely reasoning that all the laws of physics had been defied so that the spirit of a long-dead animal could walk up the path in front of us. Only when the supernatural explanation is logically the more convincing one should we start to consider it might be the truth.

Just as an empathic person may almost subconsciously process tiny clues from a person's body language and subtle physiological responses, I imagine "water divining" carries the same kind of ability to "read" a landscape. After all, underground springs do have a measurable effect on their surroundings, and there are certain commonalities--no one is going to go looking for water at the top of a hill, for example. Dry lake beds and old riverbeds are a safer choice. There can be indicator plants and animal species, predictable geologic factors, such as the fact that water is more likely to be found in limestone than in igneous rock. All stuff that a person in tune with the landscape might pick up subconsciously. If that's the case, then detecting artificial underground water pockets would be unlikely, since man-made water sources wouldn't come with all the usual and naturally occurring effects and indicators.

>36 pgmcc:
You need to consider specificity (how often water is absent when the dowser says it's absent), as well as accuracy (how often it is found when the dowser predicts it to be there). It's a common pitfall for diagnostic tests to perform well on only one of those. Want to know if you have hepatitis? Okay, I predict that you do. And I'm 100% accurate (i.e. if you are a person with hepatitis, I get it right). The specificity is the problem here, but it's less obvious when the incidence of the thing being checked isn't low, as it is for hepatitis.

So, a potential explanation is that the dowser is predicting something that has a fairly high background frequency. I'm no hydrologist, but when digging a well you're often aiming for an underground aquifer that is quite large (some cover an entire geographic area). Such a large target would be beneficial to a dowser operating within a small regional community. And because humans have tended to settle near a source of water, the deck is somewhat stacked in the dowsers favor. Perhaps stacked even more since dowsers are most often used in an area where active wells already exist. And do the dowsers in Ireland guarantee a certain rate of flow? When the conditions for success are left open to interpretation, there's the opportunity to exaggerate the numbers.

#39/40 Absolutely!

Another quick quote from the same book "When dowsers are scientifically tested and fail, they generally react with genuine surprise". Although every field will have a few fakes, in general nobody is suggesting that the majority of 'dowsers' are deliberately trying to fool you. On the whole, their belief in their own powers is absolutely genuine.

Back in my 20s I had quite a reputation among friends and neighbours for predicting the sex of a soon-to-be-born baby. The truth was that I had a 50/50 chance of being right (worse odds, in fact, than the odds of finding water) and that, although people forgot when I got it wrong, they were pleased and thrilled when I got it right so those results were the ones that stuck in their minds.

>41 Booksloth: On the whole, their belief in their own powers is absolutely genuine.

Because it is based on their own experience. Anecdotal evidence is a powerful thing when it comes to persuading people that something is real. You can't discount a person's personal experience without implying that they are delusional, or lying.

It's one of the reasons why the scientific method, with all of its criteria for establishing control groups, accounting for human error, and achieving results that are reproducible, is so important to me--it takes people's personal biases and limited perspectives into account without discounting the genuine nature of their personal experience.

Which brings us right back to the original issue regarding the evidence for god. There is a lot of it--everyone who believes does so for a reason. They are convinced. But it is all--100%--anecdotal evidence.

#43 I have that as a poster though I'm still looking for a wall to put it on. (It was a giveaway in this quarter's 'Skeptic' magazine.)

>43 southernbooklady: Excellent!

Love that poster. I have ordered a copy of Skeptic magazine. It's in Vol. 24 No.1

#46 It's the only magazine I've ever bought or subscribed to that I actually read every word of.

This may be slightly off topic, but I do not believe it is totally unrelated to this thread.

I work in a very central bulding in the Dublin. It attracts many people. One of the people it attracts is a born again christian preacher. He, and many people like him, lead me to believe there is a training programme for lay preaching that helps them develop the most irritatingly monotonous voice that drones on and on and on and on...and prvents one from doing any work that involves brain cells.

On the occasions I actual hear the words coming from his mouth I hear things such as, "There is absolutely no evidence to support this theory of evolution." and other banalities.

I have found a website (simply noise) that has a white noise generator and using this feature is the only way I can get any work done while he is preaching. It is running now.

#48 When you finally crack give him a slap from me too. The worrying part is that people will pass him in the street in a hurry and without really thinking about what he's saying but later, when the subject comes up they'll say 'Well, someone - can't remember who it was - told me there's no evidence for evolution' and by that time they won't even think to wonder whether what they heard was total bollocks.

>49 Booksloth: but later, when the subject comes up they'll say 'Well, someone - can't remember who it was - told me there's no evidence for evolution'

In my experience standing on a corner preaching is a sure way to make people edge away from you, rather than take you seriously. Would that all those who doubt evolution could find a street corner to postulate from. I'm sure the guy waving his "the end is near" sign will make room.

Would that all those who doubt evolution could find a street corner to postulate from. And would that they all picked the same one so the rest of us could steer well clear.

>49 Booksloth: I recently heard something (can't remember exactly who it was) say that we do indeed begin to believe that which we have repetitively heard. It was used to explain why politicians use so many short repeated phrases, essentially drive the spike of certainty a little deeper into the ground with each utterance.

> 51: Right. Similarly I have nothing against suicide bombers as such. But they should all have to take exams first, in private groups ;-)

I've never seen someone ranting about religion in the streets (oops, preaching in public) before coming to the States. Not in the Middle (Near) East, not in Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, East or West Europe.

I'll always remember the first one: standing on the corner of Canal Street and St. Charles, right at the streetcar stop (captive audience), with a multicolour sunshade contraption on his head. That sunshade was amazing.

Why is street preaching legal? Is it? Aren't there usually dedicated spaces for public addresses?

Has anyone tried shutting them up? I did once, in an overcrowded subway. This guy had been yelling for a good while. Of course he wouldn't shut up to being nicely asked. So then I started singing. I couldn't think of anything better than the Marseillaise. Some people joined in, some started laughing, others started yelling at EVERYONE to shut up... That, mes amis, is how "mob behaviour" comes into being.

>54 LolaWalser: Why is street preaching legal? Is it? Aren't there usually dedicated spaces for public addresses?

Freedom of speech. You can put your soapbox down anywhere if you aren't being a public nuisance, or endangering public safety, or breaking any local codes.

But they are very much a nuisance.

Ah, "public nuisance" is a legal term. ;-)

This guy has an amplifier strapped to his chest. I hear one side of his arguments with people who challenge him, and of course his voice carries better than theirs as he has an amplifier strapped to his chest. I'm on the third floor (fourth in US language) and I have to turn up my white noise. It must be dreadful at street level.

>58 pgmcc: This guy has an amplifier strapped to his chest

See, now, he'd run up against trouble in my town. We have noise ordinances here. A guy can strum an acoustic guitar on the sidewalk without problem. But the moment he plugs it into an amp its a whole other category--he's then a performer and he has to get a permit.

Just to add a banality to your messages : " Putting out fire with gasoline " Very conflict is getting worse when religion becomes involved.

Dublin has recently introduced a voluntary code of conduct for buskers and street performers. It does not exclude the use of amplifiers but does suggest a bit of decency in their use.

The village elders, sorry, the corporation, has stated that the voluntary code will run for six months and then they will review the need to apply a compulsory code or not. This sounds like double talk to me and that the true message is they want to be seen to do something but do not want to be seen to impose anything. At the end of the six month trial they will produce some independently produced report to say the voluntary code is working ok! Of course, under public procurement rules they will have to go to tender for the independent report so that will add another nine months onto the process.

southernbooklady, where do you live? Can I tell him to go preach in your town, please?

I live in the American South. Coastal North Carolina. We love our preachers here in the Bible belt.

Great. I'll send him on his way tomorrow. Everyone will be happy. A win-win scenario.

Now, how do you feel about someone who cannot sing, thinks he can, dresses up in a tuxedo and busks outside my office? Do the people of Coastal North Carolina love delusional wouldbe opera singers?

Want to bet that falls under the constitutionally protected right of free speech? Aargh.

BarkingMatt, I am not so sure that is explicitly protected in the Irish constitution.

I have an idea. I wonder if that guy's singing can be declared unconstitutional?

> 65: Since you brought up North Carolina I thought you were talking about the USA. Try it though. You would have my sympathy.

As a student, here in the Netherlands, I had the same organ grinder playing the same songs, over and over again, under my window, for years. I had my military training and as a reserve officer I had my sidearm, and I had seen serious nastiness in Lebanon - I would so have loved to shoot him.

(Of course I'm glad I didn't. The guy didn't deserve to die for just making an obnoxious racket. I had seen way too much bloodshed already anyway.)

#66 My building is quite old and some stonework has been known to fall from the roof in the past. Your braketed comment has forced me to pull back from the idea of using the building's masonary as a means of ridding myself of irritating street performers and preachers. (At least, that's what I want you to think.) Exporting them to the Southern states of the USA appears to be a much more humane option.

Who knows, they might even be much happier in the southern USA states.

Sorry you southern states USA-ians who think differently. No offense intended, but worldwide you sort of have that reputation (not exclusively though). Anyway: should we create reservations for the "religious loonies" (and if so: all sorts or by denomination?)

pgmcc You should probably stay away from Plymouth too. Our buskers etc, on the whole, are an affable bunch and quite pleasant to listen to, largely because if you don't like the sound you can usually move quickly away. One or two (my music teacher included) are genuinely excellent. In terms of affabiliy the same can generally be said for our Big Issue sellers and it is rare indeed for me to go into the town centre and not buy a copy of the BI. However, there always has to be one, doesn't there? We have one Big Issue seller who also thinks he is a marvellous entertainer. He makes up his own songs about the kind of day he's having, his life and just about anything else that comes into his head and they seem to go on for hours. Many people think he's very entertaining (though they tend to be the people who can pass by quite quickly) and I would have no argument with their opinion were it not for a few tiny points 1. He can't sing, 2. He stations himself right outside a large coffee bar with outdoor seating where if, like me, you are unfortunate enough to install yourself during one of his rare pauses for breath you are a captive audience, 3. He is incredibly loud. You sit yourself down in anticipation of a pleasant coffee and a chat with a friend and then he starts. You genuinely cannot hear a single word either of you says. The coffee isn't cheap either so I find myself reluctant to move away until I've at least drunk my money's worth. He is probably the only BI vendor in the whole of the town and its outskirts from whom I haven't bought though I'd happily pay him to piss off.

So, in an attempt to steer back towards the original subject (no complaints here, I'm probably the biggest culprit of all when it comes to getting sidetracked in these conversations), have I not hit yet him with a larg blunt instrument a) because I'm afraid god would be angry if I did, or b) because I know that's not really a nice thing to do even if someone is driving you crazy? (Or c), because there are witnesses?)

As to the god-botherers, I must say I find them quite amusing. There's a fair bit of fun to be had from watching some lunatic working themselves up into an apoplexy over something nobody else gives a damn about. However, I do think that, even though nobody (except maybe other lunatics) really listens to them, the words picked up in passing can still seep into the passer-by's subconscious and maybe, later, come out as something they might have been told by someone who had a functioning brain.

Booksloth, some of our buskers are excellent. One day there was a violinist playing outside my office. His performance was great. I gave him two euros and he has never been back since.

In relation to your singin BI salesperson one of my colleagues has a strategy that would be appropriate. The next time you find yourself enjoying.. his singing (note the "sarcasticon..") you should give him £20. Go back to the coffee shop the next day and when he starts singing give him £10. On the following day give him £5. On the fourth day give him 50p. He will feel you no longer deserve his talent and will move to somewhere he can find a more appreciative audience.

#70 He will feel you no longer deserve his talent and will move to somewhere he can find a more appreciative audience..

But wouldn't he also feel that if I just punched him in the face? And it wouldn't have cost me £35.50 either.

#71 You're forgetting those pesky witnesses. Punching him in the face could cost you more than £35.50 and, like not paying your TV licence, could possibly involve a court appearance.

Hmmm, good point. Should I really be the one to encourage his already high opinion of his talents though?

ETA And, to be honest, their coffee's not that great. I can drink elsewhere and just scowl when I pass him on my way back to the car.

Are you sure you want him to bully you into changing your choice of coffee shop? What if another singing BI seller starts performing at your next coffee shop? Will you move again? Are you going to let yourself be pushed around from coffee shop to coffee shop by poor quality singing BI sellers? These are questions only you can answer.

Stand next to him with a placard that says "this man is addicted to porn" and an arrow that points at him.

@75

**cracking up!**

#75 Southernbooklady, this may not have the desired effect. This could result in two queues forming, one comprised of people trying to sell him porn, the other comprised of people wanting to know his sources.

>77 pgmcc: The conversation might be more interesting though.

#77 At least it might stop him 'singing' for a minute!

He can bully me away from this one all he likes - it wouldn't really be my first choice of coffee shop anyway, just one of few where you can sit outside if the weather's nice. If he sets up outside Waterstone's, otoh, there'll be bloodshed.

