TT`s Lost in Tokyo : Callahan

More from Gene Callahan: do perceptions of "moral truths" make them objectively real, apart from those who perceive them (instead of evolved hard-wiring to cooperate)?

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:23:00 GMT

It has come to my attention that Gene Callahan has responded to my remarks regarding "objective moral truths" that I noted here.

Rather than continuing the long threadjack of an unrelated post by Bob Murphy (on climate change science), I copy and respond below to Gene`s remarks:

1. Gene:

"to say morality is objective doesn't necessarily mean that 'the same rules' apply to everybody"

Right, Tom, of course it doesn't. To say there are objective standards of science doesn't mean that we judge all scientific discoveries without regard to the circumstances of time and place. If someone submitted to a journal today the fact that Jupiter has moons, he wold be laughed at. That doesn't mean that objectively we cannot judge that Galileo made a great discovery.

"On the other hand, I have agreed that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have argued that our moral sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution"

And, this is relevant how? We have clearly evolved our ability to see trees. Is that good evidence that trees aren't objectively real? Isn't it better evidence that they are objectively real? Similarly, if these evolved norms aid intra-group cooperation, isn't that good evidence that there is something to them?

2. Me:

a. To whom do the rules apply?

The italicized quote is a statement made earlier in the same thread by Bob Murphy; my purpose in referring to it is to note that Bob and Gene have, as I have noted in a prior post, "clarified" that the "objective moral rules" that are embedded in the universe have a differing application, depending on the capacities of the creatures that perceive (or fail to perceive) them. This position would appear to collapse any meaningful distinction between "objective" and "subjective" moral rules.

As I commented to Bob on the post linked immediately above:

I`m afraid I have to disagree with you about Gene`s post, which in fact illustrates the weakness of his position regarding "objective truth". While he suggests that by "objectively correct" we mean something that is correct for `any and all possible perceivers' (so far, so good), he then presents the example of ants, for whom he asserts it would be wrong for them to commit murder IF THEY WERE CAPABLE of committing murder. But he`s failed to notice that he`s not only begged the question about what we mean by saying that "it is objectively true that murder is wrong", but he`s suggested that because ants lack a capacity to perceive moral strictures against murder, they are unable to commit it. By doing so, he`s just invited in all of the questions that I`ve outlined above [in item 1 here], plus questions of culture and exigency that you have pointed out by your reference to Eskimos. Can any animals or life forms other than man commit murder? Do moral restrictions against murder require some threshold level of self-reflection, intellectual capacity, typical social structure, physical and social maturity, or upbringing?

So there IS an objective moral order, but it only applies to those able to perceive it? This is both a very modest position, as well as one that oddly smacks of belief in Leprechauns.

Rather than arguing that still undefined but "objective" moral rules are embedded in the structure of the universe but have only limited application, isn`t it easier to acknowledge that man has a moral sense, observe that it enhances our ability to cooperate, observe that other animals also exhibit patterns of reciprocal behavior and posit that our moral sense is something that we have evolved, as it enhanced our ability to survive and procreate?

b. Does our perception of moral codes mean they have an "objective", much less "universal", existence?

Gene suggests that because we can perceive trees, they have an objective existence; likewise, since we perceive there are moral rules, that such moral rules have an objective existence apart from man. But the parallel doesn`t work. Ants and other animals clearly behave in accordance with inherited rules that are internal, and not external to them; likewise, our awareness of a moral dimension to our behavior does not imply that the moral parameters that affect our behavior have any objective existence, other than as genetically encoded rules - that find differing expression depending upon individuals, culture and circumstances.

Clearly we perceive that our behavior is imbued with a moral aspect, and we can objectively document the moral rules within various societies, but this does not tell us that there are objective moral codes that apply to all humans and to all human interactions - including to interactions to individuals in out-groups. Nor does it tell us whether the moral rules that humans follow are "universal" in the sense that they would apply to non-humans.

Other social animals appear to follow similar and clearly genetically-based rules in their mutual cooperative and hostile interactions. If they were aware of their own idiosyncratic rules (the rules unique to their species), no doubt they would view them as being "moral" (or even mandatory) strictures.

It seems to me to be more accurate and productive to view our search for understanding of our moral behavior as a study of the sociobiology of man, similar to the ongoing sociobiological study of ants, other animals and life, and even of neurons, rather than as a venture to discovery "objective" moral standards somehow existing OUTSIDE of or independent of man, that govern our actual or desirable behavior.

