Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

nba news — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:07:40 -0000

Thank you i was looking for something like this

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Færless — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 05:52:23 -0000

Thanks

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Clyde Mays, Jr. — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:01:50 -0000

Something we can all gree on there, Micha.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:16:42 -0000

It's an irrational addiction, Clyde.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Clyde Mays, Jr. — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:45:20 -0000

Aren't you guys sick of this yet?

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:32:19 -0000

Micha,

Again, who belongs in the ingroup involves reasoning and facts about rights and capacities.

You can't cause "harm" to a rock, because a rock has no preferences. (Comment #46) "The environment" is also an abstraction without sentience and preferences.

See Comment #68 for animals.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Micha Ghertner — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:58:40 -0000

This is not the definition of ‘morality’ in any society, it’s the definition of ’selfishness’, or ‘immorality’ if it means hurting others. The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

Again, this just begs the question: which entities count as "others" worthy of consideration? Can we cause harm to non-human animals for our own benefit and still be moral? Insects? Plants? Rocks? The environment in general?

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:23:27 -0000

Comment #52. What differs drastically are the facts known to people. The underlying cognition of human moral motivations is entirely similar.

I don't know of any time and place where a motivation of causing more harm was considered 'good' by local standards. In many instances harm is and has always been (often tragically) caused in perceived service of a greater prevention of harm.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Caledonian — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:13:05 -0000

Standards of right and proper conduct vary rather drastically from person to person and from culture to culture. Insisting that the only way to be moral is to try to avoid causing harm to people is short-sighted. There have been many, many times and places in which avoiding causing harm would be the wrong and improper thing to do by the local standards.

I think we're through, here.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Sun, 11 May 2008 13:10:26 -0000

Caledonian, you don't get much philosophy from a dictionary. Those entries don't contradict me, and neither do they clarify much at all. In the dictionary link 'morality' is defined as being 'moral' which is defined as "principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong". 'Right' is then defined as 'good', and then 'good' is defined as 'moral'! The dictionary gives you a circle of synonyms and assumes you can take from there.

Wikipedia, which does dissect the concept says: Generally speaking, morals are basic guidelines for behavior intended to reduce suffering in living populations.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Caledonian — Sun, 11 May 2008 10:00:19 -0000

The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

That is not what the word means. Please see this, this, and this.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:21:10 -0000

peco,

if psychopaths take over the world and kill all other humans, does it change objective morality?

Read comment #52. Yes, it wouldn't "change" it, it gets rid of it.

More specifically, psychopaths, as intelligent, selfish actors would still use reciprocity, which provides a basis for cooperative behavior even between entirely self-interested agents ('you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours', 'mutually assured destruction', etc). But they wouldn't have the capacities which characterize the moral concept: fairness, empathy, altruism.

Micha,

The racist can make the following argument: All else being equal, satisfaction of one’s preferences, even aesthetic preferences, is a moral good.

See comment #52 and #72. This is not the definition of 'morality' in any society, it's the definition of 'selfishness', or 'immorality' if it means hurting others. The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

Because all of these arguments (Kant’s Universalizability, Mill’s Harm Principle, Spencer’s Law of Equal Liberty), while plausible and to various degrees persuasive, are not objectively provable through facts or logic.

What do you think we're trying to prove with facts and logic? I'm trying to prove facts about humans. And, in fact, the success of those civil rights movements and the proven persuasiveness of the ethical arguments you list, among other things, do indeed demonstrate factual truths about human morality: it is altruistic. Human beings selflessly desire the well being of others when those others are perceived as the "ingroup".

Your racist argues that black appearance justifies unfairness, but there is ample reason to believe that is not the genuine source of his mistreatment. The same history would have created the same outcomes if the skin colors were reversed. Historical circumstances created an unfair arrangement which was then necessarily justified and maintained with false facts to appease the moral instincts.

The civil rights movement provided the images and arguments that contradicted the false facts. If outgroup status was justified by false claims about the humanity and capacities of blacks, the images of dogs attacking the defenseless, and reasoned black pleas for empathy and equal treatment were indeed factual rejoinders to those justifications.

Comment #68 deals with this further, as does Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle. Who belongs in the ingroup involves reasoning and facts (mediated by emotions) about rights and capacities.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

peco — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:03:40 -0000

Jason:

I don't think what you are saying about morality and biology is correct.

One question: if psychopaths take over the world and kill all other humans, does it change objective morality?

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:11:55 -0000

The racist can hate but cannot hate because it is ‘good’.

The racist can make the following argument:

All else being equal, satisfaction of one's preferences, even aesthetic preferences, is a moral good.