#79 As we alluded to before, watch out for witnesses.

Here is Perth, Western Australia, street entertainers have to have a license from the City Council and are given an allotted time in which to busk.

I thought that was bureaucracy gone mad but after reading the above comments - perhaps there is some virtue in this. And if shopkeepers complain that the busker is a nuisance or is driving away custom then the license is revoked.

#81 Pinkozcat

That sounds like a good system. I know they have something similar in Switzerland.

(By coincidence, I have just been looking at photographs of The Pinnacles that one of my nephews posted on Facebook. He is on a year long visit to Austratlia. He is travelling with two girls and appears to be having a great time judging by the photographs that appear every other day or so.)

#80 By that time, I won't care.

#83 You have the killer instinct, Booksloth. Go get him!

:-)

(Everybody, note the smiley face. I am not inciting Booksloth to acts of violence. Honest! I'm not.)

See, if only you'd believed in God, you wouldn't be contemplating murder now.

Why not? I'd only be smiting.

#86 We have a god delusion now, do we, Booksloth, oh mighty smiter?

It was just starting to seem like the position might be vacant (http://www.librarything.com/topic/148213).

On a brief, kind of drive-by serious point apropos the title of this thread, I have concerns over the meanings of good and bad which call into question the meaning of this thread title.

My basic point is that good and bad are words and concepts invented by human beings. If we look at different societies separated by temporal and geographic distances we will find situations where what is good and what is bad differs depending on when, where or who you are. Good and bad are not, in my opinion, "fixed" in meaning.

Even within a society we have differences regarding the meaning of good and bad, e.g. people in this group would consider creationism as bad. Creationists would think otherwise. A similar situation applies to such issues as the death penalty.

Theists of different shades will have different ideas of how they want their gods to be and their views on what is good will differ, sometimes dramatically.

#88 I see your plan. Get everyone on board with the atheist concept and take over the virtual empty chair while nobody is looking. A cunning plan. A very cunning plan. Just how cunning is your plan?

#89 On the whole I'd agree with that, barring one small point, which is when you say 'people in this group would consider creationism as bad'. I can't speak for anyone else in the group, of course, but I wouldn't consider creationism as either good or bad, just wrong.

I'm not sure the strict definition of the words really matter here. My point was that, whatever it is that anyone defines as 'good' there is a certain type of believer who thinks that option is only open through their particular belief system. How you define it isn't really the point, it's about whether you can be it without the threat of hell hanging over you.

ETA When I do take over, I'm loving the moniker 'Mighty Smiter' but would it be okay with you if I change it just a tiny bit to Mighty Smitey, just for poetic effect?

LOL - watch out for the smiting bit.

I have just finished reading the latest Thursday Next book by Jasper Fforde in which all beliefs are incorporated into one worldwide religion and this massive combination of beliefs gives god the power to manifest so he sets about smiting the wicked.

The problem is that when he smites a city, no-one can claim on their insurance because the damage is classed as "an act of god".

#91 I wouldn't consider creationism as either good or bad, just wrong.

Point taken. I was thinking of the promotion of concepts without supporting evidence.

I love the poetic effect. Mighty Smitey is so high-brow. I just love it.

it's about whether you can be it without the threat of hell hanging over you.

This brings Oscar Wilde into play with, "I can resist anything but temptation."

Are we good because we fear getting caught? If we offend against our own standard of "good" do we change the definition?

I am being rhetorical and simply musing through the questions, not seeking definitive answers.

This does remind me of Fletcher's answer to Mr. Barroclough in the first episode of Porridge when asked, "What are you in prison for?"

Fletcher: "I got caught."

#92 I am glad to hear postive remarks about Fforde's books as I have two of them awaiting reading.

#91 Oh-oh, two innocent points that could have me going all day.

1 Are we good because we fear getting caught? I think that's often, though not always, the case. It comes down really to that whole question of "If you had the opportunity to murder X and knew 100% that you would get away with it, would you do it". I'm pretty sure I could never murder anyone in cold blood but it's mainly because I am squeamish. I couldn't stick a knife in another human being because I'm not crazy about blood; I couldn't beat someone to death because I just couldn't bear the sensation of my fist against someone else's flesh. Getting caught is also a consideration (see conversation elsewhere in the group about buskers). On the other hand, why would I go out of my way to return someone else's lost property when I know nobody will ever know I've got it? I think it's mainly because I know how I would feel if I were the one who lost it. (It's interesting, looking at what I've just written, to see that I have more of a moral issue with lost property than with murder. We seem to be back to smiting; I just might be perfect for the job.) Human actions are never made up of a single motive and my own belief is that there are many contributing factors as to why we do 'good' or 'bad'. What amazes me is the way some people don't seem to give their own nature any credit at all for this and certainly give the impression that they are saying only being watched over by their god stops them committing crimes and acts of general unpleasantness.

2 If we offend against our own standard of "good" do we change the definition? Now, that's a goodie and I also wouldn't attempt a definitive answer to it because it's a huge question. Our moral sense develops and changes throughout life. We learn more about social interaction, other people's views and feelings, and, most importantly of all, that there are two sides to every story. What seemed to us to be very wrong when we were young, we begin to see two sides of as we mature and we see that there is rarely a black and white answer to anything. I'd also be the last to suggest that those changes don't also have soemthing to do with what our own urges tell us we want to do: adultery is always wrong until we fall in love outside the bounds of marriage when suddenly it feels very right; theft is always wrong until our own children are hungry at which point there is a huge moral argument on our side. Sometimes we change our outlook before we change our behaviour and sometimes it happens the other way round.

The problem with religion, I feel, is that it sets out inflexible and largely unrealistic parameters for behaviour so that, when a religious person bends or breaks through those parameters, there is no wiggle room. Religion is probably the only entity to still see things in terms of good and evil, black and white, and it just doesn't work. Philosophers have argued for millenia about such questions as 'Is it wrong to perform an immoral act for a greater good'. Anyone who has studied even the tiniest bit of philosophy will have come across the probelms about diverting trains when a child is on the track/diverting a train to save 10 children at the expense of one child etc andit's going to be a heck of a long time before (if ever) we get anywhere close to the answers. I'm certainly not the one who's going to get us there but that doesn't mean it isn't a fascinating subject.

Anyone who wants to pursue it further might be interested in a book I read recently called Free Will by Sam Harris in which Harris argues most eloquently that there is no such thing as free will because our choices are always restricted by circumstance and our own natures. If that is the case, then good and bad become completely meaningless terms.

#95 I would love to have the time to contribute more to your comments at the moment but I will have to wait until this evening.

By the way, there's a band busking outside and they are not bad at all. Some Thin Lizzy, Johnny Cash, and an assortment of others. Grooooooooovy baby!

Send them to me - maybe they'll drown out the 'singer'! Looking forward to this evening.

>92 pinkozcat: I have just finished reading the latest Thursday Next book by Jasper Fforde

I really liked the early Fforde books, but after awhile they started to bore me. I felt like I was stuck in a room with a guy who kept telling the same joke over and over again. I gave up after First Among Sequels. (for reasons stated here, if anyone is interested)

>92 pinkozcat: #91 I wouldn't consider creationism as either good or bad, just wrong.

Point taken. I was thinking of the promotion of concepts without supporting evidence.

Well I don't know. I think you could argue that while creationism is wrong because it denies actual real evidence, it is also, as a system of thought bad in that it requires that you systematically deny real evidence in favor of what you want to be true. As an approach to the world, that one is pretty destructive.

Perhaps what we all mean is that we see ignorance as bad? And, I would suggest, wilful ignorance as even worse.

#91 Booksloth
First of all let me apologise if I am repeating myself, but the thoughts are just pouring out and I think I will just let them fall as they fall.

god stops them committing crimes and acts of general unpleasantness.
This is key to some of my views on religion. I contend that Marx was right when he said religion is the opium of the people. It is what makes them more docile than they might otherwise be if they did not have religion. It also gives the powers that be something/someone to blame when something goes wrong and to use to gain support by appealing, with the people, to god for help at difficult times.

It is to the distinct benefit to government to have such a powerful force as religion to keep the masses from questioning things too much and to keep them in a subservient frame of mind. The last thing a government wants is people thinking for themselves and asking awkward questions.

Why do so many people practise or believe in a religion? I know there are many believers who believe through unquestioning faith and we have discussed this on another thread in this group so I won’t go into it here. I do believe, however, that some people see religion, not as a means of saving their souls, but as a route to power. This is very obvious in history, but is very much present today. You cannot convince me that all the clergy in the Vatican really believe in god.

In addition, I believe that many believers are pragmatic believers who recognise religion as something that exists in their society and that it would be impossible to change, so they play the game. Take for example a professional, e.g. a solicitor or an accountant, working in a strongly Christian part of the world. Such a person will be dependent on the local community for his or her livelihood and do you think he/she is going to proclaim themselves atheists in such a situation. The same applies to politicians.

Communist regimes that deny god use “The People” as their god. Everything is done for the greater good of the people, or in defence of the people, or for whatever of the people. Some regimes, while officially atheist, recognise the power of religion and try to control it by placing their people in key positions in the relevant hierarchies/church leadership. (See Russian Orthodox and China’s actions in Tibet with regards to replacing the dalai lama.)

The problem with religion, I feel, is that it sets out inflexible and largely unrealistic parameters for behaviour so that, when a religious person bends or breaks through those parameters, there is no wiggle room.
I think many of the rules we find in religions may have had meaningful and sensible origins but the very implementation of them through a religion gave them significance that they did not originally have. An example is the old Catholic practice of not eating meat on Friday. This was originally introduced because fishermen lamented that they were not able to make a livelihood because no one bought their produce. So, fasting from fish on Friday was introduced for purely economic reasons.

I believe many of the rules around kosher foods relate to avoiding food poisoning. Improving food hygiene and avoiding the eating of foods that have a high risk of causing food poisoning in hot climates would only be sensible. Again these rules gain a sacred meaning rather than simply a prudent one.

Clerical celibacy in the Catholic church is purely a man made mechanism introduced to maintain control over the clergy, avoid the costs of supporting wives and children, and keeping free thinking women away from the frontline troops where they might cause trouble by asking sensible questions. Lord protect us from sensible questions! Note, exceptions to the rule can be made when it suits the Vatican. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/First-married-Catholic-Priest-ordained-in-Buffa...

Sensible rules relating to living in particular locations can have logical beginnings but dogmatic adherence to these rules in a religious framework may lead to ongoing following of apparently arbitrary and irrelevant rules when viewed in a different time and a different place.

#100 Have had a few sleepless nights lately so I'm off to bed soon but I'm really looking forward to reading this properly and comparing thoughts tomorrow!

> 99: Willful ignorance: yes. Simple (real) ignorance might still indicate somebody willing to learn though.

> 101: Sleep well, see you tomorrow,

>100 pgmcc: Reminds me of that quote by Seneca:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

I believe that many believers are pragmatic believers who recognise religion as something that exists in their society and that it would be impossible to change, so they play the game.

I agree. In fact, they're so accustomed to playing, they don't even realize it's a game.

#103 Great quote. Thank you for that.

This reminds me of the story told by one of Oscar Wilde's friends. Apparently Oscar overheard someone make a witty comment and he said, "I wish I had said that". One of his friends then said, "Don't worry Oscar. You will!"

i.e. I will use your Seneca quote.

#100 I contend that Marx was right when he said religion is the opium of the people. It is what makes them more docile than they might otherwise be if they did not have religion.

Me too. Religion (as pointed out in #103 - Seneca was a bit of a smarty pants, IMO) is very useful for keeping people down. You can treat them like muck while promising them paradise and they will sit there quietly and take it (or, in some cases, even hurry their own deaths, not to mention those of others, in an attempt to get there faster). Back in the days when I lived at home with my parents they used to watch the Sunday TV prog 'Songs of Praise' (not sure whether you get it in Ireland, basically just a recorded church service) and I was constantly amazed by the number of people they interviewed who said things like 'Well, I was widowed at 14 with seven children under school age. The eldest son took to drugs when he was 8 and the next two robbed a bank and have been in prison for the past 10 years. I was diagnosed with cancer and my daughter spent all the money that was meant to be for my treatment on handbags so now I only have 4 months to live. My youngest daughter beats me incessantly and keeps me locked in a cellar existing on dry bread and old socks.' Then they'd invariably finish this catalogue of ghastliness with 'It's only my faith that keeps me going. At least I know god loves me.' Oddly, perhaps, I wouldn't take a life like that as proof that anyone loved me and I sure wouldn't stick around worshiping some guy who I believed was allowing it all. The worse people's lives are, the more they seem to have a tendency to hang on to some belief that things will all be evened out in the end.

