2008-04-21 - Yeah, I'm okay wit dat ...

[Forrest]

It lookes like you assumed that people only do bad things for themselves, and for benefits the short term.

In some sense, yes, since I take doing good to be, intrinsically, for the long-term benefit of everyone. However, I think your point may be that people sometimes do bad things for the benefit of some subset of 'everyone' which is not coextensive with (or even inclusive of) themselves; if so, then you have a point. However, I still consider that form of decision-making to be crazy.

But then, we've strayed a bit from my point. Is doing something bad necessarily insane? Do you really think it's unilaterally impossible to rationally choose to intentionally make someone else's life worse?

That was the point of my philosophical caveat. When we talk about "rationality" we're not usually talking just about observing strict formal logical relations, but about properly justifying our beliefs and actions; but there is an open question as to what constitutes "proper" justification. Espistemically, we have a general consensus, outside of a few fringe groups, that properly justified beliefs are justified by objective empirical observations - that is, grounded in the senses, but in no particular person's senses, rather in what is objectively sensible by anyone; and we call beliefs held contrary to such objective empiricism "irrational". Ethically, there is no consensus so broad as that which the scientific method has achieved in epistemology, but my particular take on it is that actions are justified by a sort of altruistic hedonism, analogous to the objective empiricism of the scientific method. If I am correct about that, then yes, intentionally making someone else's life worse is irrational and insane.

However, as I said, there is an open question as to whether altruistic hedonism really is the ultimate justification for actions - but there's also an open question as to whether objective empiricism is the ultimate justification for beliefs. Maybe our senses constantly lie, and the truth is imperceptible, or maybe my particular sensations are the only truth, and the world vanishes when I sleep or die; maybe pleasure leads us only into sin, and good comes from suffering, or maybe my own personal pleasure is all that matters. But those kinds of ideas lead to nihilism and solipsism; and I can't really say anything against those kinds of positions other than "that sounds crazy to me". Which is my point; we call someone crazy when they disagree with what we take to be the ultimate justifications for thoughts and actions, and we are correct in calling someone crazy when we are correct about what are those ultimate justifications. But how can we know if we are correct?

But backing up some: more generally, "doing something bad" is insane in the same sense that "believing something false" is insane. Mistakenly holding false beliefs despite your best efforts to hold true beliefs is not insane, but if your whole approach to deciding what to believe or not is completely out of whack with reality, then we call you crazy. Likewise, doing bad things despite your best efforts to do good is not insane, but if your whole approach to deciding what to do is completely out of whack with morality, then you're crazy. The remaining questions, then, are "how do we decide what is ultimately real?" and "how do we decide what is ultimately moral?". And that's the open question problem I was just talking about above.

(Postscript: the clinical psychological establishment seems to agree somewhat that not caring about others is mentally unhealthy; that's why we have a diagnosis of sociopathy).

[Boss Out of Town]

When I drove through IL a few years ago, there were all these signs up on the interstate that said we were being monitored via satellite and that if we were speeding, the space cops would know and send us a ticket in the mail. I never got one, and I was very much speeding at the time, so I figure it was a hollow threat or too hard to actually impliment, however it certainly was about as Big-Brothery as things can get without Orwellian muzak playing in the background.

Jeepers, I don't recall having seen those signs. Someone must have called their bluff. It's bad enough knowing they're taking your picture every time you pass a toll booth.

On the plus side, sort of, the federal prosecutor is gradually working his way towards throwing our second governor in a row in jail. If enough politicians and their evil henchman wind up behind bars, the rest may get the message . . . that we don't like them stealing from us!

[BloodHenge]

Likewise, doing bad things despite your best efforts to do good is not insane, but if your whole approach to deciding what to do is completely out of whack with morality, then you're crazy.

And this statement right here is what I take issue with. You're calling out "evil" (or whatever value-neutral term you choose to use for the concept) as a subset of "insanity", and I just don't see it. I admit that I haven't read your posts in full-- they're a little dense and I'm a little tired-- but it looks like you're just redefining words to turn your premise into a tautology.