In conducting such a study, we may of course find ways in which the moral parameters that appear to apply to man are similar to those of other life forms, as these studies I referred to in another post (on consensus) seem to indicate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13traff.html
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/ants_and_neurons/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-4V357R7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1028980427&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=387f4778be933c406159a3815767e196

Consensus on my brain: Murphy on "Orwellian" consensus, Callahan`s consensus on "objective" moral truths, & consensus among neurons

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:03:00 GMT

A recent post by the prolifically productive Bob Murphy, "A Quick Note from Baltimore", provides an opportunity for further thoughts on my continuing effort to puzzle out what Bob and Gene Callahan mean by their insistence that there is an objective moral order to the universe, and on what science seems to tell us about how both brains and groups of individuals function.

In his latest post, Bob decries a statement by Brad DeLong that another economist (Edward Prescott) "simply does not live in the consensus reality with the rest of us."

Says Bob:

Is anybody else weirded-out by the term "consensus reality"? Have you ever heard of a more Orwellian phrase? Not reality mind you, but consensus reality. Prescott's sin is not being wrong per se, but rather that he disagrees "with the rest of us." ...

Now this "consensus" criterion has spread from climate change to economics?

I am not being flip. DeLong's use of the term "consensus reality" disturbs me far more than his endorsement of a Keynesian model. At least if he agrees that things are objectively right or wrong--and uses language accordingly--we can at least debate the merits of a Keynesian model.

But we have no hope of changing anyone's mind, if we fall into the dreaded minority viewpoint, in a world dominated by "consensus reality."

My comments are copied below, with minor editorial changes:

1. Bob, I think Bertrand has put his finger on the "problem" that seems to bother you so much: religions - indeed, moral codes of all kinds - work in precisely the same way.

Don`t you understand the role of shared moral codes - which evolve to suit changed circumstances (i.e., it`s "wrong" to litter, to keep slaves or to make racist, bigoted or ant-gay remarks) in our societies?

Are all shared consensuses "Orwellian" (which I thought involved a heavy-handed state role), or only non-Christian ones?

Or are you simply complaining that you don`t like DeLong`s effort to enlist public support, since you disagree with him?

On this note, do you remember Gene Callahan`s post on how a libertarian society might employ moral suasion as a key lever in addressing concerns about man`s roles in climate change? [discussed here and here; does moral suasion require "objective" truths, or merely shared/consensus values?]

2. "isn't the "consensus reality" trick how Gene_Callahan usually tries to win philosophical debates?" [a comment by Silas Barta, with reference to comments by Gene Callahan on the thread I remark on here]

Silas, while I think your observation is fair, it seems to me the more telling point is that Gene`s own behavior belies his arguments that there are objective, universal moral truths.

Instead, we each perceive our own reality, influenced by incoming information, including the beliefs of others and apparent gaps between our mental map of reality and incoming information.

Our reliance on an apparent "consensus" should not be ignored. As a society of individuals, we are significantly affected by what others believe, and we often find we are weaker than we hope when faced with consensus views that we disagree with.

Further, each of us lacks the ability to independently confirm the validity of the beliefs about reality that we accept into our mental maps.

As a result, the "appeal to" authority, popularity, etc. fallacies are not simply rife, but unavoidable.

Further, scientists are finding that "consensus decision-making" processes are at work not only in groups of individuals, but even at more fundamental levels of personal perception, at the level of groups of neurons:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/ants_and_neurons/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-4V357R7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1028980427&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=387f4778be933c406159a3815767e196
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13traff.html

Murphy and Callahan on my brain; Murphy says: "The Brain and Mind Are Not the Same Thing!"

TokyoTom — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:41:00 GMT

Allow me to draw the curious reader`s attention to the latest post by Bob Murphy on the subject of mind, the brain and what is "real". Again, the ensuing conversation suffers from confusion since Murphy refuses to clarify what he means when he uses the term "mind" and "real".Sure, we usually mean different things when we use different terms, but in my view a Venn diagram of these two would have "mind" entirely within the boundaries of "brain" (there are no disembodied minds).