. . . some people see religion, not as a means of saving their souls, but as a route to power. Again, agreed. I do distinguish, though between those who believe and those who pretend to believe. To me, belief isn't really a choice (though asking questions and listening to evidence is) and I'm not convinced anyone can exactly choose to believe. Nonetheless, the church holds enormous sway and power in the world and this is one of my biggest objections to it. So many people have said to me, 'Why should you care what I believe?' Well, the truth is, I don't. I do, however, care about who holds the reins of power and so affects the lives of everyone else and I find it hard to take that such immense power is in the hands of organisations that promote the belief in fairytales. Believing in an invisible friend is not, and should not be, a qualification for power. (On the other hand, neither should the fact of being born into a hereditary monarchy but maybe we shouldn't go there right now. Two wrongs don't make a right.)

Your point about the economics of Friday fish-eating intrigued me; I hadn't realised that was behind it and always wondered where the idea came from. I've never been crazy about the idea of following anything just because it's traditional (though some traditions are a lot of fun). I know people who still eat fish on Fridays because 'it's what you do' even though they don't believe in a god or the teachings of the Bible. Of course, any time they want to eat fish is fine with me but I do wonder why they are so keen to have even such a tiny part of their lives dictated by tradition.

Btw, your link on 'exceptions to the rule' (next to last para) leads to a 'new topic' page under Book Talk. I'm not sure that's where it was meant to go and I did want to read about them.

#105
I am not sure what is wrong with the link. I will have to look at it tonight. In the meantime I have taken it out of the html and it appears to work ok.

I grew up in Belfast so we had all the UK channels. I remember Harry Seycombe and Songs of Praise. It was not something watched that often in our house but in those days there was never much else on TV at that time on a Sunday.

#106 I remember Harry Seycombe and Songs of Praise. Yes, it's kinda hard to blank out, isn't it?

Thanks for tweaking the link.

>105 Booksloth: Your point about the economics of Friday fish-eating intrigued me; I hadn't realised that was behind it and always wondered where the idea came from.

Actually, the notion that the Catholic Church allowed people to eat fish on Fridays to save a struggling economy is a something of a myth:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/04/05/150061991/lust-lies-and-empire-the-f...

Technically, it's the flesh of warmblooded animals that's off limits — an animal "that, in a sense, sacrificed its life for us, if you will," explains Michael Foley, an associate professor at Baylor University and author of Why Do Catholics Eat Fish On Friday?

Fish are coldblooded, so they're considered fair game. "If you were inclined to eat a reptile on Friday," Foley tells The Salt, "you could do that, too."

Alas, Christendom never really developed a hankering for snake. But fish — well, they'd been associated with sacred holidays even in pre-Christian times. And as the number of meatless days piled up on the medieval Christian calendar — not just Fridays but Wednesdays and Saturdays, Advent and Lent, and other holy days — the hunger for fish grew. Indeed, fish fasting days became central to the growth of the global fishing industry. But not because of a pope and his secret pact.

At first, says Fagan, Christians' religious appetite was largely met with herring, a fish that was plentiful but dry and tasteless when smoked or salted. And preservation was a must in medieval times: There was no good way for fresh fish to reach the devout masses. Eventually, cod became all the rage — it tasted better when cured and it lasted longer, too.

>100 pgmcc: god stops them committing crimes and acts of general unpleasantness.
This is key to some of my views on religion. I contend that Marx was right when he said religion is the opium of the people. It is what makes them more docile than they might otherwise be if they did not have religion. It also gives the powers that be something/someone to blame when something goes wrong and to use to gain support by appealing, with the people, to god for help at difficult times.

I think, as others has stated, that it is important to distinguish between religion and belief--we often conflate the two but there is a difference. Religion is a social organization--it is all about the forms of worship and the standardization of worship. It is basically political, and therefore is subject to all the usual flaws that bedevil any such organization simply because it is made of of human beings. It can become corrupt, beset by conflicting interests, it can seek out power, it can persecute in defense of power. It can also do lots of good things, but these are all outward, political and social conventions and practices.

Belief is an internal thing -- it can only happen within a person's head and heart. Perhaps the one thing you can say about religion is that it attempts to facilitate that relationship between the person and their god/soul/whatever by providing established paths towards realizing that connection. But ultimately, the belief is personal, and no matter how many times you take communion you can't become a believer unless you have it within you to become a believer.

This has implications for me regarding the title of this thread--who needs god to be good?

It's a question that often comes up in discussions in the religious thread and it befuddles me every time. Unlike most of the people on this thread, I don't think that the idea is fear-based. I don't think that belief imposes morality or a sense of ethics as a way to avoid punishment, or disappointment. I think that's an outdated idea of how belief works for the religious person.

Instead, the issue seems to be that you have to know what is good, in order to be good. And that requires some ultimate universal standard ideal of good in order to gauge how close or far you are from it--in essence, how good or bad you are.

This insistence on a universal standard of good is what seems endemic to religious people. It is personified in "god" and humans are always trying to reach this ideal.

More importantly, they seem to think that without this ideal, you can't know what is good--you are completely unable to judge, and anything can be defined as "good" because you have no ideal to compare it to.

My sense of morality, of good, is entirely relative--I don't think there is some universal standard out there. ("Come on, said Tim in one conversation, sticking babies with forks is universally BAD!") I am conscious that what I think is good may be wrong.

The believer seems to think that this means I could go off the rails at any time, because since there is no ultimate good, I can define it however I want--including sticking babies with forks. There's no authority for my personal definition of good.

But for me, the authority is in my own preferences, and far from interpreting this as license to act however I like without consequences, it makes me doubly conscious of my personal responsibility--all the good or hurt I do in the world lies solely at my door. I can't blame anyone else, I can't cite anyone else, I can't ask forgiveness of anyone else. That's an immense motivation to work very hard at being good--even if "good" is a set of principles I recognize are purely my preference for what I think makes a better world.

But it is the question of motivation, of how we know we are being good, that most often trips me up with people who have their supposedly universal standard they wish to hold over my head.

#108 'an animal "that, in a sense, sacrificed its life for us,' - ah right, that'll be the ones who drive themselves to the abbatoir then? ;-) (Please note ;-) - eat meat all you want, I'm not here to get into that one!)

#109 . . .all the good or hurt I do in the world lies solely at my door. I can't blame anyone else,

To me, this is one of the most appealing parts of not having a religion. While an awful lot of people seem to want a figure/other person/invisible friend to take responsibility for their lives, I find that idea abhorrent. I'd much rather make my own mistakes and pay for them any day.

But it is the question of motivation, of how we know we are being good, that most often trips me up with people who have their supposedly universal standard they wish to hold over my head.

I don't think that should trip you up in the slightest, southernbooklady. Better every time to have a morality that came about through your own understanding of the issues and the ability to empathise with other people whom your actions may affect, than to just grab one unquestioningly from what a book of unknown authorship says. In my experience there are very few people (if any) who follow the morality of the Bible word for word (due to all the contradictions, that would be pretty much impossible to do anyway) - if you can find anyone who does that maybe they have the right to criticise your mores but I wouldn't let that possibility keep you awake at nights.

>110 Booksloth: ah right, that'll be the ones who drive themselves to the abbatoir then?

Well, to be fair, I think he is speaking in the same terms as the native american who drives the buffalo off the cliff but then thanks it for its sacrifice.

But it is the question of motivation, of how we know we are being good, that most often trips me up with people who have their supposedly universal standard they wish to hold over my head.

I don't think that should trip you up in the slightest

I don't think I was clear. I just meant that this -- the source of our respective system of morals -- is one of the great divides between the believer and the nonbeliever. The believer says "there is no such thing as good without god," whereas I say "there is no such thing as good without me."

It doesn't keep me awake at night, but it is at the foundation of all the things that bother me about religion, and no doubt at the foundation of all the things that bother religious people about me.

But scoffing at religious people because they follow this or that text as a guide to their morality sidesteps the real issue. It is pointless to make fun of the directives in Leviticus, for example, because most people who believe in the bible as the word of god understand the need for interpretation, and the bible's role as a guide, not a series of specific instructions. Ultimately, to them, it's all about "god is good, how do we emulate god?"

Whereas I simply think "this seems good to me, so I will work towards realizing it, until something makes me change my mind" That relativistic approach to morals really freaks some religious folks out.

I think many religious people pray to know what God is like and thus what is moral, so it's all internal anyway. So it basically comes down to the same thing. The non-religious looks inside themselves to find their own moral code while the religions does the same but attributes it to God.

>105 Booksloth: The worse people's lives are, the more they seem to have a tendency to hang on to some belief that things will all be evened out in the end.

So true, and it's taken to absurd extremes. Last Summer when a storm in my area caused a large tree to fall, God was thanked on our community bulletin board for having caused it to fall in the opposite direction of the houses. I'm sure everyone here has heard a variation on that one! I was tempted to post a reply asking if we shouldn't demand an explanation from God for why he sent the storm in the first place.

>100 pgmcc:, 105 Good observations about the utility of some aspects of religion. I'd add that it might have been an essential part to our development as a species. Upon climbing down from the trees, or emerging from the savanna, it may have served as a bootstrapping mechanism to promote coordinated effort in the absence of rational justification. Ritual and religion could have been the way of getting everyone on the same page until our understanding matured enough to be capable of supplying reasons for cooperative behavior. If true, might we not be a little cautious in our efforts to dismantle it, lest we cause some unintended consequence? -- somewhat like snatching away that opium.

Here's a question for the group. The psychologist Joshua Greene has suggested that we have two brain pathways for moral reasoning: one is rule-based (i.e. deontological) and the other is utilitarian. Ask someone whose brain is dominated by the deontological pathway if it's okay to smother a baby in order to save a room full of people, and they're likely to say "No!". But ask the same question to those who lean towards utilitarianism, and the answer tends to reverse. Which mechanism is dominant in your moral decisions, i.e. do you use a code of ethical behavior or balance an equation? And how did you derive your code and/or equation? Maybe it's neither?

I was tempted to post a reply asking if we shouldn't demand an explanation from God for why he sent the storm in the first place.

Out of curiosity, have you (or anyone here) ever actually posed that type of question to believers? If so, what were the replies?

I'm thinking especially of the cases where (for example) one person's house or life is spared from a disaster whilst a ton of other people are not so lucky, and the person comments to the press about how God was really watching out for them, or some such. And it makes me wonder why God sent the disaster in the first place if he was truly watching out for you; also, does he just really, really hate all those other people for some reason?

Which mechanism is dominant in your moral decisions, i.e. do you use a code of ethical behavior or balance an equation?

What about people who commit an immoral act for a moral reason? Kill the baby to save the room full of people and accept you committed an immoral act?

>114 Essa: it makes me wonder why God sent the disaster in the first place if he was truly watching out for you; also, does he just really, really hate all those other people for some reason?

The standard answer to this is that everything --good and bad-- happens for a reason, even though we do not know what that reason is.

>115 southernbooklady: Adding actual behavior does complicate it a bit. But I think in your example, the person is either acting irrationally or not being honest with themselves. What is morality if not a compass for directing one's actions? And if you ignore the direction the needle points (smother the baby in this case) then you are either not committed to a moral standard or do not trust your compass. The person you describe seems adrift in a sea of cognitive dissonance. Having said that, I personally would have smothered the baby, realizing on a conceptual level that I was acting morally, but the act would be no less traumatic. Reasoning through the correctness of an action is different from the unavoidable mental anguish that emotional creatures like ourselves suffer when performing them.

>117 MartyBrandon: the person is either acting irrationally or not being honest with themselves. What is morality if not a compass for directing one's actions?

Well, that's one interpretation. Another might be that it was a heroic act. The person smothers the baby so no one else in the room has to.

The person you describe seems adrift in a sea of cognitive dissonance.

A talent for cognitive dissonance is a quality of being human. It is the facility that allows people to believe two opposite things at the same time. It also allows people to act even when the things they believe come in direct conflict with each other--such as "killing babies is wrong" and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." It allows the person to act in favor of the latter, without sacrificing the horror of the former.

Right, I've seen it in my own dogs: "thou shalt not bite thy siblings paw too hard". I freely admit, in some way that's "ethics". It isn't really ethics in the way we mean it though,i s it?

#113 might we not be a little cautious in our efforts to dismantle it, lest we cause some unintended consequence? -- somewhat like snatching away that opium.

I see this is a very important point with relation to mental health in Ireland. Going back to the peasant days (150/200 years ago) the Catholic Church was the only body that unified the peasantry who were being ill treated by most of the land owners and were being neglected during the famine by the British parliament. Through taking a dominant role in the lives of the Irish peasantry and playing very shrewd politics with the British, the Catholic Church got itself into a position of power and continued in that position after the war of independence and the civil war. The Catholic Church provided most of the schools and hospitals in the country. To this very day this is the situation and while Ireland is rapidly becoming more secular there is still a vast proportion of the primary and secondary educational establishments controlled by the Catholic Church.

Given this dominant position, and its almost ubiquitous presence in the lives of Irish Catholics, the Church has been able in the past to manipulate things and carry on regardless, hence the environment in which all the child abuse happened without challenge for so long. It has also been able to preach its own message and reinforce the authority of its own institutions.