(Postscript: the clinical psychological establishment seems to agree somewhat that not caring about others is mentally unhealthy; that's why we have a diagnosis of sociopathy).

Sociopathy is, as I understand, a neurological impairment or incapacity to empathize with other people, and is logically distinct from a conscious choice to place the welfare of one group or person ahead of another. Also, it is perfectly within the expected range of human behavior to conceptually divide the population of the world into an in-group ("us") and a collection of out-groups ("them"), and then completely disregard the well-being of out-groups.

[Forrest]

And this statement right here is what I take issue with. You're calling out "evil" (or whatever value-neutral term you choose to use for the concept) as a subset of "insanity", and I just don't see it. I admit that I haven't read your posts in full-- they're a little dense and I'm a little tired-- but it looks like you're just redefining words to turn your premise into a tautology.

All of analytic philosophy is basically a bunch of arguments over definitions of meanings. If by "insane" you mean something completely non-normative, something like "very atypical", without any connotations of atypicality being bad or something you should avoid, then sure, sanity and insanity have nothing to do with ethics. However, that does not seem to capture the meaning of the word "insane" as used by actual people; insane carries connotations of "not right in the head", and as soon as you're talking about right and wrong, you've entered philosophical grounds; and if you're talking about right or wrong in regard to behavior, you're on ethical grounds. So if you are "insane" inasmuch as you are inclined to behave in wrong ways, then you are also, analytically, "bad" or "evil" or "immoral" or some such normative ethical term.

Basically, our whole argument here is this: is there anything inherently wrong with being insane? Should or ought people rather be sane than insane? If yes, then sanity and insanity are tied up with ethics. If no, then they're not; but then I'd argue that you're using "insane" in a different way than that which people usually do, since in my opinion as an experienced English speaker, that word has normative connotations to it.

(Postscript: the clinical psychological establishment seems to agree somewhat that not caring about others is mentally unhealthy; that's why we have a diagnosis of sociopathy).

Sociopathy is, as I understand, a neurological impairment or incapacity to empathize with other people

And it's classed as a disorder, that is, it is held to be unhealthy, a malfunction, something wrong with you. You should not be a sociopath, according to the psychological establishment -- and I think most people will agree with them.

[mindstalk]

And this statement right here is what I take issue with. You're calling out "evil" (or whatever value-neutral term you choose to use for the concept) as a subset of "insanity", and I just don't see it. I admit that I haven't read your posts in full-- they're a little dense and I'm a little tired-- but it looks like you're just redefining words to turn your premise into a tautology.

All of analytic philosophy is basically a bunch of arguments over definitions of meanings. If by "insane" you mean something completely non-normative, something like "very atypical", without any connotations of atypicality being bad or something you should avoid, then sure, sanity and insanity have nothing to do with ethics. However, that does not seem to capture the meaning of the word "insane" as used by actual people; insane carries connotations of "not right in the head", and as soon as you're talking about right and wrong, you've entered philosophical grounds; and if you're talking about right or wrong in regard to behavior, you're on ethical grounds. So if you are "insane" inasmuch as you are inclined to behave in wrong ways, then you are also, analytically, "bad" or "evil" or "immoral" or some such normative ethical term.

I think your analysis goes astray right there. 'right' is a very broad word, and "not right in the head" isn't the same as being "ethically wrong". The not-rightness of insanity need not be the not-rightness of evil behavior. My answers to a test can be right or wrong without being philosophical or ethical.

And, yeah, sociopaths might be medicalized at the moment, but atrocities on outgroups is normal behavior for humans. Or chimps. Genuine global altruism might be as atypical as sociopathy... but it doesn't bother the rest of us (unless they get too preachy) so it's not insane. Or not as insane; find someone who's giving their wealth away and I'll find someone whose reaction will be "that's insane!" But not dangerously insane, like waving a machete around. And in Christian and Hindu/Buddhist traditions we have an idea that such behavior is actually sacred and admirable, though some people will call it insane anyway. Unhealthy, even.