Also, Gene Callahan makes an appearance and does battle with Silas Barta in an interesting exchange that reveals to me, at least, how little I know. Not surprisingly, though, Callahan again storms FROM the Bastille, with the following playful admonishment by Bob:

"Whoa there tiger. I realize your brain chemistry made you type those insults out, but by the same token my neurons are making me chastise your tone here. Remember, it is the Rothbardian wing of Austrian economics that resorts to name-calling as opposing to scholarly debate. You NYU guys are supposed to be above that."

Which leaves an interesting question: when we emote, are our minds actually thinking? Or, as Bob seems to concede (by adopting my "the brain produces the mind" rhethoric), are we really just reacting, and verbalizing the flow?

Callahan finally speaks: but are external, "objective moral truths" needed for a community to enforce shared rules?

TokyoTom — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:20:00 GMT

[Well, the Mises server just swallowed my first attempt at this post, so the reader will just have to suffer this sketchier one.]

I have been chasing both Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy to try to get them to spell out what they mean when they assert that there is an "objective moral order" in the universe; until recently Bob has been by far the most congenial, as well as evidencing more interest in discussing the subject, but he has just thrown in the towel for the time being, after conceding that "to say morality is objective doesn't necessarily mean that 'the same rules' apply to everybody" and that he has no good answers my questions as to whether the objective moral order applies to all creatures and to all men regardless of age, gender and mental development.

On the other hand, I have agreed that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have argued that our moral sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation and conflict with out-groups. Similar arguments have been made

- by Bruce Yandle,

- by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American Anthropology Assn.) in his book "Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity" (which I have discussed here) and

- by David Sloan Wilson in his book "Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society".

However, Bob did point to a related post by Gene Callahan in which Gene essentially argued that the "objective" moral truths rules that are embedded in the structure of the universe apply only to those creatures able to perceive the rules. In other words, not to ants - and perhaps not to other life forms or to humans whose age and mental development leave them incapable of perceiving the rules.

I have received no response from Gene on my posts here (perhaps he hasn`t yet perceived them), but he did start to provide a little meat in a rather long threadjack at a totally unrelated blog post by Bob (TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts? - regarding my comments on the rush to sell poorly-understood science in the political marketplace).

Since it`s a topic of interest but I don`t wish to continue the threadjack (and it`s difficult to follow there, given unrelated comments, and contains largely irrelevant ad homs/replies), I take the liberty of excerpting relevant portions here, and I respond further below.

1. From Bob`s thread (unedited, with emphasis added):

Gene:

As you assert, right and wrong are all just subjective opinion, so, if I can profit from these impacts, why should I care? By your own principles, the fate f those poor schucks in Sri Lanka should mean nothing to me.

TT:

Again you misunderstand my principles. But the glory of the world, of course, is that you get to base your behavior on your own principles (and objective truths as you perceive them), not mine, as well as on any moral pressure you might feel from the broader community in which you dwell.

Gene:

I am not saying you actually think it is merely a subjective matter whether or not millions die in a man-made tsunami, etc. In fact, you correctly think that such a thing is objectively wrong. For the third time, I will say that what I am saying in posts like this is not what I think your views are, but what by logic you ought to think, given your rejection of objective moral truths. I am pointing out that you're position is inconsistent, and therefore incoherent: You claim not to believe in objective moral truth, and yet you make arguments that depend on the existence of what you deny.

TT:

- I have not so much "claim[ed] not to believe in objective moral truth" as to note that G.C. has singularly failed to explain what he means by his statement or to offer any support to for. Proof of this is not only in GC`s threads, but in the fact that Bob felt the need to re-open the subject himself.

- If I "make arguments that depend on the existence of what I deny", then G.C. has failed to show it.

First, I have made it clear that not only to I believe that the material universe (of matter and energy) objectively exists, but that I believe that it has an underlying structure that we can strive to understand (and express mathematically) even as our understanding (and descriptions) of it will always be incomplete. Thus, an algorithm may or may not be an accurate description of the structure of the universe. In any case, the objective existence of a poorly-understood structure to the universe offers no support for the proposition that there is a moral order to the universe.

Further, G.C.　has argued that there is an object moral structure to the universe; I have argued that man has an exquisite inherited moral sense, and that we inherited this moral sense via evolution over eons because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced intra-group cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons.

Accepting that man has a moral nature which is genetically based (but that is expressed differently in each individual and culture, and that is largely applied to in-group transactions but applied much more lightly in interactions with those outside our groups) does NOT depend on arguments that there is any universal moral order, applicable outside of man to all of Creation (or to such of Creation as may be conscious).

