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

Hi Bluebird,

We are in Sarasota, shamelessly happy, empty-headed and generally unconcerned with things we can't change. A typical day:
- Breakfast
- Two hours of doubles tennis
- 30 minutes on the treadmill
- A soak in the hot tub
- A long nap
- grinding rocks for grandchildren's jewelry
- Two more hours of tennis
- Lounge by the pool and read a couple of novels
- Karaoke contest (I sing "Your Daddy's rich and your momma's goo-looking"
- Dinner

The Europe trip will start about April 29...After we get back we plan to visit Alaska again, this time taking our home along...

Hi AlsoRan. Didn't mean to insinuate that you were a dinosaur! I just used the metaphor because Asteroid Lil said she'd studied in the dinosaur era - which I guess makes her older than you.

I think it was a bad idea to give an example because then people get hung up on the details. That's why I rephrased with a simple question: if a dozen people have a dozen different ethical approaches to a situation, who decides which is right?

This is a realistic question when you consider the various outlooks fostered by the many cultures and ethnicities in the world. Sort of the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" effect. Relative morality. Doesn't it exist?

Hi Leo,

Lovely questions!. Thank you.

Poor Lil. I am sure she is far younger than I am!

I was very much involved in the question

"One wo/man's terrorist is another wo/man's freedom fighter"

In South Africa, where I was born, and subsequently lived from the period 1970-1991 that was the situation for the majority of the residents.

I assumed (never assume in social research!!) that if one was against apartheid, one's motives were, de facto, morally ethical and correct and similar if not identical.

I soon learnt that this was not always the case.

My solution therefore was to study and try and understand those who believed totally that apartheid was the one and only answer to the
social situation in South Africa. This country, with it's mixture of different nationalities and "rainbow-coloured" (the term first used by Archbishop Desmond Tutu) people was proving to be a very hard "nut" to crack. The reasons given by those born in South Africa for the retention/dismantling of apartheid were not always those which I, from my chosen philosophical (phenomenological)approach,believed everone espoused. I once more have used a word "born" deliberately, because initially this was believed to be a social situation specific to this area of the African continent

Therefore I chose to pursue all my post graduate studies at the University where the "architects" ( I would prefer to use the word planners but that would be emotive) of apartheid had studied and developed this ideology.

Once again my use of the word "ideology" is deliberate and is the word that I first heard when studying at this particular University. It was at this University that the ideology of apartheid was thought through and developed. I was fortunate enough to study under two profoundly intellectural Afrikaaner thinkers who unbeknown to me, were critics of apartheid. It was they who taught me to think for myself, and to question my beliefs before I could begin to understand and therefore earned the right to comment on why South Africans believed in apartheid.

I believe that it was when I accepted that this word could be applied to Apartheid that I first began to think about/study/read question my own ethical beliefs and values.

I hope that this is the beginning of a discussion which will prove to be a reason for our mutual intellectual growth. I appreciate your taking the time to "challenge" someone old enough to be your grandmother. There is nothing as guaranteed to make one feel useless and futile and probably "dinosaur-like" than to have one's ideas dismissed out-of- hand as belonging to that of another age.

There is an expression in French

"Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose"

(I, unfortunately, do not have a keyboard which is able to print the correct accents etc.!!)

I believe that this idiomatic French expression to be the case.

Enough for the moment.

AlsoRan1

<"Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose">

The more things change, the more they remain the same?

Leo, the philosopy you outline is possibly logical correct...if twelve people look at the same ethical question and come to twelve different answers, how is it possible to discern the correct answer? How can one choice be better than another?

However, I must dissent, since my old dinosaur dogtags tell my bloodtype and religion of choice (Existentialist). Therefore, I choose to believe instead that it is important for people to act as if they think individual ethical choices make a difference and help define the nature of mankind. Our behavior should reflect what we would like mankind to be, in other words.

If we were to believe all choice were equal, as you suggest, then the ethical choices of putting people in ovens or helping to eradicate malaria would be equally correct indivual choices about how to behave. Infanticide for all female infants would rank right up there with donating a kidney or saving a child from drowning.