But preference satisfaction of this sort is only good if it doesn't require committing a moral bad in the process.

Until we establish that racism is a moral bad, the default position is that racism, as preference satisfaction, is a moral good.

We have not yet established that racism is a moral bad.

Therefore, racism is a moral good.

We learn from this argument that the burden of proof is on the non-racist to demonstrate how racism is a moral bad, and not on the racist to prove that racism is a moral good.

These arguments are well known and were very common during the 20th century, why do I need to retread them here?

Because all of these arguments (Kant's Universalizability, Mill's Harm Principle, Spencer's Law of Equal Liberty), while plausible and to various degrees persuasive, are not objectively provable through facts or logic.

Powerless groups were able to gain rights, not by force of might but by appealing to the moral instincts of the dominant groups with honed logic and superior facts.

Appeals to empathy are not factual or logical, but emotional. That doesn't make them any less valuable or important, but it does make them less persuasive to people who don't happen to have a strong sense of empathy for whatever reason.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Caledonian — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:50:48 -0000

It directly contradicts logical and biological notions of fairness.

Um, rape is a very common biologically-derived behavior, common all across the animal kingdom. And that's because it 'works'.

You claim that certain conclusions follow logically from certain premises. Okay, fine: now justify those premises.

You're just repeating them at us as through doing so would make them objective facts.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:17:27 -0000

Micha,

Perhaps racism or misogyny is simply an aesthetic preference.

Indeed, this is a common and unpersuasive racist argument without any moral meat whatsoever. It directly contradicts logical and biological notions of fairness. The racist argument certainly has no relationship with the necessary definition of morality. The racist can hate but cannot hate because it is 'good'.

In what sense is racism or mysoginy “unreasonable” if you’ve presented no factual (i.e. reasoned) basis for equality?

These arguments are well known and were very common during the 20th century, why do I need to retread them here? Powerless groups were able to gain rights, not by force of might but by appealing to the moral instincts of the dominant groups with honed logic and superior facts.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:50:24 -0000

Peco, I don't consider these particularly difficult questions. I should emphasize though, that I don't see how any of this has much to do with the arguments I've made about the objectivity of ethical answers. This is kind of a tangent, but since you addressed me I'm answering to be polite.

Should they be treated as non-human for moral purposes?

"Treated as non-human" is a loaded phrase. I do not, for instance, believe psychopaths should lose rights, nor do I believe they should be given any more license to cause harm. But we can certainly think differently about their actions for similar reasons that we don't believe a man-eating tiger or a volcano are 'immoral'. That's about as far as that goes.

If psychopaths are morally treated like tigers, does that mean that anyone who disagrees with specific (reasonable) moral principles is a moral tiger?

No, there is a large difference between poor reasoning or factual incorrectness and psychopathy. If people with normal moral capacities deny the importance or existence of these capacities, they still have them.

If the FLDS people are moral tigers, how can you say what they do is wrong?

No one has provided any evidence that the FLDS is composed of psychopaths, and it is highly unlikely. But if true then moral judgment specifically would be difficult. *shrug*

Do you believe this is damaging to something I've argued here?

If there is a large group of moral tigers, are normal humans moral tigers to them?

The premise is that they don't have moral capacities and we do, so no. It is an inside morals looking out description.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:18:49 -0000

In what sense is it “reasonable” if you’ve presented no factual (i.e. reasoned) basis for the moral distinction?

The burden of proof isn't on the racist or misogynist, at least no more so than it is on the egalitarian. Perhaps racism or misogyny is simply an aesthetic preference. Selfishness needs no justification; it seems to be the default case.

In what sense is racism or mysoginy “unreasonable” if you’ve presented no factual (i.e. reasoned) basis for equality?

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

peco — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:44:41 -0000

Then what happens if a significant, powerful subgroup of humans lack some parts of normal morals? Should they be treated as non-human for moral purposes? If they had normal morals, but they could only kill humans, and they killed all normal humans, would what they did be wrong?

If psychopaths are morally treated like tigers, does that mean that anyone who disagrees with specific (reasonable) moral principles is a moral tiger? If the FLDS people are moral tigers, how can you say what they do is wrong?

If there is a large group of moral tigers, are normal humans moral tigers to them?

Obviously I don't have that many questions, but I think my questions will be hard to answer.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:44:20 -0000

How does it have a biologically rooted meaning?

Because people in every culture understand 'good' to mean something more than just reciprocity (where the powerful hurting the powerless would not be 'wrong') and including concepts like 'fairness' that recognize exploitation as a wrong.

... but you could also say that you don’t prefer doing good things.