Sorry, but my arguments simply do NOT "depend on the existence of what I deny" - including arguments over whether or not G.C. has "behaved badly", or arguments that man ought not to engage in actions that directly or indirectly harm others. Such things may be measured and tested based strictly on a study of human nature (which is objectively different from other animals and has an objective genetic base).

Gene:

"I have argued that man has an exquisite inherited moral sense, and that we inherited this moral sense via evolution over eons because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced intra-group cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons."

And so what? Either "enhanced intra-group cooperation" and "reducing tragedies of the commons" are objectively good things (and you've given up moral subjectivism), or you've gotten precisely nowhere.

Let's say in the remote Amazon some group has evolved so that THEIR "exquisite moral sense" requires the smashing in of the infant's skulls of whatever other tribe they meet. Then, through some fluke, they wind up in Tokyo and go on a skull-smashing rampage. Hey, well, that's just the way their moral sense evolved, hey? You, by your own premises, are in absolutely no position to tell them what they are doing is wrong. In fact, since obviously my behaviour is a result of my evolutionary past, then if I am being "rude" to you, well, that's just MY "exquisite moral sense," isn't it? Who are you to go saying my moral sense is wrong and yours is right, when clearly both are the product of the same evolutionary process!

So, although I realize that you do not understand that you pre-suppose that which you deny, you do. (In fact, we should suspect that anyone making such an error will pretty much always fail to recognize that they are making it, since no one can consciously embrace incoherence.)

2. My further comments:

Ironically, it is Gene who is pre-supposing what my presuppositions and my objectives are.

First, I can argue (though I haven`t made such a case) that it would be wrong if millions die in a man-made tsunami, without "think[ing] that such a thing is objectively wrong," based on a moral code external to man. Rather, I can simply rely on my own values and those of the communities of which I am a member.

Likewise, I need not (and do not) make any arguments that either "enhanced intra-group cooperation" and "reducing tragedies of the commons" are "objectively good things"; I need merely to observe scientifically that man, like his cousin critters, has evolved, that he has a moral sense akin to, but more more highly developed than, patterns of reciprocal behavior in other animals (while more genetically identical communities of social insects cooperate even more closely), and to suppose that this moral sense of right and wrong and the related predilection towards the social development of norms and rules were evolutionarily ADVANTAGEOUS, by enhancing group cohesion while moderating internal frictions and behaviors that were costly to the group as a whole, better enabling the group to take advantage of resources in the environment and respond to challenges, including challenges by out-groups.

Gene suggests one must have "objective truths" to get somewhere, but that just tells us the HE has an agenda for man; rather than particularly trying to get SOMEWHERE I`m just applyng an evolutionary approach to figure out how we got HERE.

It`s a shame I lost my previous post on this, but I think it pretty clear that our "exquisite moral sense" is both highly developed and very two-faced (highly selective would be a more gentle expression): we act one way to members of our group (based on highly developed codes and bonding rituals that became religions as our groups grew larger), but generally act as if we have little or no obligations to outsiders, to whom we might very well be downright suspicious and hostile. Why would that be? Maybe because, like the chimpanzee bands that so famously disillusioned Jane Goodall, we`ve been engaged in murderous competition with rival bands from time immemorial.

While it`s possible to argue that man`s deliberate struggle through history has been one of extending the limits of those whom we need to be decent to from a small circle to all of mankind (or further, to pets, other animals, etc.) - and there have certainly been individuals who have made conscious efforts to do so - one may also see the "progress" in this direction as being the simple consequence of Darwinian struggles between different human groups and societies, with the societies that more successfully united their own peoples, seized opportunities and vanquished other groups (through a combination of defeat, elimination and inclusion). Religions and our moral sense have clear served as both weapons and tools in this process; the gods have served on both sides of most conflicts, at least until one won, frequently by putting the heathen to the sword. Thus, "moral progress" has frequently been bought by brutal blood-soaked violence in which the victors routinely failed to pay much attention to the morality of their own conduct toward the other - as has always been our nature.

Forced change can be seen in both in the US. Civil War in the case of slavery and in this anecdoctal quote regarding British attempts to stamp out the Hindi practice of ritual immolation of the wives of a deceased husband in India:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Very seldom has such forced change been primarily motivated by a desire to bring about moral progress.