Part of this was and is the ministering to people at birth, in sickness, for weddings, and at the time of death and burial. Apart from any nevarious intentions, by default the Church became very good at pastoral care for bereavement and at other times of stress (other than child abuse which nobody believed was happening because it was just those mischievious children up to no good and telling big whoppers of lies.) Consequently, people in stress found consolation in the Church. Rigid rules of behaviour meant teenagers were in no doubt about what was right and what was wrong, so if they had done wrong they knew it and felt guilty. If they felt guilty they could go to confession and have their sins forgiven and that would take a massive load off their minds. (Nobody does guilt like Catholics. I think, therefore I am GUILTY.)

Nowadays, many people have abandoned the Church, but the government has not taken up the slack with regards to social supports and mental health services. Ireland now has one of the highest, if not the highest suicide rates amongst young men (15 to 24 year olds) in the world. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, the Irish examination system creates massive stress levels for pupils doing their Leaving Certificate exams (equivalent of the British A Levels) as their level of success in these exams determines whether or not they get into the college places they are hoping for. Secondly, cyber-bullying has become a major factor and girls as young as 12 are committing suicide as a result of it. Thirdly, the economic situation means there are very few job opportunities in Ireland so many people have a feeling of hopelessness and despair which leads them into a cycle of depression and hence suicide. Etc...

I am not saying the reduced power of the Church has caused this, but what I am saying is that the previous strength and pervasiveness of the Chruch provided support mechanisms that have not been adequately replaced by the state, and the consequence now is the high levels of suicides.

This is one of the "unitended consequences" that is happening.

>120 pgmcc: Interesting observations pgmcc. I recently heard it suggested that socialist aspects of government, such as those in Europe and Scandinavia, are important factors for their ability to be weaned from religion. The idea also explained the situation here in the US: religion remains strong because it provides the charities and other safety-net features that are now provided by the government in other countries. And because the word socialism sends many Americans into a panic, we cannot escape from this dependence. In that sense, it sounds like Ireland got a little ahead of itself, throwing out the church before analogous secular institutions could be organized.

>118 southernbooklady: Another might be that it was a heroic act. The person smothers the baby so no one else in the room has to.

Are you sure your hero isn't suffering from a Jesus complex? I don't believe a morally wrong action can be made acceptable by having a proxy shoulder the sin in order that everyone else can remain pure.

A talent for cognitive dissonance is a quality of being human. It is the facility that allows people to believe two opposite things at the same time.

I think that's better labeled as self-deception. Dissonance is the nagging realization that one is indeed attempting to maintain two contradictory beliefs. But I agree that humans have an amazing capacity to compartmentalize their beliefs.

It depends I guess, though I wouldn't go out of my way to defend this behaviour myself. But I have seen such things happen.

If you live in the deep jungle: survival of the child vs. survival of the tribe? Tough choices. Nothing nice about it.

I think I find the whole scenario somewhat artificial. As if your only two options are "killing the baby is good" or "letting everyone else die is good."

But in truth we are often forced to choose between two bad options. And if we make that choice, it doesn't negate the badness of it. It also doesn't negate the "goodness" of our efforts to find a resolution. The only clean way to avoid the moral quandary is to avoid the situation altogether. Good luck with that.

I agree. Usually things are somewhere in between. But I have seen native South American women having to make such choices. Sure it breaks your heart, but there really isn't very much you can do about it. For most of us, fortunately, this is a very artificial construct though.

The scenario is indeed artificial, but it's a stock question, along with one's involving ticking bombs and trolley cars, used by psychologist to tease apart our moral reasoning process.

Well, actually it isn't all that artificial: I've witnessed it. Yes, it was hart braking for the women who ended up strangling their own newborns (or abandoning them to the jungle). But sadly such things do happen.

Again: survival of the child vs. survival of the tribe. If it comes down to that: what's your choice?

p.s.: Of course it's a bad choice to have to make, either way.

#122 Dissonance is the nagging realization that one is indeed attempting to maintain two contradictory beliefs. But I agree that humans have an amazing capacity to compartmentalize their beliefs.

Nick Harkaway highlights a real life example of this in his book The Blind Giant Being Human in a Digital World when he describes how we are all becoming dependent on our touch screen devices (smart phones; tablet computers; etc...) which use a particular element that is sourced from Central Africa where the demand for it is fueling fierce fighting between warring factions that are using child-soldiers for the fighting. He points out that we carry on using our devices but turn a blind eye to the fact that we are fueling this conflict. In this discussion he references a book called Wilful Blindness which addresses the topic of our turning a blind-eye to the "inconvenient truths". (Now, where have I heard that term before.)

>128 pgmcc: I feel that dilemma as I post this message from my iMac, knowing that a good many people may have been exploited in order that I might have inexpensive electronic gadgets. Does Harkaway give suggestions for how one ought to behave in light of this knowledge? Not that morality was ever easy, but in this era of global connectedness and heightened awareness, I very often feel overwhelmed by all the things that I feel deserve attention. I read some of the ideas of Peter Singer a while back and have found his compassionate utilitarianism to be the most useful method for my morality compass. But like Newton, Singer mainly provides the calculus. It remains for the user to formulate and solve the equations, which is still a very tricky business. My own internal reflection motivated my earlier question concerning the morality process used by others. While most in this group realize the limitations of the pre-packaged code of moral behavior provided by religion, there's still the need, I think, to fill the "god-shaped hole" left after the eviction of Jesus.

>124 southernbooklady: And if we make that choice, it doesn't negate the badness of it.

Really? I'm inclined to think exactly the opposite. Given the right context, the badness (or goodness) of an action is not only negated, but reversed. I don't think it makes sense to judge an action in on an absolutist scale. We have to make choices rooted in the reality in which we find ourselves, not based upon an alternative reality that we would prefer. And though this is a hypothetical problem, a sort of thought experiment, it's by no means an impossible situation, as BarkingMatt has pointed out.

But perhaps our difference is one of definition? I believe that behaving in a way that maximizes our morality is by definition to act "good" (what else could it mean?). And acting "good" says nothing about how pleasant or unpleasant the action will be. Whether it involves returning a satchel full of money or smothering a baby, we may find the action extraordinarily disagreeable, perhaps even self-destructive, but the context may still dictate this to be the morally good course of action.

But what choice does the baby have in the matter? Would it ever be moral to make an adult the sacrificial lamb over their objections? Is it any more moral because its a baby?

#129 Harkaway's book covers a wide range of areas and the title, The Blind Giant, is very much a reference to unintended consequences. The book is really a call for discussion so that we humans, make more effort to control what the digital age will do for us rather than what, if left to itself, it will do to us.

the "god-shaped hole" left after the eviction of Jesus.
No criticism intended in this comment, but I just want to hightlight that your use of "Jesus" in this phrase is typical of someone living in a western country which is predominantly Christian. (A trap I too have fallen into and, I'm sure, will do again.) The use of Jesus would not be relevant for a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or, indeed, a Native North American. In terms of Native North Americans and their "god-shaped hole", the gap between Christianity and the traditional Native North American faiths was brought home to me when I read The Truth About Stories by Thomas King. In it he presented a number of different creation myths from Native North American religions. It was one of those moments when I realised that, "Hey, the universe doesn't actually rotate around just me or my own little world."

>125 Nicole_VanK: You make your crocodile tears seem almost genuine.

>130 MartyBrandon: I'm inclined to think exactly the opposite. Given the right context, the badness (or goodness) of an action is not only negated, but reversed. I don't think it makes sense to judge an action in on an absolutist scale.

Hmm. I don't regard my scale of good and bad as "absolutist" -- I'm conscious that my personal parameters may change or shift or even be wrong--but I guess I regard goodness and badness as an inherent property of an action that is not affected by other actions. Is that what you mean by absolutist?

A system that assigns relative goodness or badness based on how it rates against other actions is rationalization. Rationalization has its place--it allows people to live with themselves when they are forced to do bad things, but it doesn't erase any inherent quality of badness. In a moral system where killing babies is bad, and letting people die by inaction is also bad, rationalization allows us to make the choice that either kills the baby, or lets everyone else die. But our moral system has not changed--killing babies is still bad. Standing by while people die is also still bad.

A real world example would be the Nagasaki bomb. The second nuclear bomb dropped on Japan. Now the rationalization for that bomb was that it would end the war over night. The number of lives saved by stopping the war in its tracks was incalculable.

But this rationalization in no way mitigates the horror of what happened to the city of Nagasaki. Worse it was a horror that we had direct experience of already, since we had just obliterated the city of Hiroshima. Human beings are notorious for needing to stick their fingers in the light socket to be convinced it will shock them, so you could, possibly, explain Hiroshima in the doubtful terms that we really couldn't understand what would happen when we dropped that bomb onto the heads of a city of people. But we can't say the same for Nagasaki.

And really, you know, my brain just sort of stutters at the thought--a second nuclear bomb! And while I can understand the rationalization that caused the United States to take an action that ended the war almost instantly, that in no way mitigates the awfulness, the utter horror and badness, of what happened to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>132 pgmcc: Absolutely. I like that metaphor because it so pithily describes the experience of myself and so many others that I know. A good friend, who hails from India, has sometimes referred to his "Vishnu-shaped-hole". He and I seem to have lived parallel lives. I, brought up as a redneck in the bible-belt of the Southern US, and he, as a "Madrasy" raised in the cow-belt of Southern India. I had to evacuate Jesus, while he did the same to Vishnu (along with a couple thousand other deities in the Indian pantheon). We both reasoned our way out theism in our early teens and became scientists working in the same lab (he a biochemist, and I a bioinformaticist). We had great fun at lunch comparing our experiences and noting the striking similarities.

(footnote: Redneck and Madrasy are both pejorative terms used somewhat similarly in their respective countries, at least that's how my friend Prasanth made me to understand it.)

The book link looks interesting too. I'm part Cherokee Indian, though I don't have any cultural identification.

>134 southernbooklady: I regard goodness and badness as an inherent property of an action that is not affected by other actions. Is that what you mean by absolutist?

Not other actions, but the context surrounding an individual action. Saying that "killing is bad" is an absolutist view, while saying "killing can be good or bad, depending on the situation" is the contextual view. I don't believe one can support an absolutist view, like "killing is bad" because it's too easy to find exceptions (e.g. self-defense, war, euthanizing someone in agonizing pain, etc.). That said, I also think that in many cases it's better to implement an absolutist standard of behavior because of limitations in implementation. For example, many have made a philosophically sound argument for the use of torture to extract information that could save innocent lives. While I agree that the reasoning is sound, the implementation of such practices, tends to go monstrously wrong, so I remain strongly opposed to the practice.

> 136

This reminds me of my undergrad days when I toiled upon Kant's Categorical Imperative and considered it then and still now to be baloney.
I must admit to being a little miffed at Kant for his position on cruelty to animals and thus my prejudices have always been an issue when I approach his work.

Grrrr. My computer has been in computer hospital since Friday. Just got it back and saw how long and interesting this conversation has become, in time for it to start throwing another wobbly so it'll be back there tomorrow. Looking forward to getting the chance to read this properly once the problem is fixed. Maybe I should try praying.

#138 Steady on there, Booksloth. Don't get carried away.

Speaking of praying, I once said to a Norwegian pagan I knew on LiveJournal that I would pray for her (just a turn of phrase) and she replied, "I will dance naked in the forest for you!"

That's the type of religion I can see making some sense.

Sorry to hear about your computer. I thought you had gone on holiday or to some exciting event. I didn't think you would willingly leave your creation alone for long.

Dancing naked in a Norwegian forest sounds chilly.

Dance vigorously. :)

Pine needles — prickly.

#139 I didn't think you would willing leave your creation alone for long. You mean the way 'god' has ignored his for the past few million years? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Well, everything's working - if only temporarily - so I'll try and get a quick post in before it all goes to hell again. So much has come up in the past week that I'd love to comment on but I can only risk a very quick skim through at the moment. However, it does seem like a good point at which to throw in a mention of a book I'm reading right now - The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Kevin Dutton, which I think relates well to the conversation.

Dutton begins by quoting one of the many versions of the 'railway trolley' dilema which I'm going to copy here just in case anyone is reading who hasn't a clue what we're talking about. Here goes -

A railway trolley is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who are trapped on the line and cannot escape. Fortunately, you can flip a switch that will divert the trolley down a fork in the track away from the five people - but at a price. There is another person trapped down that fork, and the trolley will kill them instead. Should you hit the switch.

Most people will agree that, as hard as it is, sacrificing one person to save five is the utilitarian answer and possibly the 'best' thing to do. However, there is always a second part (or third, fourth, etc) to this question:

As before, a railway trolley is speeding out of control . . .. towards five people. This time, you are standing behind a very large stranger on a footbridge above the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death. But his considerable girth will block the trolley, saving five lives. Should you push him?

