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

In the name of freedom of speech and opinion, I volunteer the following points:

'The only constructive use we can make of our background, whatever it is, is to be completely proud of it, and completely free of it.'

The quoting rsponse to this is Santayana's 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' The sceptical one is to ask in what way we really are 'free of our background': of the world in which we live; of the ideas we have absorbed; of the events that have shaped our personalities; of the entities around us for whom we might, for one reason or another, be expected to take responsibility. We need not be chained to our backgrounds, unable to change, but to pretend that we are unconnected to them is unrealistic.

'Whatever anyone ever did, that was the best choice they could make, at the time and in the circumstances.'

I shall leave it to readers of this post to contemplate what apparent horrors are thus accounted 'the best' that could have been done, and whether they actually were.

One of the things that gets me though is society's now almost intolerant attitude towards racism. Let me explain that before you hit the yikes button.

If i insult someone of the same color, no harm is done (okay ill probibly get in a fight, but a night in the cells both ways aint too bad)
If i insult someone of a different color, it is racist (meaning longer in the cells and probibly more ramifications)

As a white person, against racism in all its guises, i feel obliged not to insult someone of any other race or color, just in case it is seen as racist because i know what the backlash will be.
Look at the police thing. The officer who kicked someone repeatedly. That will inevitably be turned into a race issue, as the officer was white and the offender was black. If it was the other way round, i dont beleive that much would be made of it as a race issue, as imo i dont beleive society acknowledges racism as black against white, prefering the white against black image instead.


I appologise now if that offended, it wasnt meant to, merely to point a few things out in context. I am not racist, but i can understand what JRD is trying to say.

>> Parts of France are historically British, and we'd like them back! <<

Preferably without the French people still in them!

Incidentally, since when did Islam become a race? As far as I'm aware, it's a religion. One which is highly intolerant of others, anti-democratic, and generally nasty to its womenfolk.

Is it though? One of my colleagues is a Muslim, she doesn't wear a headscarf, has finished her degree and has a good job, wears nice clothes, make up and lives on her own, with her own car etc etc.

She has respect for her parents and their religion, but can't understand where all the oppression of women comes in. According to her, and I agree, the opression and intolerance comes from certain interpretations (by men) of the Koran and what the religion of Islam is trying to achieve.

I've seen and heard of similar results when the Bible (old testament) has been read by people with an agenda.

I'm not racist. I can, however, see why people fear an influx of immigrants or people of different race or religion come into an area when they think/feel that they are going to take away some of the nice things they are used to. And certainly, as in all groups of people, some of them do take advantage and do whip one or both sides into a frenzy of "they are different, they are inferior, they are trying to 'get' us". It all gets self-fulfilling there.

As for the perception that the charge of racism only seems to apply when it is a white person doing it... well, maybe it is only a perception. Maybe it is because there are more white people around. Maybe it is true. The facts don't matter: the popular perception does. And while groups like the BNP are able to feed the fire of percieved repression we will have a problem.

What's the answer? I haven't a clue, but a bit of education on all sides by all sides about the different races/cultures/religions/ beliefs/philosophies might be a good start.

That's one of the reasons places like h2g2 work very well: you can't have an instant opinion based on outward appearance.

"Maybe it is because there are more white people around"
But theres not thats the thing. JRD main point was tht this isnt the case any longer, and soon it will be the other way round.

More education doesnt work either, because it simply gets you thinking more about it. Being brought up over the past 17 years you are told again and again racism is wrong, which i agree works to some extent.
ut if someone of another race/religion/whatever does something offensive to me, i will readily be thinking of racist insults. Which sounds terrible on reflection, but im only human. I dont want to insult them with racist insults, i just find it easier knowin it would hurt more
Please note: I havent actually insulted someone verbally, if i think such things then i keep it to myself.

I again appologise for anything there that sounds particularly nasty towards any group of people, it wasnt meant to.

"One swallow doth not a summer make".

Replying to RFJS_ post 61, whose response to "Whatever anyone ever did, that was the best choice they could make, at the time and in the circumstances" is: "I shall leave it to readers of this post to contemplate what apparent horrors are thus accounted 'the best' that could have been done, and whether they actually were."

This is the central issue: the decision to forgive the past is moral, not logical.

Logically there is no reason to suppose the present can be free, if the past wasn't.

Morally, there is every reason. That's the difference between (indifferent) fact and (committed) morality.

'Logically there is no reason to suppose the present can be free, if the past wasn't.

Morally, there is every reason.'

Am I therefore to understand that you are proposing an apparently universal morality for one of the central principles of which there exists no form of a priori or a posteriori demonstration? What is a 'reason' if it is not logical? What do you understand to be the 'moral'?

"As a white person, against racism in all its guises, i feel obliged not to insult someone of any other race or color, just in case it is seen as racist because i know what the backlash will be. "

I agree. Why is it more serious for someone to call someone, for example a black b*stard than say a ginger t*sser? I mean they're both a matter of pigmentation at the end of the day!

RFJS__: "you are proposing an apparently universal morality for one of the central principles of which there exists no form of a priori or a posteriori demonstration?"

Yes, you read me correctly. Morality cannot be derived from facts. To go by facts alone it would apear that there is no place for free will. However that's how we live: as though there is such a thing as free will. That's the way it seems to work and I don't see any better alternative.

"What is a 'reason' if it is not logical?" -- yes, I'm using "reason" loosely here.

"What do you understand to be the 'moral'?" -- the way we live.

Psycorp603: "Why is it more serious for someone to call someone, for example a black b*stard than say a ginger t*sser?"

