Thursday, October 22, 2009

A Cautionary Tale - Update

This article sums up the current state of American politics pretty nicely. The current state of the Republican Party is a cautionary tale as to what happens when a party turns itself over to Karl Rovian type strategists for eight years.

Lying about everything and demonizing anyone who opposes or disagrees with you isn't a very good strategy for staying in touch with reality.

Joe H.

UPDATE: The aforementioned references to "lying" and "demonizing" are directed to the National Leaders of the Republican Party. It goes without saying - but I'll say it anyway to avoid being misunderstood - that the vast majority of Republicans, politicians and otherwise, are sane, moral, and perfectly nice people - these are the one's suffering the "whiplash" described by the article's author.

Joe H.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

John Stewart Destroys CNN's Credibility

Talk about making short work of the supposed premier news organization in the world. Wow!

And funny as hell to boot (as always). Enjoy!

Joe H.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Value is The Key

Okay, I need one more post before I can lay out my theory of morality that (I believe) is: (1) compatible with the idea that God created morality; and (2) compatible with the non-existence of God. Recall also that if there is a plausible account of morality that does not require the existence of God, (3) Plantinga's "the existence of evil proves the existence of God" argument is refuted.

I need to do a post on "value."

Let's start with the obvious question: "What is value?" Think about this for any length of time and you will be thinking in circles. Is value an independently existing thing - like "moral values" or "family values?" Is value something that attaches to other things? Is it a property of things, or ideas, or circumstances? Is it a phenomenon - and if so, what sort of phenomenon? Is it a medium - like time?

After thinking about this question for a considerable period of time (prior to practicing law, of course), I concluded that the best understanding of "value" is that it is a "measurement of importance." Putting my thesis in the form of an SAT answer, I am proposing that "value" is to "importance" as "temperature" is to "molecular activity." The more important a thing is, the more value it has. The more molecular activity there is, the greater the temperature. In both cases, the inverse is equally true.

The "measurement of importance" conception of value unites all things to which we apply the term "value." Economic or market value, moral value, instrumental value, intrinsic value, sentimental value, and so forth, all refer to ways in which things are important to us. Importance, as Plato would say, is the characteristic common to all instances of value. Importance is the characteristic or quality that makes all valuable things valuable. When we say that something is "valuable," we are, without exception, saying that it is important.

Importance, in other words, is the essence of value.

The conception of value as a "measurement" also comports with our conviction that the various kinds of value can be quantified and compared - not perfectly or with certainty, but meaningfully and rationally. It is completely natural for us to gauge the relative importance of various sorts of things (or considerations) and to prioritize their [acquisition, performance, realization], with respect to our assessment of their relative significance.

There are, of course, numerous complexities associated with the idea of "importance." We think people can be mistaken about what is important - which implies that importance is, in some sense or other, an objective matter. Importance is also an undoubtedly subjective feature of our existence - none of us ranks the importance of things identically (although there is considerable culturally based agreement regarding what sorts of things are generally more important than others). Our commitments, interests, and personal circumstances also vest various things with importance - there is nothing important about a T.V. show, but it is important to fans or regular viewers.

Putting all these complexities aside (for now - philosophers spend all their time on these questions and others like them), if we agree that "value" is a "measurement of importance," we have a basis for answering the most basic of moral questions, which is "how should one live?" The answer recommended by these premises is, we should strive to achieve the most value possible - we should act in a manner that accomplishes or respects or preserves or realizes what is most important, both in the long and short term.

Living morally is maximizing value realization. It involves figuring out what is truly important, both in the context in which one is currently acting, in one's particular life circumstances, and for human existence generally, and then acting to insure that what is truly important - or most valuable - is achieved or preserved or respected . . .

In my next post I will explain how the nature of our existence as volitional beings, in combination with the circumstances of our existence: (1) consign us to be value realizers - or moral agents; and (2) prescribe the content of morality. I will further explain how our existence as moral agents is compatible with God's setting the terms of morality and with God's non-existence. And if I do that, particularly the part about showing that the existence of morality does not require God's existence, I will have refuted Plantinga.

Okay - enough with the preliminary information. As they sing during the introduction to Loony Tunes, "On with the show this is it!"

Joe H.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Pray for a Liberal!

A more profound display of Christian hubris and self-righteousness is hard to imagine.

I especially liked the "Helping Restore Poor Leaders to Right Thinking" statement of purpose - particularly because it is coming from the most ardent supporters of "Christian leaders" who turned the United States into a torture nation.

I will give these people one thing - they have "chutzpa!" They have the courage of their convictions. But as Bertrand Russell famously pointed out, the problem with the world is that those with knowledge are cautious, while utter fools are incurrably cocksure of themselves.

Joe H.

Friday, October 2, 2009

A Bit More on Plantinga's "Evil Proves the Existence of God" Argument

Upon further consideration, I've decided that a bit more background information is required before I can boldly offer my account of morality and my explanation as to how morality is compatible with the belief that: (1) God is responsible for the existence of each human being; and (2)morality would have authority over human conduct even if God did not exist and, for this reason, Plantinga failed to fight the "Argument from Evil" to a draw.

So, without further adieu, the additional background information.

Three approaches to moral reasoning/decision making dominate the history of moral philosophy. Listed in no implied order of priority, they are:

Consequentialism;

Deontology;

Eudaemonism.