The book then goes on to point out that, while 'normal' people would (whatever their decision) suffer considerable emotional torment at having to make the choice, that doesn't apply to those who register high on a scale of likely psychopathy. While the first group, however reluctantly, 'make pretty short work of the dilemma presented in Case 1 {and} flip the switch . . . the psychopaths - quite unlike normal people . . . also make pretty short work of Case 2. . . {they} are perfectly happy to chuck the fat guy over the side, if that's how the cookie' (and presumably, the fat guy) 'crumbles'. All of that, of course, assuming the psychopath doesn't just get a bit thrill out of letting the crash take place regardless. The scenario the author doesn't involve is that where you yourself are pretty bulky too. Do you jump onto the track in order to save the lives? I suspect many of us would consider that an easier choice than the question of throwing someone else on.

The point here being that it is the very fact that we find these dilemmas difficult that makes us 'human'. The situation changes again if any of the participants happens to be somebody we know/like/dislike or have even had only the slightest passing interraction with. Would it be easier to chuck the fat guy over the side than to throw a child over?

To me, at least some of the problem comes from that old question of 'playing god' - something that you'd think shouldn't be a problem for an atheist and a non-believer in fate - and yet, I feel a genuine sense of revulsion at the idea of deliberately involving someone who wasn't already in the path of the trolley. From the moment the trolley starts rolling, it seems that the five people in the first group are at least semi-doomed; the lone guy on the track or the fat guy on the bridge aren't involved at all unless I choose to involve them so, in part, at least, it becomes a matter of either watching an accident that was going to happen anyway without my participation; of saving a life, weighed against murder. My common sense tells me fate shouldn't come into it and I certainly live my life on the assumption that we all make our own destinies and yet when it comes to the idea of me having to choose who lives or dies, there's a bit of me that says 'just stay put of it - what will be will be'.

The problem I have with these contrived dilemmas is that one never knows what one will actually do until in such a situation in reality. They always remind me of an event in my life that made me realise I was not as brave as I would have liked to think I was.

I lived in a part of Belfast where loyalist paramilitaries would pick up people and murder them or simply carry out a drive by shooting. Myself and two friends, both girls, were walking along the road one night. It was a main road but at that time of night (about 9pm in winter) there were no other people about and there was very little traffic.

We heard a car coming up behind us and looked round. It was not possible to see who was in the car because it was full of people. As it came near to us it slowed down. I was between the girls and the kerb and we all got a bit edgy. Then the car increased speed and we sighed a sigh (what else would one sigh) of relief and started to joke about what had happened.

As it happened we needed to cross the road to get to our destination so the three of us crossed over and I ended up on the inside of the footpath. (I know, I was forgetting my manners. I should have been walking between the two ladies.) Then we realised the car was turning round and heading back towards us.

In my mind I was thinking, "I should get between the girls and the car," but my legs wouldn't follow this idea to any practical implemenation. I was convinced I should do this and yet I was too afraid to do what I would have been brought up to believe to be the right thing and what I would still regard as the right thing regardless of how sexist this might appear today.

Anyway, the car came to a halt just before it reached us and all four doors opened and people started getting out. We were petrified and frozen to the spot. We couldn't find the power to turn and run.

As it turned out, we were just about to pass a house that was for sale and the people in the car were viewing it. We had not been the subject of their attention at all.

So, that was the night I learned that I was a coward and ever since that day I have always had a jaundiced view of contrived scenarios.

145> Actually, I'm not sure that's a problem here. This kind of scenario is meant to determine what human's think is moral and many of us don't act morally even when we know better.

I think the real problem with these contrived scenarios is that they assume the person has perfect information. What if the fat person doesn't block the trolley and you've just added one more death to the tragedy? Even if you are pretty sure it'll work, can you really take that chance Should you?

#146 they assume the person has perfect information

Yes, I always say, "There's always a 'C'", i.e. another option.

I would dither until it was too late ... I think.

I'd agree with #146 here. The thing that makes these situations useful debating points is because they're not real - you get to work out the supposedly moral path without having to include those horrible emotions that get us all into trouble sooner or later (and, btw, pgmcc, I don't think you're a coward at all, I think you're a normal human being, but one who is willing to own up to his perfectly natural weaknesses, plenty of people don't have the guts to do that). The point about the 'Psychopath' book is that a psychopath wouldn't have any of the problems we are having with the situation; for him (statistically, it's more likely to be a 'him' but there are female ones too) the only problem is whether there's anything in it for him, whichever course he picks. What's in it for him might be the accolades he gets when everyone thinks he's a hero or the amusement he gets from watching the wreck but it won't have anything to do with emotions or morals.

In fact, the book suggests that there are some situations in which the very person you could use on your side is a psychopath. Setting aside the ones who wind up in mental hospitals and prisons for serial axe-murders, many of them succeed fantastically well in many fields, simply because their emotions never interfere with their decisions. A psychopathic businessman wouldn't think twice about firing his wife if that seemed the best thing for the business, in fact, the chances are he'd have real trouble figuring out why she was so upset about it. Likewise, it may well be the psychopath who saves lives when a plane goes down (assuming he fancies being a hero at the time), because he'll be the one seeing each recue as just a number to add to the score when people measure how great he's been. If you're trapped under a body, you can bet your life (literally) that it'll be the psychopath who has no qualms about getting through that body with a chainsaw.

I know we're not really talking about psychopaths here but it is quite reassuring to me to know that the fact that, like pinkzcat, I would probably dither until it was too late, is a sign that I'm a normal, caring human being.

147> I always say, "There's always a 'C'", i.e. another option.

That's the Kirk answer, vs. the Spock answer of "...logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

150 I must admit the Kobayashi Maru was one of the things I was thinking about when I made that comment.

:-)

#149 The thing that makes these situations useful debating points is because they're not real - you get to work out the supposedly moral path

That's easy then. I would just slip away and pretend I hadn't seen anything.

(Joking! Honest! Well, maybe.)

>149 Booksloth:> The thing that makes these situations useful debating points is because they're not real - you get to work out the supposedly moral path

Except you don't because it doesn't apply to any real situations.

I would argue that any choice that involves deciding that someone else must make the ultimate sacrifice in order for some number of other people to live can never be the moral choice, no matter how many other people there are. We just don't have the right to make that decision for other people.

In fact, the correct moral choice for your highly contrived answer is to keep looking for other alternatives even if that means that you wait too long. So dithering instead of being a sign of weakness is actually the correct thing to do.

#153 So you don't believe there can be any theoretical morality? While I completely agree that every situation is different and requires an individual response, I certainly wouldn't choose to turn my back on thousands of years of philosophy aimed at deciding what the right response might be in theory, even if it isn't so in practice. Surely, if you never even think about these things, on the grounds that you'll wait and see when it happens, you haven't given yourself any foundations for making a decision when the time comes, even if it isn't necessarily the decision you'd have made on paper?

#154 So you don't believe there can be any theoretical morality?

I would say any theoretical morality would have to be derived in the context of a value system. The value system I see implied in the above scenarios is one that values human life and your example of a psychopath is the exception to such a value system. If we look at the Spartans and their method of dealing with disabled babies we see a value system that does not put the same level of value on human life.

In fact, the correct moral choice for your highly contrived answer is to keep looking for other alternatives even if that means that you wait too long.

There is a real world scenario that might apply here: triage. A doctor on the scene of a disaster with many wounded and limited supplies is actually trained to prioritize who gets the resources, even when it means that a person who might be saved is passed over simply because it would use too many resources to save him. It's the difference between saving everyone you can, and saving as many people as you can. But is it immoral that he lets a person who could be saved die, because by doing so he can save three more people?

I certainly wouldn't choose to turn my back on thousands of years of philosophy aimed at deciding what the right response might be in theory, even if it isn't so in practice.

At its most fundamental level, don't you think a system of morality is really just a way to justify that what we want is good, and what we don't want is bad?

So you don't believe there can be any theoretical morality?

I didn't say that. In fact I offered the theory that it is never moral to kill someone so that others might survive.

What I don't believe in is these completely unrealistic scenarios that try to force you to make such a trade-off.

156> But is it immoral that he lets a person who could be saved die, because by doing so he can save three more people?

No, because he isn't actively killing them, he just doesn't have the resources to save everyone. I would find it immoral if the doctor decided to kill one patient in order to use his organs to save another person.

Can I just alert the very large stranger to the situation and let him decide whether to jump or not?

#156 A doctor on the scene of a disaster with many wounded and limited supplies is actually trained to prioritize who gets the resources, even when it means that a person who might be saved is passed over simply because it would use too many resources to save him.

If the training provides the criteria for the allocation of resources then the "moral" decision has been made by the people who developed these criteria and had them incorporated into the doctor's training. If my interpretation of what you are saying is correct then the Dr is following his training believing the training has been developed with the best of intentions.

To do any more than follow the criteria provided in his/her training the Dr would require an assessment of all the injured people's conditions before allocating resources and this would introduce a higher level of risk to more people due to the delay that would be incurred.

Note: in the scenario you describe time would also be a scarce resource.

#159 Excellent, Amtep. If he jumps you have saved everyone on the tracks and he becomes a hero. If he doesn't jump you can blame him with all the deaths and you can be blame-free.

I like it.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION. Does it influence the scenario if I happen to be the person who tied the people to the tracks and set the trolley rolling?

A possible 'C' option?

As the the trolley is over the fork in the track you throw the switch, front wheels going one way, rear wheels the other, derailment. It might not work, but at least you tried to save everyone, and deliberately condemned no one.

>160 pgmcc: If the training provides the criteria for the allocation of resources then the "moral" decision has been made by the people who developed these criteria and had them incorporated into the doctor's training. If my interpretation of what you are saying is correct then the Dr is following his training believing the training has been developed with the best of intentions.

Is this like the "hey, it was just train schedules" defense? Or "I was just following orders?" Is it really possible to abdicate your own moral responsibility to someone else, and thus enjoy amnesty for your own actions?

>163 jbbarret:

I like your thinking but what about all those people on the trolley? Will they survive the derailment? Did anyone specify the trolley was empty?

#164 Is this like the "hey, it was just train schedules" defense? Or "I was just following orders?"

Not at all. The point I am making is that if the Dr has to spend time assessing everyone before treating people and saving lives then more people's lives would be at risk. If criteria have been devised for allocating scarce resources in such a situation and people have been trained to apply these criteria in such situations then the onus for upholding any moral obligation is with the people developing the criteria and incorporating them into the training for doctors. This is maximising the efficiency of getting the doctor treating people and saving lives. If the doctor has to spend time assessing and addressing every moral dilemma on-site then more lives will be at risk of being lost. Assuming the criteria have been developed following medical best practice with the objective of maximising lives saved then the Dr is free to get on with the job of saving lives.

Although I've admitted that in the real situation I would probably dither until it was too late, surely the only moral choice here is to do something. Whether your choice turns out to be the successful one in the end is often down to luck or circumstance, the important thing is that somebody tries to take avoiding action of some kind. Whether what we hear about American litigiousness is true (doctors being sued for trying unsuccesfully to help someone, where they would have been in the clear if they'd just stayed out of it and let them die) anything that discourages people from trying to intervene must surely be the immoral option. Isn't it better to make anydecision and risk failure than to simply sit back and let events take their course. Would I still be saying that if the person making the decision doesn't have rational decsion-making abilities and panics before there is really any genuine danger, thus chucking a stranger in the line of the oncoming trolly when nobody would have been hurt anyway? In the case of throwing a stranger onto the line, while I believe it's a choice most of us wouldn't make, isn't it still better to think about it and make an active decision against doing so that to simply abdicate all responsibvility by not even considering the option?

As an example of this, many years ago (I think it was back in the 80s) there was a disaster at one of Britain's major airports in which a plane caught fire while still on the runway and there were a number of deaths. I don't remember the full details and yes, I could look them up but that isn't really the point here. What IS significant is that the next day another plane was waiting to take off and passengers were still embarking when a flash was seen somewhere on board. One man turned and pushed the woman next to him down the steps and she was slightly injured (I think she broke an arm). The flash turned out to be nothing of any importance but, if it had been another fire, and given how quickly the first fire had spread, the man very possibly would have saved the woman's life. Was he an idiot for panicking or did he just make a split-second decision tham had the circumstances been as he thought, might have been an act of heroism? Is it just results that matter or do intentions count too? Is it better to do the right thing with the wrong motive or to do the wrong thing with the right one? Are there really more questions than answers? Why do fools fall in love? Does your chewing gum lose its flavour . . .etc

At least utilitarianism is only concerned with numbers and not with the perceived 'worthiness' of the people concerned. I fear there may be a lot of people around who would consider it more moral to push the fat guy if the person on the line was the Queen or the President. How might those people's decisions change if the fat guy was a disabled guy? Or a very old guy? Here's where the waters start getting really murky.

#167 ...on the bedpost overnight? If your mother says don't chew it do you swallow it in spite? If it catches on your tonsils do you pull it left and right?