Christiane, I greatly enjoyed your recounting of your university experiences. I'd like to hear more.

Fascinating, AlsoRan. I don't think ideas can be dated. (Well, usually not, anyway.) Only technology. Since you're up to date on the Web access, there's nothing to stop a free and equal exchange of ideas, and who cares how old they are?

Phred, what you describe is a very personal approach to ethics. The problem is that so many people have different visions for the human race.

And if all choices aren't equal, who's going to rank them?

I'm not attacking you, Leo, just having an argument. Phred, if this is the wrong room for an argument, please say so and I'll invite Leo, Xantief et al back to my space to carry on.

And Leo, I did presume that you are defending Kohlberg's ideas, hence my debate approach.

I took my degree in the early 70's and the department was heavily slanted toward analytical stuff -- Wittgentstein (TLP), Hintikka, Quine, other logicians. I never heard about Kohlberg. I don't think the fiercer logician professors were ever comfortable with the ultimate rational for an ethical decision -- "because it's right."

Which is what all three of your hypothetical decision-makers would say, right? Absolutely convinced of it. And who, you ask, is to say which of them really is right?

(I think we used to call this situational ethics...)

I would answer by looking to larger interests. Who benefits from the decision besides (you should forgive the phrase) the decider? And, where two or more groups benefit to the detriment of each other, you have to fall back to the ethical underpinnings of ~their~ benefit. For stockholders the benefit is increased wealth. For drivers, it's life.

If this is situational ethics, then decisions are case by case, and they are usually a little harder to decide (I think) than this one. Sophie's choice comes to mind.

Leo, I think we all have to make and rank our own choices...and although it pains me to say it, my choices are usually on target...once I was driving down the street and saw a large young muscular man strike a woman with great force causing her head to strike the concrete with a melon-popping thud...choices raced though my mind...What would Captain Jack Armstrong do, I asked myself...I drove my MG up on the sidewalk, cutting off his escape and told him to wait for the police..he quietly complied and begged me to let him pass since she "had it coming"...When the police arrived, they apologetically informed me that the woman would not press charges "because she loved him"...anyway, who makes the choice? You do, of course..and after talking to you for a couple of years, I think I would trust your decision, if not your philosopy professor...

Lil,

I love a good argument...In case you didn't notice, post 1 is barely removed from trolling...

Phred

To Phred/Firecloud: if you scroll back to the first ( what ever) on this thread YOU started with a list of timely problems. I only tried to correct a misspell in typing: Gobal Warming vs. Gobal Warning.

So much for my response to your entry of: "Is it me?"

Happy to read about your wonderful time schedule in your retirement as you tell us what's and how is doing in Sarasota, FL.

Since long time we know about the adventage of "look the other way", don't let yourself be bothered with the problems of the World. They are not yours.
Close your eyes, close your ears, shut your mouth and next go to an island where nobody is, was or will be ONLY YOU!

Perhaps that place is not even on this Planet Earth. Yeah, they are working on it! It is about time! Let us know when you get there!

In the same time little me being a bird I can see from a long distance what the Earthy Creatures are doing down there as I can fly well above the ground!
If you go to Alaska again perhaps you could send us a report about the Polar Bears having more sense than the humans. OK? Perhaps the humans could learn something from those animals. Though I must admit: with human arrogance there is not much chance.

Truly typing get's you and me in trouble: GLOBAL WARMING
vs GLOBAL WARNING. C O R R E C T I O N! Bluebird
Pity one letter makes a big difference. ( This is English to learn)

Sounds good to me, Phred, but that doesn't resolve the conflict that set me off. Lil said the Evangelicism in the White House was immoral, and that atheists can be moral too.

Upon this point I challenge that it's a little hard to point fingers and say 'moral' 'immoral' when there is no objective morality.

It isn't philosophy, it's literary criticism, btw. But literary criticism follows the latest in philosophy, and I'm finding it all very intriguing. It places conceptual labels on vague impressions. Like, I understand relative morality, but it's interesting to see it posed as the philosophy of a new era, and contrasted to the last one. Dinosaurs or not, you guys are apparently of a different era. tut. Imagine believing in objective morality...