Absolutely. People can certainly do this can't they. What I have argued is that they can't redefine 'good' to mean something it doesn't inherently mean.

Do all humans know it? If not, should the humans who don’t be treated (morally) like tigers or wolves

Seems about right, if metaphysical. Psychopaths do indeed appear to lack normal genetic moral instincts.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

peco — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:09:05 -0000

No, you obviously can’t! In what sense is it “reasonable” if you’ve presented no factual (i.e. reasoned) basis for the moral distinction? ‘Good’ has a coherent, biologically rooted meaning, and any justification based on facts will not be consistent with that meaning.

How does it have a biologically rooted meaning? If it is because humans prefer certain things not to be done to them, you could say that satisfying preferences is bad. "People wouldn't like that" just begs the question. If it is because humans prefer doing "good" things, you could use the same argument, but you could also say that you don't prefer doing good things.

pan-psychological human knowledge

Do all humans know it? If not, should the humans who don't be treated (morally) like tigers or wolves ("we will stop you if you do something we don't like, but we don't think it's morally wrong for you to do it").

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:41:41 -0000

Whatever evidence or logic you present me with, can I still not reasonably say, “Sorry, men are just more important than woman, whites are just more important than blacks.”

No, you obviously can't! In what sense is it "reasonable" if you've presented no factual (i.e. reasoned) basis for the moral distinction? 'Good' has a coherent, biologically rooted meaning, and any justification based on facts will not be consistent with that meaning.

Are you referring to any facts here other than common usage?

'Common usage' is a faulty way to put it. See comment #52; we're not talking about the Merriam-Webster College English Dictionary definition of a word but the pan-psychological human knowledge of a concept. Without the biologically rooted concept there would be nothing to put a word to.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Caledonian — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:09:12 -0000

That's precisely why determining whether the beliefs are functional, rather than "good" or "bad" - is so important.

One can be right or wrong objectively, but good and bad are only subjective.

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:06:37 -0000

As soon as he defines morality as “causing others pain for my own amusement” he is necessarily automatically defining something else entirely. The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

The concept of morality does not contain with in itself instructions for which sort of creatures deserve equal respect.

This is irrelevant to the objectivity of morality, since the same thing can be said for factual issues in general. If he wants to say/believe the moon is made of bacon, there is absolutely nothing I can do to “make” him change his mind except present evidence and logic that refute his claim.

If I say I believe the moon is made of bacon, you can present me with evidence and logic and hopefully convince me to change my belief. But what sort of evidence or logic can you present me with if I am a committed misogynist or racist? Whatever evidence or logic you present me with, can I still not reasonably say, "Sorry, men are just more important than woman, whites are just more important than blacks." You can ask me to emphasize and pretend to walk a mile in another person's shoes. But that's not the same as evidence or logic; it requires a leap of faith that accepting evidence or logic about the physical makeup of the moon does not.

A) Define ‘good’ - which has a factually correct and factually incorrect definition

Are you referring to any facts here other than common usage?

Re: False Consciousness, Psychological Freedom, and Pluralism

Jason Malloy — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:10:19 -0000

Micha,

And where is it written that to be moral one cannot be selfish and unfair?

As I have argued many times in this thread, it is written in the definition of morality itself, which is in turn written into the genetic code of human beings.

You are confusing the word 'good' for the concept of 'good'. Just because a sociopath says killing me for fun is "good" doesn't mean anything at all. He can just as easily say a tuba is a chair, or an elephant is a penguin. But as soon as he's forced to define "chair", we will readily understand he is talking about the large, low-pitched brass instrument and not the piece of furniture you sit on.

It's the same exact thing for 'morality'. As soon as he defines morality as "causing others pain for my own amusement" he is necessarily automatically defining something else entirely. The concept of morality inherently means something different: behaving in a fair way to reduce or not cause harm to others.

These premises were laid out most nakedly in comment #52. The concept of morality is genetically hardwired into the evolved brain of human beings, and it has a logical meaning.

But at the end of the day, if his preference for misogyny is great enough, and you cannot convince him that he will be worse off from his own perspective if he doesn’t take your advice, the argument is over.

This is irrelevant to the objectivity of morality, since the same thing can be said for factual issues in general. If he wants to say/believe the moon is made of bacon, there is absolutely nothing I can do to "make" him change his mind except present evidence and logic that refute his claim.

Similarly, if he wants to argue that oppressing women is "good" he necessarily has to A) Define 'good' - which has a factually correct and factually incorrect definition, and B), if he defines it correctly (which he isn't according to your own scenario), show how the facts of his sex-biased system are consistent with fairness and well being - which he couldn't do as well.