One of my favourite Lonnie Donegan songs. Thanks for triggering the memory.

I remember the Machester airport disaster that happened during refuelling. It led to an immediate revamp of refuelling procedures at most airports.

I would say the man who pushed the lady out of harm's way, as he probably thought he was doing at the time, was correct in doing so if he really believed there was about to be another fire. Of course, if he believed this and was only pushing the woman out of the way so that he could escape then we have a different scenario.

It is always going to be the case that there will be a heightened sense of tension in the period just after a disaster. I'm sure many people were very nervous about getting onto planes after that disaster, or any plane related disaster.

surely the only moral choice

I would still come back to the situation that any moral choice can only be valid in the context of a particular set of values. If the values are changed then what becomes "moral" can change.

The examples that have been used here generally relate to life and death situations and the majority of people I know would put a high value on human life, as would, I assume, most people on LibraryThing. If we change the examples to relate to stealing things then I think people might say, "Stealing is never the moral thing to do." but I am sure we would quickly come up with situations where people could be persuaded that stealing was the moral thing to do. The problem with using life and death situations is that the value put on human life by most people who would get involved in a discussion like this is so high that people conclude that avoiding someone's death becomes of paramount importance.

And then we have the death penalty!

>167 Booksloth: I agree wholeheartedly. There's too little discussion concerning the process we should be using to make moral decisions. Most acknowledge their difficulty, so wouldn't it make sense to rehearse them? Even better, I think we should work on systematic strategies to improve our ability.

utilitarianism is only concerned with numbers and not with the perceived 'worthiness'

Utilitarians (at least the strain of it I attempt to practice) subscribe only to the fact that there is a kind of cost/benefit tradeoff at play in moral decision making. However, the cost function used to assess a given alternative can have multiple variables each having a different weight on its output. For example, my decision not to eat meat relies on a cost function which considers the suffering of other non-human animals (one variable) vs. the cost to my own health and inconvenience (second variable). Utilitarians will tend to argue that everyone is in fact a utilitarian on some level, the only difference is in the way their cost function has been tuned. In fact, there's a straightforward way for exposing someone's utilitarian core. When a person explains they would not sacrifice one man to save X, simply begin increasing X. The person is forced to give either a utilitarian response or one that is absurdly steadfast (i.e. they would not sacrifice one man in order to save all men, including the one man).

Morality questions, like the trolley car dilemma, often seem to be misunderstood. The fact that persons demand a "C" option is an indication that the question is triggering the cognitive dissonance targeted in these studies (it would be of no interest to ask a question with an obvious answer). Their contrived nature is an attempt to strip away non-essential details as well as reduce bias from past experience of the subjects. Despite their limitations, I'm fascinated by what these studies have revealed. In one version, the fat man is on a bridge standing over a trap door. Instead of pushing the man, you pull a lever. This lead to a measurable shift towards sacrificing the man on the bridge. Perhaps an important finding in an era of multinational corporations and drone warfare?

As we're on moral dilemmas and this is, after all, a book site, may I introduce one of my 'favourites' (if you can speak in terms of favourite life and death situations)? It comes from the novel The Magus and anyone who has read that book will need no reminding. For anyone who hasn't read it, here's what happens.

Conchis occupies a position of some responsibility in the Greek village where he lives (he may have been the mayor or its equivalent, I'm not sure). During WWII a group of men from the village kill a Nazi soldier and the Nazis are quick to round up a group of suspects. They bring their half dozen suspects into the town square and select one of the men, then they turn to Conchis and put to him a suggestion. If he will kill this one man, the others will go free, if not, all 6 die. A soldier hands Conchis a gun and, reluctantly he accepts that, while killing another person is against all he believes, if he kills one man (who is going to die either way) then he will save 5 lives. He pulls the trigger: nothing happens.

Puzzled, Conchis turns to the Nazi leader who takes the gun from him, turns it around and hands it back, nodding at the prisoner. It becomes clear that the killing is not to be a clean one and that Conchis is being asked to use the weapon to beat the prisoner to death. This is the point at which he refuses and all 6 prisoners are shot.

Are there some things that are too abhorrent ever to do regardless of how many lives will be saved? Was Conchis wrong to refuse and thus sentence the other 5 men to death? The responsibility for all the deaths lies with the Nazis, not with Conchis, and yet does he still have a responsibility to do whatever he can do to save his fellow men? In a Sophie's Choice type of situation like this, can there be any morality at all for the chooser? Is it immoral for the subject to choose their own morality over the lives of others? Or is that, paradoxically, the moral choice?

Incidentally, I must add that I don't think there are any right or wrong answers here. It's one of those cases where it's more important to ask the question than to answer it and the most important thing of all is to think about the problem and discuss it without necessarily expecting to find an answer.

167> Isn't it better to make any decision and risk failure than to simply sit back and let events take their course.

No. I'm reminded of the Hypocratic Oath to first do no harm. And I never suggested just letting events run their course. What I had in mind was actively rejecting killing the fat man as a moral option and keep looking for other options.

In the case of the woman who was hurt, that isn't a situation where you are hurting someone else in other to try to save other people.

#171 And I never suggested just letting events run their course

I'm not entirely sure, tbh, how that differs from what you did say. Your actual words were "keep looking for other alternatives even if that means that you wait too long" (my underlining). Indecision, whether you call it a moral choice or dithering, is, to all practical purposes no different from letting events run their course. Certainly the bereaved relatives of the people on that railway track aren't going to be crazy about the response that, despite knowing there was only a small window of time in which to act, you decided to carry on thinking about the problem.

In fact, I think the Hippocratic Oath is an excellent point for discussion here and directly addresses the matter of intervention. The part of it that you cite can only be seen in terms of intention. A surgeon who makes the decision to operate on a brain tumour and, in doing so, kills her patient, can only be judged on the fact that she tried to help although, technically, she has done harm in killing her patient. If the injunction to 'do no harm' was taken in the light of keeping on looking for other alternatives even if that means you wait too long, no medical intervention would ever take place.

Incidentally, you also say 'In the case of the woman who was hurt, that isn't a situation where you are hurting someone else in other to try to save other people.'. I never said it was that; it was an example of how the wrong action can sometimes be taken for the right reason. In fact, I do seem to recall that the person who threw the woman off the plane was trying to get others out as well as himself so I suppose it was a case of trying to save lives but that wasn't the point I was making.

If I don't believe there are any situations in which the taking of an innocent, uninvolved persons life could be justified then it isn't indecision to rule out completely that course of action and look for another choice.

And even if I believed that there were rare situations in which it would be moral then it is still such a momentous decision that it should be thought through carefully and thoroughly and not in the heat of the moment.

We're talking about sacrificing the life of another person here. Are you telling me that you would do that without a moments hesitation based on what you thought was a good idea at the time? I think that's another problem with these scenarios. It encourages you think about these situations in a mathematical way and forget that it's actually real people that we're discussing.

>173 jjwilson61: It encourages you think about these situations in a mathematical way and forget that it's actually real people

I'm horrified when I hear that people aren't making ethical decisions in a reasoned, i.e. "mathematical", way. It says to me that the most powerful tool we have for knowing truth is one they're not bothering to use. The medic doing triage is in fact following a calculated algorithm in an attempt to minimize the tragedy at hand. They're encouraged to pose such hypothetical tragedies in order to better prepare for the needs of the situation, both in terms of supplies and the difficult decisions that would be required.

If not through reason, how is a solution to be obtained? Doesn't a life-threatening situation demand every bit of reason we can provide?

I'm horrified when I hear that people aren't making ethical decisions in a reasoned, i.e. "mathematical", way. It says to me that the most powerful tool we have for knowing truth is one they're not bothering to use.

Rationality allows the medic to make life or death decisions in order to maximize survival. Empathy allows him to never, ever become complacent in his task.

>170 Booksloth: I think an analysis of Conchis' dilemma is easier when one separates themselves from the problem. Instead of considering, "What action would I perform?", it's sometimes easier to consider "What action would I condemn in another?". As you mentioned, I may not have the capacity to perform an unpleasant action, while still knowing it be the the most moral course possible. Imagining how I would feel toward someone else who performed the action allows me to disentangle my own limitations.

Having found no other method that provides better guidance than utilitarianism, I'd then begin to identify all the costs involved in each course of action and choose that which resulted in the "greatest good"/"least bad" outcome. But stating the process in a straightforward manner doesn't imply an easy solution. Numerous concerns, complicated by imperfect knowledge, come into play (many are unpleasant to even consider):

- How quickly could Conchi kill the prisoner with the butt of a pistol?
- What would be the psychological effect on Conchi and those witnessing such a vile public act?
- Would compliance lead to a greater likelihood of similar acts in the future?
. . .

But perhaps the most difficult consideration in the utilitarian approach is how exactly to define "greatest good"/"least bad". It's often expressed along the lines of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" or "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". All the descriptions are in some ways defective. So, while I'm an advocate for utilitarian methodology, I'm not quite a fanboy. My feeling is more analogous to Churchill's description of democracy. To paraphrase him, utilitarianism sucks, but it beats everything else that's been tried.

#173 Are you telling me that you would do that without a moments hesitation based on what you thought was a good idea at the time?

No. I've said three times now that I would probably dither until it was too late. However, the whole point of this hypothetical problem is that it has a time limit. If this event was happening in front of you then you wouldn't have the leisure to spend the rest of your life wondering about what was the moral thing to do - you would have to make an instantaneous decision or do nothing at all.

#176 That really is a good way of trying to organise one's thoughts in this kind of situation. I first read The Magus nearly 30 years ago, have reread it several times since and have still never managed to come up with an answer as to whether Conchis's actions were right or wrong, moral or self-indulgent. He's absolutely in a no win situation here where not only is it impossible for him to make a decision as to the greater good but he is also sentenced to ostracism or worse from the rest of the community whatever he chooses to do. Even if he manages to save 5 lives (and don't forget, there are no guarantees that the Nazis will keep their word about this - it may even be more likely that, having put him through having to make and carry out his choice, they will simply shoot all the prisoners anyway) he will still always be seen as the person who bludgeoned one of their member to death.

Just to try and link back to the question in the OP, the advantage for believers in a god must be that they never have to take on this responsibility of making the choice themselves - WWJD is the only real consideration (and I can't help noticing the Bible is careful never to put him in that kind of situation unless he has a handy miracle in his pocket. WWJD? Oh yeah, he'd perform a miracle! Well, that's a really useful bit of moral instruction). Their god or their 'holy' book tells them what to do and that's that. I assume (though I haven't given it a great deal of thought, admittedly) that the Christian answer here (in the Magus example) is that violence is never right under any circumstances (smiting aside) and the 'option' of obeying the command in any form would simply not be considered. Now, in the end, that may mean they make the 'right decision (if there is such a thing here) but it still leaves six people dead when it might have been possible for some of them to have been saved. It then becomes not so much a question of what one should do to (possibly) save lives, but what one should do to keep in with god. The old saw that Christianity means you can take all your burdens and lay them on Christ was never truer but I can't help feeling that is just a way of abdicating responsibility.

>177 Booksloth: He's absolutely in a no win situation here where not only is it impossible for him to make a decision as to the greater good but he is also sentenced to ostracism or worse from the rest of the community whatever he chooses to do.

Not that the community's approval is necessarily a good motivation. Social approval is a good enforcer of moral systems but not a good gauge of their actual morality.

The Magus scenario brings up the question of collusion, and how much can be tolerated. To shoot one man to save five others is a simple act and it is easy to displace the blame from the actual shooter to the one who is really in control of the situation. But to beat a man to death is not just killing him, it is to collude in the brutality of the situation. That's harder to transfer to some off stage puppet master.

#178 Not that the community's approval is necessarily a good motivation

Excellent point! Pure ethics should never be about what anyone else thinks and that's where these hypothetical situations differ in a big way from real life.

>178 southernbooklady:, 179 Yet another complication. When to work within the system and when to buck it? Deciding when enough is enough can be tricky.

I have been reading the posts in this thread and thinking about a number of factors while trying to synthesise various positions. Firstly, as I have stated before I believe any “moral” position is totally dependent on the values one attempts to adhere to. This ties in with Marty’s mathematical concept of maximising the value of an objective function which contains a number of variables with differing coefficients. This will look like the following:

Y = a1X1 + a2X2 + a3X3 + …+ anXn, where:

Y = some overall measure we are trying to maximise, e.g. “goodness”;
X1 to Xn are variables, such as life, self worth, greater good, etc…
a1 to an are coefficients on the variables which represent the value on puts on the variables

Subconsciously we are all trying to solve such a multivariable objective function every time we make a decision. An example that is less emotional than the life or death scenarios in this thread might be making a decision about taking up a new job where the new employment may involve moving away from family, putting children in new schools, more money, less time at home, lots of driving, acquiring new skills, etc…

Such problems also come along with a number of constraints that impact on the possible solutions to the objective function.