Consequentialist moral theories hold that the moral status of any act, rule, practice, or policy (hereinafter "act"), is a function of the act's reasonably anticipated consequences. The basic idea is that acts calculated to generate beneficial or desirable outcomes are morally superior to acts expected to generate harmful (or undesirable) outcomes. Most consequentialists agree that our moral analysis must focus on what an actor had good reason to believe would happen as a result of his or her actions, rather than on what actually happened. This is because, as we all know, "shit happens."

Modern consequentialists fall into two main camps: (1) Egoists - those who think we have duties to maximize our own utility; and (2) Utilitarians - those who believe we should act in ways that increase the net aggregate utility. Both theories are traceable to the Ancient Greeks.

Aside from the myriad complexities - such as what kinds of things count as positive outcomes, how do we quantify and compare various kinds of benefits and harms in a consequentialist analysis, whose benefit counts (animals? future generations?) and how much each entity counts - the basic consequentialist idea is unassailable. To some extent, nearly everyone is a moral consequentialist. Virtually no one advocates a moral analysis that completely ignores expected outcomes.

However, virtually no one thinks that morality is entirely a matter of anticipated consequences. If you disagree, ask yourself whether your moral objection to prostitution - assuming you have one - and you should - would vanish if someone could waive a magic wand and immediately eliminate all the adverse consequences of prostitution? What if no one got hurt or sick, physically or emotionally, from prostitution? Would you still object to prostitution, based merely on the nature or character of the activity?

Most of us would. Similarly, most of us agree that "honesty is the best policy," but also believe that there is something morally problematic about lying, even when it creates good outcomes for everyone affected. Most people think it is immoral for a married person to cheat on his or her spouse, even when the cheating will never be discovered and will result in no negative consequences.

By admitting our non-consequentialist moral sentiments, we out ourselves as deontological moralists. Deontological moralists care about our duties, to ourselves and others. Such duties are deemed to be based on non-consequential considerations, such as the inherent dignity of human beings.

Modern deontology achieved its most definitive statement in the work of Imanual Kant. However, Kant's deontology was derived directly from the Ancient Greek and Roman Stoics.

Eudaemonism takes a differnt approach to moral reasoning - starting with the types of questions it asks. Consequentialism and Deontology are "act" oriented moral theories - they attempt to answer questions about the moral permissibility of specific acts. Eudaemonia, to the contrary, is an "agent" centered moral theory - it attempts to answer questions about what constitutes a well lived life. The basic idea is that human life can be lived well or poorly. The task of ethical reasoning is to: (1) identify the features of human well being - features like financial stability, a cultivated intellect, physical emotional health, satisfying and nurturing personal relationships, and so forth; and to then (2)identify and cultivate practices and habits that lead to these outcomes.

Think about the movie "Mr. Holland's Opus." The point of that movie was to celebrate a beautiful, albeit ordinary, life. Mr. Holland never finished his musical opus - his opus was his life! That's the central idea of eudaemonism - life as a work of art.

Eudaemonia is closely associated with the notion of "virtue." The ancient Greeks understood virtue as a "functional excellence." For the Greeks, a thing's virtue was whatever made it good at its function - e.g. the virtue of a race horse is its speed, while the virtue of a plow horse was its strength - different function, different virtues. According to Aristotle, the function of a human being was to live well - to live life in accordance with our rational natures. Thus, the human virtues were those acts or practices that constitute living well and lead to human well-being. These ideas are also closely connected to the notion of "habit."

Now, I'm sure you all realize that I have vastly oversimplified each of these moral traditions. I'll also admit that I am a eudaemonist (I believe eudaemonism subsumes and incorporates consequentialism and deontology). But these short summaries should provide at least the rudimentary theoretical information regarding how moral theorists have approached the subject of morality.

What is relevant to our analysis of the relationship between God and morality, and to the success or failure of Plantinga's "Evil proves the Existence of God" argument, is that the core insight of each theoretical approach is value realization. Proponents of each type of moral outlook are advocating the realization of, or the showing of respect for, certain types of value.

So in my next post on the subject, I'll examine the concept of "value" and the role it plays in human existence.

Stay tuned.

Joe H.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Worst of the Worst

Andrew Sullivan provides us with a summary argument explaining why the practice of torture is so dangerous - a Federal Judge, let me say that again, a FEDERAL JUDGE , has found that the United States tortured a man it knew to be innocent solely to extract a confession that would allow our government maintain its claim that all of our Guantanamo detainees were terrorists. A summary report on the Court's decision in the habeus petition of Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabinah, written by journalist Andy Worthington, can be accessed here.

I highly encourage you to read each of these documents in their entirety - but if this is too much, at least read the introduction to the judge's decision. The entire opinion is truly an astonishing summary of government misconduct.

Thank God for the writ of habeus corpus and an independent judiciary. Were it not for a 5-4 ruling by our Supreme Court, the facts of this case would never have seen the light of day.

And lest any of you think that responsibility for this atrocity rests solely on the Bush Administration - although most of it does - the Obama administration is cleary implicated. It sought to prosecute Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabinah, based on the exact same torture produced evidence. Officials in the Obama Administration were apparently prepared to keep an innocent man in prison, indefinitely, based on confessions that the previous administration tortured out of him, which these same officials knew to be false, simply to protect the government's reputation.

This is a national disgrace.

Joe H.