Persuasion and mass moral suasion can often work, as can be seen in the cases of ML King and the civil rights movement, as well as Ghandi`s efforts, particular when public opinion was mobilized. Gene has argued for this himself; while those arguing for change of course may feel united by religion and may employ appeals to the shared beliefs of others, no external "objective" moral order is needed for moral suasion to work.

Gene conjures up an Amazonian skull-smashing tribe at loose in Tokyo, but why look so far? The Japanese and the rest of the "modern" slaughters millions of unborn infants annually (and particularly females in China, India and the Middle East). The difference, of course, is that we are just doing it to ourselves, rather than having it inflicted on us by outsiders.

Gene is right to note that my rather cold-eyed observations about our remarkably self-serving moral sense might leave me in "absolutely no position to tell [Amazonian skull-smashers rampaging in Tokyo] what they are doing is wrong," but so what? Gene is simply asking the wrong question. The Japanese do not need "objective" external moral standards to deal with such behavior; they need simply to STOP it. And make no doubt about; stop it they would FIRST, and then ask questions, and perhaps later, if time and a surviving Amazonian or two permits, they might attempt a discussion on moral issues. This of course is true of every community when faced with an attack; banding together in self-defense is virtually instinctive.

Gene might posit other, stickier situations, of which we face a bottomless pit. We have our tribal need for close groups, but have on large parts of the planet blessedly stilled the fraternal slaughter between rival societies. In larger societies, we face stresses between our attenuated bonds to others and our wish for close communities. On one front the religious bonds that united particular societies have frayed, but our urge for uniting bonds of ritual and belief remain, while on another we`ve managed to stir up more religious fundamentalism and distrust at home and abroad.

In all this, the desire for an objective set of universally binding moral rules that is floating around in the universe just waiting for everyone to become enlightened and to voluntarily submit to them is quite understandable, but obviously pie in the sky. I suggest that we try to work instead in understanding our own nature better and work at trying to persuade each other and to lessen tensions that may become murderous.

P.S. Gene`s error can be seen further in his comments about rude behavior. He thinks that taking a cultural, evolutionary view leaves one without a basis for criticism, so therefore I must unintentionally be relying on objective, external standards to criticize him. He`s got it precisely wrong - while clearly we ARE both "the product of the same evolutionary process", my appeal is not to objective external standards, but to shared COMMUNITY standards (that can be objectively described). Further, by publicly arguing my position, I hope to marshal public support of the kind that he has himself usefully pointed out.

The questions are simply whether Gene and I actually share ANY communal bonds and obligations, what those obligations are, how they apply in this instance, and whether Gene cares what anyone else thinks.

What is ironic is to see someone like Gene who so clearly wants to see a better world take the position that "objective" moral standards permit such lack of concern for how he treats others and how such treatment is perceived. But an evolutionary thinker would simply see it as more evidence for the remarkable moral flexibility that the Creator has endowed us with.

[Update] Bob Murphy & Gene Callahan flesh out the "objective" moral order: it applies only to those able to perceive it?

TokyoTom — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:58:00 GMT

[Update: Bob Murphy sends in an email comment, copied (in relevant part) at the bottom of this post.]

I`ve addressed here on five different threads the question of whether there is an "objective moral order", which Gene Callahan broached in a May blog post. I`ve commented here mainly because I find the subject interesting, but the subsequent discussions at Gene Callahan`s blog and at Bob Murphy`s blog to be rather unproductive, if not frustrating and disappointing. However, I note that Bob Murphy, bless his soul, has kindly emailed me a comment for me to post on one of my recent threads, in which Bob refers to a recent relevant comment elsewhere by Gene.

Allow me to repost here Bob Murphy`s comment, and my response, but first here`s some context from the post that Bob Murphy is responding to:

1. Me:

While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation,

- as Bruce Yandle has suggested,

- as argued by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American Anthropology Assn.) in his book "Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity" (which I have discussed here) and - as I have recently discovered -

- as David Sloan Wilson has argued in his book "Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society".

I note that the NYT has recently run a series of posts on related topics.