There are mathematical means (Linear Programming) of identifying the optimum of such problems but the valid optima will depend on the constraints, the measure being optimised, the variables included, and, very importantly, the values of the coefficients applicable to each coefficient.

With the situations we have been discussing here it is not possible to be mathematically precise, but we are all carrying out such assessments in our minds, albeit unknowingly, and in our minds we are providing different values, different coefficients, and we are trying to optimise different things. The politician may be trying to optimise his/her vote value; a yuppie may be trying to maximise their net worth; a social worker may be trying to minimise the amount of suffering in his/her area; a philanthropist may be trying to maximise the value his fortune can achieve in terms of raising the living standards of people in some part of the world; etc…

Brining this to bear on the scenarios discussed means that we are all likely to have different solutions and, as Booksloth mentioned, there is no right answer.

As jjwislon61 stated in #146 the scenarios assume perfect knowledge and that is never the situation in real life. In addition, if the scenarios described were real the person making the decision would be under so much mental stress that it is unlikely they would be able to think rationally and would definitely be unlikely to be thinking in the way a person looking at these scenarios as a mind exercise would in the calmness of a seminar room or online. Marty’s comment about rehearsing things in advance would be appropriate for those who are likely to come up against situations like this through the nature of their work or where they live (the doctor’s training being an example of that having been done and I am sure emergency teams in general, as well as special forces throughout the world, have also been drilled in such scenarios so that they do not have to spend time working out the theory of their actions before acting).

I contend that we vary the value we put on human life depending on the circumstances. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to find the post but I believe it was Booksloth who asked if our decision would change if we knew the people tied to the track were convicted murders, or some such. When children are mentioned in scenarios it appears to be more angst ridden than adults. When we hear about a drug dealer being assassinated we probably don’t shed as many tears as we might when a bystanders is murdered during a bank robbery. How many people in the Western world shed a tear when Osama Bin Laden was killed? How many of us were deeply affected by the teachers and children being murdered in Sandy Hook?

The fact that we react differently depending on the victim and whether or not we know the victim means we vary the value we put on human life.

That being said, let’s look at the death penalty and the fact that there are people on death row. Generalising the essence of the scenarios described, the people on death row could be considered as the individuals tied to the track. Their execution is the trolley rushing along the tracks towards them. These people exist now. They are real. They are sentenced to death. If someone believes that avoiding lost of life is always a moral thing to do then that person’s moral response would be to campaign for the death sentence to be abolished in general and in the specific case to campaign for commuting of the sentence to life in prison. To do nothing is to go against such a moral position. It is to stand by and do nothing.

My point is that without establishing the value base an individual follows it is impossible for that individual to establish a moral framework and hence work out their theoretical moral reaction to any scenario. The first step in any such effort has to be the establishment of the values, i.e. the evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the various action options available.

Thus ends the Sunday sermon!

>181 pgmcc: I contend that we vary the value we put on human life depending on the circumstances.

It's interesting that there is an assumption that human life has value in all of these scenarios. And not just value, but primacy.

How many people in the Western world shed a tear when Osama Bin Laden was killed?

I felt both relieved, and guilty that I felt relieved, over the death of Bin Laden. And I was...am...uncomfortable with the knowledge that it was a government sponsored assassination.

#182 I felt both relieved, and guilty that I felt relieved,

I think this is the type of cognitive dissonance we all suffer in situations where something happens that is contrary to what we may have believed our beliefs/values/morals to be and yet we have some degree of relief/pleasure etc... with the action that has happened.

It's interesting that there is an assumption that human life has value in all of these scenarios.

This relates to a point I was making in an earlier post, i.e. that the value, and, as you so aptly put it, the primacy of human life is assumed. I think that if this is to be the case it should be stated as a value at the outset. If one is to apply zero value to human life the dilemmas set by the scenarios disappear.

Broadening the scenario in a real world context one can consider everyone on the planet to be victims tied to the tracks and the trolley thundering along towards us to represent the golbal shortage of fresh water, population growth, diminishing oil reserves, et... What do we do about these?

>182 southernbooklady: It's interesting that there is an assumption that human life has value in all of these scenarios. And not just value, but primacy.

Just what an evolutionary biologist might predict if morality has an evolved basis conferring a selective advantage. In fact, you can go a little further. The heightened sensitivity we have over violence perpetrated against women and children likely reflects a built-in bias installed by nature. One that tunes our behavior to the reality that sperm is cheap, wombs are rate-limiting, and progeny are a significant sunk cost of resources.

#184

MartyBrandon, have you read The Moral Animal by Robert Wright? I discusses ideas along this line and attempts to explain behaviours from a biological and evolutionary viewpoint.

>181 pgmcc: Nice summary!

Subconsciously we are all trying to solve such a multivariable objective function every time we make a decision.

Precisely. And this realization makes possible a systematic approach for improving our morality. We already have many computational methods for solving maximization problems, if only we can better define what we're trying to solve. However, I'd add that subconsciously it seems we're actually resorting to heuristics, which often have very arbitrary input variables (people have been shown to be biased in their judgements depending on whether or not they are holding a warm beverage). It seems that evolution has precomputed a system of morality for us, and that we have these prepared answers handily available, cached in memory so to speak. This works pretty well on a day to day basis - we don't have to think too hard about what should be done when we find a person bleeding. But taken out of the context in which we evolved, it fails miserably.

My point is that without establishing the value base an individual follows it is impossible for that individual to establish a moral framework and hence work out their theoretical moral reaction to any scenario. The first step in any such effort has to be the establishment of the values, i.e. the evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the various action options available.

We are on the same brain wave. Marty joins pgmcc in front of the congregation

Wouldn't it be convenient if there were some universal measure of "good"? Something that could be used as a standard unit of measure for any given moral alternative regardless of context? I have some thoughts on this, but the important point is that we can begin to analyze this problem in a methodical and reasoned manner. We can modify or extend our crude evolved system of morality with one less capricious and egocentric. It's time we shook off the stigma that to be rational is to be cold and unfeeling. Just the opposite I think. It's our best chance at a foundation of behavior based on fairness and compassion.

>186 MartyBrandon: Wouldn't it be convenient if there were some universal measure of "good"?

Be religious.

I'm curious what people here consider "good." Do you think of it as a quality of negatives--not dying, not suffering--or as a quality of positives--being happy, being alive?

#186 It's our best chance at a foundation of behavior based on fairness and compassion.

Marty, your statement tells us that two of your values are "fairness" and "compassion". (Welcome to the pulpit)

#187 I'm curious what people here consider "good."

southerbooklady, I think Marty has started the list for you. (There's plenty of room in the pulpit for you too)

>188 pgmcc: southerbooklady, I think Marty has started the list for you.

My idea of "good" --which I grant is a relativistic goal-- is an existence where each being has total self-determination to achieve a complete realization of their own personal fulfillment.

Of course, in the real world interests conflict, and the personal fulfillment of one person may be at the expense of the self-determination of another. Which is why Marty's list of "fairness" and "compassion" are useful practices to adopt when conflicts happen.

My favorite short summary of it is from Bertrand Russell: "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge"

>188 pgmcc: Ah, I revealed my own biases. What I intended to say is that I believe there is a possibility that we might use an objective measure on which to build a system of morality which would result in greater fairness and compassion. I'm also biased in my desire that the result would include the things mentioned by southernbooklady and Amtep too, but I'm keeping the concept of "good" separate from the things that from it. As some of the earlier examples showed, even when following a path motivated by goodness, despicable actions may sometimes be unavoidable. I believe it would be beneficial to have an objective way of measuring this parameter called "good" in order that it can be used to guide our behavior to maximize the desired outcome (compassion, fairness, love, etc).

> 185 I've got the audio version of Wright's book. I thought he gave a nice summary, but I prefer to hear the material from a biologist like E.O. Wilson. I'll admit a slight bias against psychologist (Steven Pinker excepted), especially when they repackage an area of study and make it their own, in the way they transformed sociobiology into evolutionary psychology.

#192 I have only read E.O. Wilson's Consilience. I liked it a lot.

#191 even when following a path motivated by goodness, despicable actions may sometimes be unavoidable

To quote a phrase from the religiously minded, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I believe it would be beneficial to have an objective way of measuring this parameter called "good"

I think this will be very difficult. I have to be convinced there is an objective, "good". In my opinion we will find "good" to be different for different people and even different for specific individuals in different circumstances.

Now, I am off to work and must set LT aside until this evening.

Have a good day, everyone.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Do I detect a note of warning? It concerns me that many atrocities have been justified in the name of some greater good, but that realization could perhaps be incorporated in. Much like the enlightenment thinkers who created the American government realizing that the part were inherently flawed, making it necessary to cancel ambition with ambition in a system of checks and balances.

I have to be convinced there is an objective, "good".

This might be a little too "out there" for this discussion, but I believe you could build a functional morality, perhaps even a "good" one, using a measurable component of the environment. Entropy seems to hold the most promise. Essentially, organized complexity (the opposite of entropy) is "good" and greater entropy (loosely disorganization) is "bad". Most reading this will probably assume I've flipped, but the idea holds up surprisingly well.

#195 Ungh? I want to assume you haven't flipped, Marty but I think you're going to have to explain a little more first. What makes you say the idea holds up well?

#195 #196
but the idea holds up surprisingly well.
What makes you say the idea holds up well?

Well, if it fell apart it would only increase entropy and the argument would therefore be self defeating and one cannot expect Marty, or anyone, to put forward an argument that will destroy itself. ;)

Marty, I can infer the reasons why one would want to label organized complexity as "good" but I believe these reasons are simply focused on the survival of the human race, again "good" is being defined in an arbitrary fashion favouring a particular viewpoint, that of the human race.

Now, my statement will have me labelled as a traitor to my species, but from an environmental viewpoint would a lower level of entropy necessarily be "good" or would it simply "be"?

I am trying to make the point that we need to state some basic asumptions/criteria to help us define what we define as "good".

ETA:

As I mentioned in the "what is blief" thread, I am reading a book called Wilful blindness which I am finding fascinating. I've just read a bit about the financial collapses of the past couple of decades and the role played by derivative trading. One could describe the whole derivative market as organises complexity and I would have difficulty in describing that market as "good".

Am I misinterpreting your argument, going off at a tanget, or simply not gettin it?

Help! I have no idea what this argument is about. Please can someone explain exactly what is meant by entropy in this context and how it relates to morality. :(

Ring! Ring! ... Ring! Ring! ... Ring...

Marty: Hello!

Peter: Hi, Marty. I think Booksloth has a question for you!

:-)

A definition of "good" based on low entropy would be extremely depressing because it means the universe is sliding further and further into depravity with every passing second :)

#198

Entropy is a measure of disorder. In physics it is considered that entropy, i.e. disorder, is always increased.

I will let Marty relate that to morality, but I assume he is proposing that maintaining order, i.e. slowing down the increase in entropy, is a good thing to do and is a starting point for identifying a definitive "good".

Marty, apologies if I have misunderstood and hence misrepresented your position.

#199 It is only 5.50 am over there at the moment - I can give the poor guy time to wake up and take a shower (but not a second longer).

#200 Is "deparvity" the opposite of "gr-avity"?

(Yes, I'm just being silly now.)

#201 With you so far. I know what entropy is but I don't see how it relates to morality in any practical sense. Where does entropy come into my decision whether or not to sleep with my neighbour's husband?

#203 It would have to be the opposite of garvity. (Silliness much encouraged here.)

#204 Where does entropy come into my decision whether or not to sleep with my neighbour's husband?

I suppose it would relate to the increased level of chaos that would ensue if you get caught.

The following link may be appropriate with regards to your decision of whether or not to sleep with your neighbour's husband. http://www.librarything.com/topic/129780#3893701

>201 pgmcc: Entropy is a measure of disorder. In physics it is considered that entropy, i.e. disorder, is always increased.

In a closed system.

In physics it can be used to describe the cooling of the universe as a whole, as long as we treat the universe as a closed system (an assumption, but not a provable one). But that's why the second law of thermodynamics does not work, for example, as an argument against evolution by creationists, who complain that evolution is proof of order arising out of disorder. But evolution is not a closed system. The earth itself is not a closed system.

I'm at a loss as to how all this applies to morality though. Human beings are not closed systems either.

#205
I suppose it would relate to the increased level of chaos that would ensue if you get caught.

I know you're kidding but that would suggest that morals are about whether or not you get caught. Surely nobody really believes that?

#207 morals are about whether or not you get caught.

I suppose "behaviours" in the place of "morals" in the above statement would be more accurate.

I think we are going to have to wait for Marty to explain his application of entropy to adultery as I will just get myself deeper and deeper in trouble if I keep trying to second-guess him.

(Do I detect that your computer is back from the electronics hospital? Working well I hope.)

morals are about whether or not you get caught. Surely nobody really believes that?