That said, I commend you for interfering. The world needs more people like that.

Hi Leo,

Perhaps I should not have used the word philosophy Schutz called it a commonsense methodology, and the whole essence of his "methodology" was that phenomenology should not "prescribe" how to deal with a social situation but simply to "describe" it.That is the reason why Parsons - a positivist- and other theorists who come from the direction of economics/religious/nationalist and other backgrounds feel that phenomenology is rather a wooly concept. I must say that in my experience it is the only non-combative methodology and does allow people from widely differing conceptual approaches to be able to talk to one another thereby sharing ideas.

However Schutz had several important caveats. The principal one of which was to be one had to explain /describe one's "situational relevance." i.e. where one was coming from.

Obviously each of us have different "situational relevances(backgrounds)" so it is important to be able to state one's background, age, gender etc. so that those reading it can judge/assess whether the phenomenologist and oneself have any relevances which may make one share whatever social ideas one has due to one's situational relevance.

Schutz also felt that an important concept to explore was one's motive. It is vital however to realise that he identified two "motivational relevances". One was the "in-order-to" motive (or overt motive.) The second one was the "because" motive or "covert motive".

Very often the person assessing the social situation does not realise what his/her covert motive is. I truly believe that unless any comments on a social situation are made with the social researcher/methodologist/philosopher being able to correlate both their "in-order-to" and "because" motives, no solution or meeting of minds will ever occur. Which is probably the reason why so many people denigrate phenomenology. (This is a sceptical remark!!)

However I am fortunate in having had my particular philosophical/methodolocial approach accepted when I was working in South Africa.

Describe v Prescribe

I believe that journalists.writers, historians, researchers, politicians, philosophers. (even Existentialists Phred!!) describe a situation. It is when one wants to impose/enforce a particular point of view that ones' argument becomes an ideology and is no longer in the realm of creative thinking or philosophy.

Therefore one's work has been transformed from a "description to a a "prescription" = with all the attendant problems of imposition/coercion etc.

I wonder if I have explained this clearly? I hope so.

Strangely enough I am writing this at the end of the day when I am normally dead beat and my brain has moved either into reverse or has stopped functioning. Hopefully the oysters I had yesterday have done their work and I am able to give you a reasonable explication. So if you have not understood my argumentation please forgive me and I shall try and do better next time. If you wish to have a next time.!!

sincerely,

Christiane AR1

I don't believe in objective morality...unless the voices in my head are considered objective...just consider me a fundamentalist existentialist...my voices are just better than other people's voices...or at least they sound louder...

I do understand your basic point you make that ethical choices present problems even for a given person when conflicting "good" or "bad" things are involved. Current examples:
- gay marraige
- Hiroshima
- abortion
- stem cell research
- Iraq

Hi Christiane,

Love that approach...

OK voices...QUIET! I can't hear myself think...

Hi Phred.

You ask great questions,

Gay marriage - I find that difficult. Why can't two people just live together as companions.? Marriage surely is a relationship between two different genders. i.e. a male and a female. Sometimes for companionship, sometimes in order ro raise a family.

Hiroshima - I was at an Accountancy lecture at Rhodes University when my then boyfriend came into the lecture room to tell us that an atomic bomb had been dropped over Hiroshima.
a. I did not know what an atom bomb was - but I burst into tears just "knowing" that something "dreadful" had happened.
b. On the other hand I think that the only chance we have of not continuing to cause "global warming" is if we obtain our energy through nuclear power. I think of Alfred Nobel who discovered gunpowder and then thought of donating the Nobel Peace Prize. Gunpowder has done a lot of "good" in enabling us to harness a lot of energy from fossil fuels. When these run out - unfortunately with us polluting the planet, man's intellect has provided nuclear power which must be used as cicumspectly as Nobel's gunpowder was used - was it due to the Peace Prize. Should we conceive of another Nuclear prize?

Abortion A dreadful choice for any woman. I worry about the duplicity of various religions when they advocate the "safe" period yet abhor contraceiption.