In my view, our moral sense, rituals and "sacred postulates" (later, religions) have played a central role in the evolution of man as a social animal, by providing a fundamental way of ordering the world, the group`s role in it, and the individual`s role in the group - thereby abating commons problems both within and created by the group. The religious lies at the root of our human nature, even as its inviolable, sacred truths continue to fall by the wayside during the long march of culture and science out of the Garden of Eden. While we certainly have made progress (partly with the aid of "universal" religions) in expanding the boundaries of our groups, we very much remain group, tribal animals, fiercely attentive to rival groups and who is within or outside our group, and this tribal nature is clearly at work in our cognition (our penchant for finding enemies, including those who have different religious beliefs that ours).

But I didn`t really kick off this discussion - why are Callahan and Murphy so reticent to describe what it is they think they mean when they assert that there are "objective moral truths" and an "objective moral order"? (I can understand why I seem to have earned the clear hostility of one them; after all I have proven by my persistence and/or thickheadedness to be, if not an "enemy", then in any case not one of the august clear-sighted.)

Here are a few questions I left with them at Bob`s most recent post:

- Are those who believe that there is an objective "moral" order asserting that, for every being - regardless of species - that there is a uniform, objective moral order in the universe? Or is the argument that there is an object moral order only for conscious and self-aware beings, and none for organisms that are not conscious, or are conscious but not self-aware?

- Or is the argument that the "objective" moral order exists only for humans, and perhaps someday can be identified and located in universally shared mental processes, based on brain activity and arising from shared genes? Will such objective moral order still exist if all mankind ceases to exist?

- Or is the objective moral order one that exists for some humans, but not all - depending on physical development of the brain as we mature (with the development of some being impaired via genetic or other defect)?

- Is the human "objective" moral order universal, for all individuals - of whatever, gender or age - across all history?

- Is an objective moral order something real that can be tested for despite the inability of a particular observer to perceive directly - like beings that can`t directly perceive light (or like us who can`t personally physically observe much of what technology allows us to)?

- And if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its parameters, and to explain (and test) it with "laws"?

- What are some of the parameters and laws governing the moral order?

2. Bob Murphy`s comments: (emphasis added)

On the general issue of "are morals objective for everyone?" I refer to this excellent discussion by Gene Callahan:

www.gene-callahan.org/.../freedoms-just-another-word-for.html

[Here is Gene`s relevant comment:

"Something that is correct only 'to' someone is subjectively, not objectively, correct. What 'objective' means is precisely 'to any and all possible perceivers.' And, of course, it is simply a further muddle to introduce beings incapable of perceiving the objective item in question, as if that raised doubts about its objective status. 'Would this be objectively correct for ants?' makes no more sense than 'Is it objectively true for ants that Mars has two moons?' It is objectively true, not 'for' anyone, that Mars has two moons, and it is also objectively true that ants are a kind of being that cannot peer through telescopes or count to two. It is objectively true that murder is wrong, and if ants were the sort of being capable of murder, which they are not (as far as we know!), it would be wrong for them to commit murders."]

When I say that I think morality is objective, what I mean is that a statement such as "it is better to kiss an infant than to drown it" is a different type of thing from the statement "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla." The latter is clearly stating a subjective preference, whereas the former is (I claim) reflecting an objective truth about reality.

Note that to say morality is objective doesn't necessarily mean that 'the same rules' apply to everybody, at least not in the sense that I think you mean. It might not be immoral for Eskimos to euthanize old people, whereas it could be considered murder in Manhattan. But this doesn't actually prove morality is subjective. By the same token, it's OK for me to eat the food in my fridge. But if somebody else wandered into my house and did the 'same thing,' it would be theft.

I'm a Christian so if you ask me for a list of these rules, a good start is the Ten Commandments. And then if you want to know how to apply these rules, I'd tell you to read the gospels and study the life of Jesus.

As far as your specific questions, I don't want to bother trying to answer them. I admit I can't give you great answers on some. But to me, that doesn't show that morality is subjective after all. There are plenty of non-material things (like mathematics etc.) that are rock-solid objectively true. So I think our difference here is much deeper than an issue of mere morality. I think you are a materialist and I'm not, which is influencing our discussion on morality.

3. My response: (emphasis added)

Bob, thanks for troubling to visit and read, but your comments are obviously a disappointment - as you`ve simply done none of the heavy lifting that you have implied by insisting on various occasions that there is an "objective" moral order.