This brings us back to the situation you described some time ago, i.e. one believes adultery is wrong until one falls in love with someone outside marriage. I think this represnts a situation where one might change one's moral framework or else they chose not to act on their feelings and live with the emotional turmoil that might cause, or act on their feelings and live in a constant state of internal conflict due to their acting contrary to their own moral beliefs.

One's behaviours do not always follow one's morals or the morals one wishes to portray as belonging to their public image. This is reflected in all the so called sex scandals involving politicians, priests and other public figures. People may believe their position in life, be it career, community or family related, requires them to appear to live by a certain moral code of conduct. Whether or not they truly hold to this code as being their own could be questioned. The behaviour of some people caught breaking the expected public image moral code would indicate that in many cases the individuals were only presenting the impression that they are keeping to the moral code.

I think this is leading to a whole series of other thread discussions.

Okay, here's my pet morality theory developed over many arduous hours of dog-walking.

First, I want an objective measure of "good". It would be something similar to an air quality reading one uses to plan their level of activity. In the future, people would carry morality calculators (perhaps it'd just be an app for your iPhone). When confronted with a morally tricky situation, you'd put your options in and out would come the score, in units of "good", for each option, allowing you to choose the option that maximizes goodness. (The app is still in the design phase). Now assume that we don't care what is being measured, so long as measuring it leads to a consistent and desirable system of morality. In order to identify candidates, we might look at the commonalities present in desirable situations, but I find it easier to compare bad ones, which is equivalent, since our concepts of good and bad are just subjective measures of the same underlying thing we're trying to identify.

An obvious indicator that a situation is bad is the presence of destruction, whether of life or material. Destruction is a disruption of order, and entropy can be thought of as a measure of disorder. In fact, there are at least three different scientific definitions of entropy from statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, or information theory depending on whether you're a physicist, chemist, or information scientist, respectively. But the key point, is that there exists a universally disruptive process, which continually leads to greater disorder. In fact, many physicist believe that the continual increase in entropy will eventually lead to the demise of the entire universe (often called the "heat death"), a situation that we can think of as absolute "bad". From that point things can only get better, and the direction of "betterness" is towards organized complexity (low entropy really, but I'm using the term "organized complexity" for clarity).

So, what sort of things would receive a high score from a morality calculator that uses organized complexity as its measure of good? Living things, artwork, information, or anything else that is organized and complex. How might it order these things relative to one another? Well, the most complex thing that has been discovered is the human brain (I'm a little embarrassed at the conceit of that statement, but it's factually correct). The brains of other beings also rate highly, as does anything living, particularly complex systems of living things (coral reefs, rain forests, etc.). The Mona Lisa would score well too, and significantly better than modern art (much of that would be a rounding error for the morality calculator). Given this ordering we'd be able to justify exploiting other species and the earth at some level, while also being forced to acknowledge their intrinsic value and a moral obligation to minimize their destruction. Even more intangible things like freedom and other modes of existence that lead to prosperity and a flourishing of knowledge might score well, though this needs more thought.

There are of course difficulties, but there seems to me something a little profound in this. After leaving work as an impoverished postdoc researcher a couple years ago, I took a better-paying job as a programmer. I'm now on one of the science-support teams at Goddard Spaceflight Center working on an information processing system for satellite data related to climate change. However, my background and interests are more in biology, so I sometimes attend the astrobiology seminars. At one of these, the presenter was discussing how one might search for life on the growing number of exoplanets that have been discovered. He mentioned several measurements (spectral signatures, radio waves, etc.) that might be used as indicators for life, but summarized by saying that these are all just different ways of detecting low-entropy, which is the most fundamental characteristic of living organisms. You might imagine my excitement at that point. Here I was listening to a guy at Nasa describe exactly what I'd been wanting to measure. I almost blurted out, "I've gotta tell you about the morality calculator!". However, I controlled the urge, and perhaps that's for the best. I really enjoy those seminars.

>205 pgmcc: Great story. Your wife sounds very witty. Considering the resulting chaos of one's actions is a pretty good methodology I think.

Your morality calculator befuddles me, Marty, because it seems to me that it would rate a large military installation as more moral (low entropy?) than a small hippie commune. The Mona Lisa apparently gets high marks, but what about a Jackson Pollack? What about Keith Haring, Robert Mapplethorpe, heavy metal bands, the Black Eyed Peas, or Dave Chappelle?

Then too, it seems to me that your calculator assumes that mathematical equations are prescriptive, rather than descriptive. And while a moral system may give one the assurance that one is walking on the right path, it does not, in itself, make a person "moral." A system of morality is a system of culturally agreed upon right behaviors--that here, I think, you want to identify at such a basic level that it is universal. But to be a moral person also means to be able to know right from wrong. Will your person with his morality calculator be able to tell the difference if he loses his calculator or the batteries run out (expended, ironically enough, in the massive energy required to calculate the lowest entropy total of any given action)?

Thanks for coming back to explain, Marty! I'm never going to argue too much with any dog-walking-based hypotheses because we all know our best thinking is done while walking the dog. This deserves another read and more time than I've got at the moment though a couple of very quick points come to mind off the top of my head.

The first is that the morality calculator sounds a bit like 'god in a pocket' - very useful in some ways but comes with its own problems and the most obvious of these is that it still requires an absolute measure of morality which is never possible wehen it comes to having to weigh two opposing possibilities of similar moral value. You talk about destruction always being 'bad' but what about destruction that makes way for something better? Is it wrong to destroy a building (buildings are easy to discuss here because they have no feelings) if it was an ugly building? Does an ugly building add more to general entropy than pulling it down and leaving a space there?

We talked about adultery and I would just like to make it quite clear at this point that I have not slept with my neighbour's husband nor have I any intention of doing so BUT, one excuse you always hear for contributing to the downfall of a marriage is that it was an unhappy marriage (one itself in entropy, if you like) and that the destruction of it made way for a 'better' and happier one. How do you weigh one person's happiness against another's? What is the separation of two unhappy people results in their greater happiness but traumatises the children? Or traumatises one of the children while the other is perfectly okay with the new situation?

The second point (hopefully quicker than the first) point is where you describe the destruction of the universe as absolutely bad but from whose point of view? Human beings, like all other species, will eventually die out. Why then, is the destruction of the universe such a bad thing? It may not be something any of us wish to be around for but from the point of view of morals it seems to me to be about as entirely neutral as you can get.

Perhaps members of this group could have free trial samples of the calculator when it is perfected so we could see what happens in practice? I'm definitely up for giving it a try as long as there is a manual override. (Did I say this was going to be quick? Sorry. More later.)

>211 southernbooklady: it would rate a large military installation as more moral (low entropy?) than a small hippie commune

Possibly. But don't confuse orderliness with low entropy. They're not exactly the same thing, which is why I used the term "organized complexity". A lump of salt is highly ordered but not all that low in entropy, not when compared to a protein molecule. For similar reasons, a planet populated by identical copies of the same robot might be orderly, but would represent a regression in the entropy morality.

The morality equations are of course descriptive. Their intended use is not to dictate moral behavior, but to provide a useful measure for guiding action in a direction to maximize desired outcome.

What about Keith Haring, Robert Mapplethorpe, heavy metal bands, . . .

I don't know. The scenario I had in mind was a fire at the Louvre, and the robot watchman has to priortize the pieces that would be saved. Art being such a contentious area, I think it's encouraging that we can begin to grapple with it at all.

I was having a little fun with the idea of a pocket gadget, but there is a need for implementing morality in a machine. Autonomous robots, driverless cars, and ubiquitous sensory networks seem to be rapidly nearing implementation. Re-imagine the trolley-car problems as runaway driverless cars in which the brakes have failed. Does it hit a school bus or a tanker truck carrying petroleum? When the opponent of a robot-soldier runs into a hospital, does it still launch a grenade? Creating a machine that can truly empathize with a person is probably a long way off, but creating one that can quickly get a rough estimate of entropy is perhaps doable.

>212 Booksloth: . . . destruction of the universe as absolutely bad but from whose point of view?

From all points of view. Moral systems are predicated on assumptions, usually arbitrary for the convenience of a small group. Disaster ensues upon encountering members from a group which has a different arbitrarily derived morality. However, the need to avoid becoming a victim to entropy is a shared need for all life, regardless of their place in the cosmos. If we should encounter ET next week, the value it places on low-entropy is one of the very few assumptions on which we can be sure. There is an assumed preference of existence over non-existence. That's taken as a given.

>213 MartyBrandon: Re-imagine the trolley-car problems as runaway driverless cars in which the brakes have failed. Does it hit a school bus or a tanker truck carrying petroleum?

This reminds me of a scene from a really bad Will Smith movie (please, please, read the book instead): two cars go over a bridge into the San Francisco Bay. One has a little girl trapped. One has an adult man. The robot rescue calculates that there is a 20% probability of successfully saving the little girl, but a 60% probability of saving the man -- who is, by the way, telling the robot to save the girl, not him. The robot saves saves the man.

The point of a moral code is to guide us when the choice is not only not clear, but also to guide us when we must make a choice even when we can't make an informed one.And also to help us deal with the consequences if that choice turns out to be wrong. Your runaway car may well choose to hit the tanker if calculated that the physical damage caused by an explosion would be "less entropic" than if it hit a school bus full of children.

But what if it's choice was to hit an old man or hit a young policeman? The car might choose the old man, because the younger one has more of his life ahead of him and is in a profession that will help many people. But what if that old man is the guy working on the cure for cancer? What if he is the grandpa to the little girl who is destined to grow up and cure cancer after seeing her beloved grandpa die of it?

Then again, maybe the car hits the policeman, who, after all, is in a profession that accepts the necessity of self sacrifice. So he is killed, and every arrest, every rescue, ever person he will ever help in the future is now wiped from the list of possibilities.

If the point of a moral system is to keep people alive so that they might reach their fullest potential as human beings then I think your calculator would do nothing, because it would be stuck calculating the possible entropic costs of each action as it extrapolated out through the ages ... it would be like trying to calculate pi.

If the point of your moral system is not "keep people alive" but "keep as many people alive as possible" then invariably it will make choices that are logical, but not moral. It wouldn't try to save the little girl.

#212 I would just like to make it quite clear at this point that I have not slept with my neighbour's husband nor have I any intention of doing so BUT

Booksloth, you do not have to justify yourself here. You're amongst friends. Friends do not judge one another. They judge other people together.

This reminds me of a confession story my father used to tell.

A teenager goes to confession in his local Catholic church. He asks the priest, "Father, is it a sin to sleep with a girl?"
The priest replies, "Certainly not...as long as you sleep".

Another confessional joke but this one was not told by my father.

A teenager in a small town goes to confession. He starts his confession, "Bless me father for I have sinned. I had sex with a married woman."
The priest says, "My God, that is terrible. That is absolotely terrible. Was it Mrs. O'Halloran?"
"No, father."
"Was it Mrs. Sheehan?"
"No, father."
"Was it Mrs. Ferrandez?"
"No, father."
"Well, for your penance say three decades of the rosary. Now get out of here."
The teenager leaves the confessional box and without doing his penance he exits the front door of the church and calls over to his friend who has been waiting across the road, "Hey, Johnny. I've got three more names."

#215 #212 Me - I would just like to make it quite clear at this point that I have not slept with my neighbour's husband nor have I any intention of doing so BUT

pgmcc- Booksloth, you do not have to justify yourself here. You're amongst friends. Friends do not judge one another. They judge other people together.

Okay then. The neighbour, on the other hand . . . . . .

>214 southernbooklady: The point of a moral code is to guide us when the choice is not only not clear, but also to guide us when we must make a choice even when we can't make an informed one.

Your example doesn't seem relevant. The robot made an informed choice, it's just that you don't like the choice that was made. It did not malfunction, and it could have been programmed differently, so presumably, the human who installed the behavior, had he been the rescuer, would have made the same choice. Predefining rigid behavior for those cases in which information is limited could certainly be a useful technique, but it's not the point of a moral code, it's instead a fallback strategy to use in desparate situations.

If the point of a moral system is to keep people alive so that they might reach their fullest potential as human beings then I think your calculator would do nothing, because it would be stuck calculating the possible entropic costs of each action as it extrapolated out through the ages

A genuine concern. But we confront all sorts of computationally intractable problems. It doesn't seem possible that we'd calculate the number precisely. Rather, methods for rapid estimation would be developed. Similar to the usefulness of predefined rules, other variables would also be useful, though the basis of the caluculation would be one of low-entropy. It's also important to realize that it would make mistakes. But the question is whether it would lead to an improvement over the system we use now.

If the point of your moral system is not "keep people alive" but "keep as many people alive as possible" then invariably it will make choices that are logical, but not moral. It wouldn't try to save the little girl.

No system of morality can guarantee acceptance of the decisions made. The outcome in your example could have been predicted, so presumably this was deemed the moral course of action to program into the robot. The only difference, is that the robot is more faithful to its instructions. Complaining about the use of logic in decision-making is a little like complaining that a structural engineer is constrained by gravity. To do otherwise is to be arbitrary and disconnected from reality.