Stem Cell Research. Surely one of the most wonderful break throughs of modern science. That every placenta contains the stemcells which can help poor diseased human bodies to rejuvenate their ill bodies. But it must not be practised on foetuses no matter at what age.
One of the most significant differences between humans and the animal kingdom are that mothers eat the afterbirth of their offspring. Perhaps that is how one produces the stemcells which help one to "mend" our broken bodies. Who knows?

Iraq Whilst a student at UCT in 1974 (I think it was ) I went to a lecture given by the visiting Head of Eton college. His talk was on the Kurds and the dreadful persecution they suffered. I had never(to my chagrin) heard of Iraq, nor of the Kurds. I was however desolated by his talk and my husband and I went and had a long talk to him.
Iraq has bothered me, but there are a lot of things in the Middle East that bother me. As I have said in some previous writings I do not believe that wars and killing solve anything.. But on the other hand is it possible to stand by and watch injustice and oppression?
That is why I proclaim my religion, so that everyone can know that my talk and ideas are shaped by my Faith and my situational relevance, The reader,therefore, can judge whether they agree with their ethical values. They can also wnderstand whether Particularly do my overt ad covert motives aim for the avowed goal. Or am I hypocritical?.


But if no-one knows my age,gender, religious affilitiation, nationality, economic status, the person who is reading my views cannot know how these "situational relevances" have affected my judgement. If I lay them on the table, my ideas can be as "objective" as my "situational relevance" allows me to be.

Therefore my ideas will probably differ radically from someone who is in a totally different situational relevance as I - but on the other hand, like the various members of Hootoo, many of us will find common ground between us who would probably be unable to find it in any other way = except on the Broadband which unites us all.

That is why I think that the greatest phenomenologist that I know is probably our founder

Douglas Adams
.
What do you think?

CME AR1

Forgive the eroors - I am really now practically asleep and unable to edit this sensibly.

I think you're all writing such interesting stuff. Last night I began to compose a post harking back to something Leo had said about my calling the current administration evangelicals immoral: I wanted to define a stand that would dissociate morality from religion.

But it was late and I thought I sounded too sonorous, so I let the pixels dissolve back into the ether and went to bed.

This morning I find this in the online New York Times:



Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.
Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists’ bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them. ...

Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Hi Christiane,

I also remember a sociology professor from long ago who influenced my thinking... I took as many of his courses as I could...he was great at the Socratic method...he would throw out a question at the beginning of the period and turn your thinking on end about strange things...Is heroin worse than alcohol and that kind of thing... he was a strange red-haired Doctor of Philosphy from Mississipi... the Florida legislature investigated our faculty often then for Communistic leanings...It was the first all-new four year Univerity in some time... all new faculty and no graduate teaching assistants...

and Lil, it's interesting that monkeys show ethical behaviors... nature or nurture? I've read that somewhere that male elephants brought up without a mother behave badly toward other elephants...

People are complex, so I'm not sure that having their stats is a reliable way to predict their ethical choices, but it would probably help...

Personal Stats:
Ethnicity: Irish-American
Education Level : Seven years after high school
Religion: Catholic turned Existentialist
Gender: Male
Economic Status: Born poor, retired more comfortably
Age: 63
Political Party: Green

Thanks for both your thoughts...an interesting thread...

Personal Stats:
Ethnicity: Irish-American
Education Level : B.A. II(i) Phil, one year of grad school, B.H.S.A.I. (from a different school), and assorted ongoing courses in art and computer languages
Religion: Assorted Protestant turned Quaker, punctuated with experiments in Eastern religions during the Sixties
Gender: Female
Economic Status: Extremely assorted, currently self-employed
Age: 58
Political Party: Democratic

Personal Stats:
Ethnicity: Scots/Irish, English American
Education: BS in Education Taught first grade and substituted for several years. Worked in Social Services at the local nursing home. Clerked in a grocery store locally as well. (I wanted to be able to go to school affairs when my children were involved.)
Religion: Methodist.
Gender: Female
Economic Status: Comfortably retired
Age: 66
Political Party: Democratic