h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Yeah, Math's given a good argument in favour of good logic/reasoning, but it doesn't differentiate between religion and atheism.

So surely that means that religion is an unecessary fripperie? An eccentric hobby.

I see what Math is getting at. There's no rational or logical reason not be psychopathic and treat all other people as mere objects to be used in the way you see best. Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' can be chosen to be used as the basis of a public decision making process, but it doesn't make much sense as the basis of an individual one. An ultra-rich person doesn't need to worry about whether or not he'll be one of the disadvantaged, that's why they're all against things like the welfare state.

Of course, religion is no better in this, for the reasons Ed and I are completely in agreement about (democratic conversation, secular ethics, etc.).

That's true. Things like the Welfare State didn't come about because of cool-headed, Rawlsian decisions. They result from the struggle of the disadvantaged. But they are also in the interest of the priveleged who wish to avoid overthrow by an angry mob.

What they said...plus I don't trust intuition or unchecked emotions without tempering with reason and logic.

Hi Eddie et al.

I am a rationalist in most things, that is no secret

"I repeat once again that 'Reason' doesn't imply 'Vulcan-like'. Our emotions are real."

You are assuming again that all rational people are like you, with your particular blend of compassion and reason.

Unfortunately we ordinary citizens don't really make the laws or have a hand on the levers of power. This is why Eugenics could be brought to bear in Germany before WW2. The men in power there saw it as quite reasonable, logical and rational to relieve the mentally and seriously physically handicapped of their burden, for the good of the state.

Already the men in power here think it rational to deprive you of your liberty for weeks without charge, and want to extend that. To them it is a logical measure to ensure the security of the state and your fellow citizens. They can bug you, watch you and prevent you from protesting if they wish and you can do nothing. This is all done for rational reasons.

In other states similar and far more dangerous rules apply. All rational and logical and utterly inhuman.

I do like your three reasons but they can only apply in a state where everyone is considered equal and has an equal say in their governance.

Attempts to set boundaries on this, such as your beloved HRA, are undermined by every state that is a signatory to it. Such undermining is done from reason, not emotion or compassion.

The greater good destroys all that oppose it. Democracy is another word for the tyranny of the majority. Representative democracy is the tyranny of the law makers.

Logic and reason must be tempered by compassion and humanity, however illogical the surce of these two are.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

I think, once again, Math is diverting the convo a wee bit here. Darimana originally said

"With all due respect, Math, I beg to differ.

If it is done through "religion", the likelihood is that it will be at the expense of reason, logic, and scientific thinking. That, I would submit, is dangerous. I am, of course fully supportive of the movement to teach critical thinking/philosophy from the earliest years onqward"

in reply to..

<>

I'd guess any chain of reasoning's destination will be inherent in its starting point. If compassion is excluded at the start, the results will be inevitably inhumane. The example of eugenics Math pointed out could easily come from religion, if the disabled are not in the image of God or some such bollox. Equally, as he's pointed out, it can result from 'rationalist' or atheistic reasoning in the same way.

I don't see why compassion is irrational at all. I'd argue that it benefits us all, and is inbuilt into pretty much everyone. In fact, it's when we start seeing people as 'other', in whatever way, that the problems start.

Yes, he does divert, doesn't he?

Does Rationalism lead to Nazi eugenics? I think not.

Is Rationalism an *antidote* to Nazism...not on its own, agreed. The answer to opposing Nazism is called 'politics' - applyin rational arguments (or half bricks, when necessary) to defeat faulty reasoning.

Thinking more about it - I really think that Math is presenting a false dichotomy. Perhaps it will explain a little more what I mean ny 'Rational'?

Human beings are, of course, emotional creatures. Fundamentally, all our decisions are driven by desires; how do we want things to turn out? The important thing is to expose these desires, and any arguments in support of them, to scrutiny. The working definition for Reason that I've used elsewhere is 'Please show your working out'.

A while back, Math and I had a short exchange on capital punishment. I don't particularly want to reprise it, but it serves as a good illustration.

The Pro argument goes something like:
'People deserve to fulfil their natural sense of revenge'.
That's a perfectly valid argument, and revenge is a perfectly human emotion. It becomes irrational, though, when Revenge is elevated to a capital R and the emotion is given primacy over other arguments.

The Anti argument rests on various ways in which capital punishment is, when all is considered, detrimental to society. Both arguments are Rational, so far as it goes. I know which side I'm on, but that's not important. The point is to reveal (or even to *understand*) where your're coming from and to accept that your personal emotion isn't necessarily trumps. How do we decide between them? It's a messy process called either 'dialectic' or 'democracy'.

Hi Pedro

I thought you'd be used to my emotionally driven tangential rhetoric by now?

It is nice for once though to see the rationalists here admit that the application of reason alone cannot solve many human problems and may indeed lead to worse consequences. For my part I admit that religions (especially, from history, monotheist religions) can be as bad.