[runic]

actually, reaching back into my psych 101 class psychology is broken down into schools of thought as to how best are problems originating in the mind dealt with. while psychology itself is not philosophical in and of itself, being the study of the human mind / human behavior the seperate schools of thought were very specifically remarked upon as being different philosophies. I mean you do not get very far into the attempt of rehabilitating someone without suddenly having fundamental questions about what it is that you are supposed to be working towards rear their ugly heads. and different people have very different ideas as to what that is as well as methodology.

hell, if you look at the timeline of these schools of thought, you can see visible signs of it evolving as time moves on and becoming a somewhat respectable field as new ideas came into being and the people being trained as the next generation in the field had different views from those before it. not saying that society generates these schools of thought and that they are reflections of society, just that when you don't grow up thinking that homosexuality is an illness of the mind that new concepts are able to find their genesis.

[Forrest]

I think your analysis goes astray right there. 'right' is a very broad word, and "not right in the head" isn't the same as being "ethically wrong". The not-rightness of insanity need not be the not-rightness of evil behavior.

I agree; "right" can sometimes mean "true" and sometimes mean "good". That is why I specified (earlier) a distinction between cognitive and behavioral "not-right-in-the-head-ness", to correspond to epistemological rightness (concerned with truth) and ethical rightness (concerned with goodness).

Our debate here is concerned with behavioral insanity, with people doing things, or wanting to do things, in a way which we deem "bad", "wrong", "unhealthy", "irrational", etc, so that's what we've been talking about. But I'm not saying "insane = immoral", I'm saying "insane = immoral OR (for lack of a better term) irreal", where by "irreal" I mean something like "disregarding of reality" in the same way that immoral means "disregarding of morality". A nonviolent schizophrenic who just talks nonsense to people who don't actually exist is insane, but only in a cognitive way. Heck, even a violent schizophrenic is probably only cognitively insane, and acting violently on the basis of unjustified beliefs (e.g. that he is being attacked) rather than unjustified desires (e.g. to hurt people just for fun).

My answers to a test can be right or wrong without being philosophical or ethical.

Without being ethical, certainly, but inasmuch as a right answer means a true answer, there are philosophical questions concerning the nature of truth and how it may be discerned from falsehood. I suspect that if I were to honestly answer the questions on the final exam of a Catholic school's theology class, I would get a horrible grade on the exam, but my answers would still be right, from my philosophical paradigm... and if the professor wanted to argue about that, then hey, we'd be doing philosophy. Or, conversely, a fundamentalist taking a biology exam honestly might get bad marks for disputing the theory of evolution, but from the viewpoint of his philosophical paradigm he would be giving right answers, and if the professor cared to argue with him, they would end up having a philosophical argument about the merits of revelation versus science.

Philosophy is the "first science", in the older sense of "science" meaning any academic discipline or field of study. No matter what your question is, arguments over what is the correct answer ultimately become philosophical arguments, unless you've already got a broad philosophical agreement between the two parties and are just arguing over minor contingent details (e.g. two physicists may disagree about which of two competing theories is correct, but they'll both strongly agree on how to determine which of them is right).

[Slamlander]

WOW! I go away for a few days and look what happens.

Long winded spiel that I couldn't be bothered to quote

Aside from the issue that it made my eyes cross three times, that was good, if a bit convoluted. I am not making a value-judgment here. Rather, I'm talking about the skill that the argument required. That said, there are bits that I don't agree with.

Moral relativism is easily confounded.

Actually, I take issue with that as a core principle. There is no moral rectitude. I have seen too much evil perpetrated by the morally [in]correct. Remember, Hitler didn't think he was an evil man and even thought that he was doing good in the world. No, spare me the morally righteous. So, if you are going to say that there is no moral relativism then you are going to have to prove it.

As it harms no other, do as you will.

The above is an ethical argument/standard and they are arrived at by consensus agreement. The moral argument is irrelevant. Do not confuse morals with ethics. We are speaking of Angels and pin heads here.

Forrest: The only good/bad value-judgments are moral ones. You've lost sight of that. Our societal code of ethics generally follows the Wiccan one. To some extent, the Celtic Empire won (the other empire v. Rome). Ethically, the Roman empire was almost completely anarchic, which is why Christianity did well there.