It has to do with who is seen as the underdog; impotent snapping is permitted, hounding the weak is bad form.

'Morality cannot be derived from facts.'

So the way in which we act in this world has no relation to the world in which we act? Suppose I ask the ethical question, 'Ought I to feed my cat, or ought I to let her starve?' In answering this question it is useful to note the fact that I have no cat.

Now this, I accept, is not a derivation of a rule from facts, but reference to facts in the application of a rule. However, I should be very interested to know how any morality could exist without reference to facts in its basis. Otherwise there would be no moral difference between the questions 'Ought one to feed one's dog?' (and I do have a dog) and 'Ought one to drscnggr one's eyscbrtjdz?' The former question gains not only its moral significance, but also its very meaningfulness, from the fact that it refers to something in the world. Suppose I ask why I ought to feed my dog; how could this be answered without reference to the fact of pain, or the fact that starvation leads to death, or to some other fact? How could a question about feeding dogs be answered without reference to any factual information about dogs? Imagine a parallel world in which there are animals called dogs, similar in some respects to our dogs but sufficiently different to die instantly when fed. A morality without reference to facts would have to give an answer to the question about feeding dogs that could apply to both worlds. I am curious to know what that answer would be.

'To go by facts alone it would apear that there is no place for free will.'

The will is as free as the possiblilites. The fact that there is a keyboard before me makes it possible for me freely to will that I shall type with it. The fact that there is no elephant in the vicinity makes it impossible for me to will that I shall feed the elephant. Even if there is a best course of action, capable of a priori or a posteriori demonstration, it is still entirely possible to will something other than what shown to be for the best.

'"What do you understand to be the 'moral'?" -- the way we live.'

So the word 'moral' as you use it is effectively meaningless, since every action is 'moral'. This is wildly divergent from standard usage of the word 'moral'. Do you really condone all actions?

Leaving the morality discussion alone for a minute - that's just way too deep for me on a Saturday night :

- One of the problems, I think, these days is that taking pride in something is very often interpreted as not just being 'for' that but at the same time implying that you are 'against' something else. Why can't being proud of your country/football club/kids/company department/whatever simply be taken as a positive? It's just like this rule has been invented that if you're proud of something, it's because you feel superior to those who don't. While unfortunately that is sometimes the case, I would like the right to be proud for something simply because you feel good about it to be reinstated.

- And the racist argument used whenever you argue just a little too hotly with somebody from a minority just p*****s me off. I've come across it blatantly once when a family who quite apparently wasn't originally from Denmark walked blindly into the bicycle path right in front of me and I had to crash stop in order to avoid parking my bike violently in the pram they had with them. I yelled something quite dramatic at them and they immediately told me that it was obviously because I was a racist. Well, I forced my self to tell them very, very calmly that I couldn't care less if they were blue, green or purple or if their ancestry was from one part of the world or another - if they wanted to keep their newborn safe and sound, pushing the pram out in front of a bike going 30 kilometers an hour was a very bad move and that if I yelled it was just out of shock.
To their credit they apologised - but I actually believe that until "they" and "we" and "all of us" agree that we're not equal until we can talk equally rudely to each other, tell equally bad jokes about each other etc etc, we're not equal.

So by all means go after the true racists with all might - but in normal daily interactions let common sense, common decency and standard good behaviour be the rule regardless of how you look and where you might originally be from.

I'm not pround of 'my' nation, because i don't feel part of one or know of any nation that represents me. I feel proud sometime of humans in general, and to be part of certain political and social movements that i too am a member of - but equally i'm aware that such ride is ultimately just an attempt at a little reflected glory (what did i contribute to their struggle, their acheivement) being proud of them kind of includes me in something i just wish i was worthy of.

That's very cheerful.

RFJS -- if you'd like to continue the moral argument, could I suggest the Philosophers' Guild thread F99908?thread=212558&post=4859325#p4859325 ?

This is an interesting question. Many people have come to the conclusion that morality, though it deals with facts, cannot be derived from statements of fact (you can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is').

Just for the moment, what about this statement: the facts of science are all compatible with a world without free will.

Well for a start there are no facts of science, only theories and hypotheses .

Define 'free will'. It seems a pretty meaningless phrase to me.

Point taken. Just to clarify, however, I accept that metaethics is not necessarily a product of a posteriori demonstration, but I maintain that normative ethics requires it. (To use a language analogy, a grammar could hypothetically exist in abstracto, but reference to things is necessary for words to be meaningful.) So a morality of this (or any other) world requires a posteriori support.

I go along with Wittgenstein A1024156 who said that ethical truths cannot be stated but only shown. The term "demonstrated" could fall either way -- which do you mean? If you mean "proved" I would find that problematic.

I've already questioned transcendental ethics.

A statement is not, on its own, a demonstration; the demonstration is what is given in support of a (true) statement. A showing has no truth-value; if I show someone a box, it is true _that_ I am showing that person a box, and it is true _that_ the box exists, but the act of showing itself is neither true nor false.

I'm basically referring to a priori logical truths ('(A & B) entails A' is a tautology, and its contrary a contradiction, whatever A and B happen to be, and whatever their truth values), and a posteriori reference to things in this world (e.g. the proposition 'There is a desk before me' is true if and only if there actually is a desk before me). That is, a proposition must, to be true, be true either by definition or contingently. A demonstration of the truth of a proposition must show that that proposition is a logical truth, or that it is empirically true, or that it follows logically from the truth of propositions that can be shown to be true in this fashion.