This is all about taking things to extremes of course. Moderate & tolerant religion, like moderate & tolerant politics isn't exciting though, so doesn't attract the young and others who want to change the world. It was ever thus...

Compassion though is, like many concepts, a sword and a ploughshare. Compassion prevents us from putting down our elderly relatives, but could equally motivate us to put down our elderly cat.

Compassion no doubt drove the political intepretation of the Hippocratic Oath as 'do no harm' and allows the terminally sick to linger on in agony far past their time.

Many of the implementers of Eugenics saw it as being both rational and compassionate. They were relieving suffering and aiding society. Of course Eugenics continues to be practiced every day in our own NHS through terminations of foetuses with life threatening genetic disorders and even non-life threatening conditions.

I am not judging those who make such terrible decisions, but is does carry forward the Eugenics creed.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Still labouring over a false dichotomy, I fear. Emotion can be considered within a Rational framework. It's only when it gets elevated to 'God wants...' or 'It's natural...' or 'It's common sense...' that we depart from that.

Ed's right, again, I think

Religion is compatible with emotion, but not with rational thinking.

Reason is compatible with emotion and can take it into account; moreover, it IS rational thinking.

They are not alternative routes to the same destination.

Another form on non-Rational thinking goes something like:
'Oath keeping is the most important thing.'

I've nothing against keeping our word, honesty, doing what we say we'd do, etc. etc. These are pragmatically useful heuristic behaviours for achieving desirable outcomes. But I wouldn't elevate an oath to a quasi-sacred status. We are fallible and make an oath in error. Or circumstances may change after we've made it. If Oath Keeping is elevated to a first-order rule, might it not militate against sensible evaluation of whether breaking an oath would be the better course, all round?



(Note that I'm not talking about selfish reasons for keeping oaths. Sometimes breaking an oath might be bettter for the oathee or for third parties.)

Basically, I'm a man without principles.

Of course the very purpose of an oath and of raising its status to a first order rule is to eliminate thinking or second guessing.

The pragmatic principal is that if an oath is always kept, even when circumstances have changed or when it's clearly not in the best interests of the person bound by the oath, the benefits overall accrue because oaths can generally be trusted.

Once again...nothing mystical; just a pragmatic, utilitarian calculus.

Hi darimana

"Religion is compatible with emotion, but not with rational thinking."

Let me understand this clearly. Are you trying to imply that religion itself is incompatible with rationality, or that those who 'practice' religion are incapable of rationality. I wouldn't want to go off on one of my famous tangents by inferring incorrectly.

[see Eddie, you can teach an old theist new tricks ]

The problem with relying upon both rationality and emotion is how do you know, subjectively, which is your principle guide in any specific matter? Another problem comes from which you use to define right and wrong?

"Damn your Vulcan hide Spock, I can't leave him to die alone out there." Dr.McCoy.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Eddie & darimana

In my particular community to give one's oath is a serious undertaking.

By doing so you are placing all the respect of your peers in a promise. If a member of my community gives me their oath I know they will keep it, for the alternative is to be outcast, alone, and to lose everything that makes life worth living - friendship, support, love.

As a community though we are both rational and compassionate and know that there will be circumstances that prevent a person fulfilling their oath. An oath breaker is one who gives their oath with no intention of keeping it, or who chooses to break it for they decide that it is no longer convenient for them to do so.

A person can be released from an oath only by those that they gave the oath to.

An oath is the second greatest thing a person can give, the first being his or her life. I'm more afraid of failing to keep my oath than any court or sentence it might hand down.

If our society at large believed that, with or without the religious wakan tanka, imagine how it would be. Now I am not a utopian. There will always be those who reject society and its common values, but if the majority did well...?

Blessings,
Matholwcg .

Yes, it's a good value. But it's not a *fundamental* value.

Hi Eddie

How begrudging is this:
"Yes, it's a good value. But it's not a *fundamental* value."

No it's not a fundamental value Mr.Curmudgeon, but it is born from one - the need to to be able to trust another person. Without trust society ceases to exist.

A society built on honouring oaths freely taken, and where one measure of a person is their reputation for keeping their promises, will have strong bonds of trust within it.

Certainly stronger than one where people think that a promise is way to obtain what you want, rather than an accepted responsibility.


There again responsibility doesn't feature highly in modern British society does it now? People crow about their 'Rights' but seldom about their responsibilities. Which goes to the core of our ongoing debate on the use and abuse of the HRA.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

It wasn't intended to be begrudgingly curmudgeonly. I was simply begining an exploration of whether values etc. can be encoded in such terms. Possibly. I'm trying to work out how far:
pragmatism and deciding every question on its own merits
vs
following a template
can go.

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about the HRA, though, don't you? How many times must it be explained to you that it's about limiting the power of governments? It doesn't say anything about how individuals should conduct themselves, any more than the Working at Heights Directive tells us what percentage of fruit jam should contain.