[BloodHenge]

I think your analysis goes astray right there. 'right' is a very broad word, and "not right in the head" isn't the same as being "ethically wrong". The not-rightness of insanity need not be the not-rightness of evil behavior.

I agree; "right" can sometimes mean "true" and sometimes mean "good". That is why I specified (earlier) a distinction between cognitive and behavioral "not-right-in-the-head-ness", to correspond to epistemological rightness (concerned with truth) and ethical rightness (concerned with goodness).

Our debate here is concerned with behavioral insanity, with people doing things, or wanting to do things, in a way which we deem "bad", "wrong", "unhealthy", "irrational", etc, so that's what we've been talking about. But I'm not saying "insane = immoral", I'm saying "insane = immoral OR (for lack of a better term) irreal", where by "irreal" I mean something like "disregarding of reality" in the same way that immoral means "disregarding of morality". A nonviolent schizophrenic who just talks nonsense to people who don't actually exist is insane, but only in a cognitive way. Heck, even a violent schizophrenic is probably only cognitively insane, and acting violently on the basis of unjustified beliefs (e.g. that he is being attacked) rather than unjustified desires (e.g. to hurt people just for fun).

So basically, all this boils down to "evil people do evil things"?

[Forrest]

Actually, I take issue with that as a core principle. There is no moral rectitude. I have seen too much evil perpetrated by the morally [in]correct. Remember, Hitler didn't think he was an evil man and even thought that he was doing good in the world. No, spare me the morally righteous. So, if you are going to say that there is no moral relativism then you are going to have to prove it.

The logical consequence of taking such a hands-off approach, of never being "morally righteous" as you put it, is allowing those who would impose their misguided ideas about morality on others to do so. Moral relativism is tantamount to moral nihilism; if there's no objective right and wrong, who are you to say that Hitler was evil and should not have done what he did, or should have been stopped as he was? Or in general, that people should not impose their morality on others, or they should live and let live? "Live and let live" is not moral relativism but liberalism (in the classical sense), which is a form of universalism, the opposite of relativism. There is no moral relativism -- everyone who claims to be a relativist turns out to be either a nihilist or a liberal in the end.

The above is an ethical argument/standard and they are arrived at by consensus agreement. The moral argument is irrelevant. Do not confuse morals with ethics. We are speaking of Angels and pin heads here.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here, and also, I'd like to know what exactly you mean by "morals" and "ethics" and how you think I might be confusing them, because your warning not to confuse them confuses me. As I understand the terms, ethics is the field of study concerned with moral questions -- what is there to be confused about there?

Forrest: The only good/bad value-judgments are moral ones. You've lost sight of that.

No... that's kind of my whole point. If a judgement of "insanity" has normative (good/bad) connotations, as they often seem to, then it is a moral judgement.

Our societal code of ethics generally follows the Wiccan one. To some extent, the Celtic Empire won (the other empire v. Rome). Ethically, the Roman empire was almost completely anarchic, which is why Christianity did well there.

I'm not so sure that "our" societal code (whose? we're in different countries) really follows the Wiccan live-and-let-live philosophy so much; here in America at least, we've still got plenty of religious moralists who are heavily concerned with what people are doing with, to, and by themselves only. Also, I'm not sure how you're contrasting anarchism with liberal or Wiccan ethics and comparing it to Christianity; it seems rather that the opposite would be more appropriate. "Do as thou wilt if it harms none" is pretty much the essence of anarchy, and "do as this guy with an old book says" is pretty much its antithesis...

So basically, all this boils down to "evil people do evil things"?

No, it's "evil is a form of insanity". That is, that being disposed to judge bad things as good is comparable to being disposed to judge false things as true, and insanity is any such disposition toward incorrect judgements. Of course, insanity comes in degrees, so if we want to label people into dual categories of "sane" and "insane", only those who are quite strongly disposed thusly will get the "insane" label, and the rest of us who are only slightly disposed toward such misjudgements get to call ourselves sane, even though we're all a little crazy sometimes.