All that you`ve done here is to make a very weak argument that MAN has a moral sense regarding how we treat others. But this is not only obvious, it is also something that I have asserted all along. While it tells us something I agree is objectively true generally about man - something that I have made various attempts to explore here and to sketch out on your blog and Gene`s - it tells us essentially nothing about an objective moral order to the universe, that is applicable to other life forms, and that will survive mankind if we were all ever to perish.

So there IS an objective moral order, but it only applies to those able to perceive it? This is both a very modest position, as well as one that oddly smacks of belief in Leprechauns.

# re: Evolution, religion and our insistence on a still undefined "objective" moral order

[Remove this Comment] Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:27 AM by TokyoTom

By the way, I note that fellow Community blogger lilburne and I agree generally about morality*

"There is a burgeoning school of thought in evolutionary biology and the cognitive sciences (led by Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker) which contends that morality is not just cultural artifice, but that it is an intrinsic feature of the human mind which evolved over the countless millennia of humans living together."

mises.org/.../245211.aspx

If anyone is still reading, let me note that I posted a week or so ago further thoughts on the evolution of moral codes and why we fight over them (rarely applying to those outside our group the same moral standards that we apply to those within our groups).

[Update:] Further email comment from Bob Murphy (posted with approval):

I'm going to have to punt on this debate for now. If you agree that
"Bob should not kill an infant" has a truth value more significant
than "Bob should not wear a dress to work" than I'm happy. I think
maybe when I say "morality is objective" you are interpreting it to
mean something more than what I do mean. After all, you are saying
moral rules apply to all humans, so I don't know what our difference
is at this point. I thought originally you were saying you were a
moral relativist.

A few simple thoughts on the evolution of moral codes, and why we fight over them (and religion, liberty and the state)

TokyoTom — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:14:00 GMT

A recent post on the Mises Daily pages on the "Religious Roots of Liberty" by the late Congregationalist minister Rev. Edmund Optiz (1914-2006) (originially published in The Freeman, February 1955) provides an opportunity to restate and discuss some of the thoughts I`ve been working though on evolution, group dynamics, religion and on the assertions of some that there is an "objective moral order".

It seems like quite a bit to chew, I know, but I dared (with the modesty and boldness of the inexpert, of course) to venture a few thoughts.

I copy below some of my comments and related dialogue on the comment thread (minor edits):

TokyoTom
I see I`m late to this discussion, but I`ll note I was thinking related thoughts and just put up a blog post on the subject of evolution, group dynamics, religion and an "objective moral order" of the type that Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy assert but won`t trouble themselves to spell out; it`s here for those interested:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/28/fun-with-self-deception-those-who-espouse-an-quot-objective-quot-moral-order-act-refuse-to-elucidate-or-act-as-if-there-is-none.aspx

Briefly as to this piece by Rev. Optiz: while religion has undeniably played a crucial historical role in organizing Western society, and still plays an important role in the voluntary organization of society and, at times, in opposing state tyranny, we should try to understand the roots of religions, how they have been employed to organize us and how they have been abused to control us and to lead us into conquering and/or slaughtering rival groups, whether "heathen" or merely of a different sect.

Organized religions sprang from less-organized tribal faiths, and, like those faiths, served to improve group cooperation and cohesion. Groups successful in intergroup conflicts - largely by ruthlessly putting to sword those with different gods - brought their religions with them. This was certainly the case of the Hebrews; Christianity spread because an opportunistic Constantine found in it a useful way to enhance his power and to improve the cohesion of his troops and empire. Mohammed likewise saw in his visions and his experience with "people of the Book" a way to expand his own power and to unite Arabs (later Caliphs took this further to build empires).

Rev. Optiz is clearly right that, within religious societies, "the Book" served as a check on unwary secular leaders, who nevertheless always strove to coopt religious leaders. But modern secular society and the US political system are both far away from the Book, whether Biblical prescription or the Constitution. This leaves us vulnerable to the continued growth of the state, and to potential conflict as people look for group protection, inevitably in some in groups that preach exclusion rather than inclusion.
Published: August 28, 2009 11:23 AM

TokyoTom
"tyranny is always a denial — or a misunderstanding — of the mandates of an authority or law higher than man himself." [a quote from Rev.　Optiz]

Sorry, but while I believe in the laws of physics and am aware of the deep evolutionary roots of our need for various but mutually contradictory faiths, I see no "law" higher than man.

Rather, there has always been a tension between the individual, his needs for groups, and the restrictions and demands that others - including the leaders of the groups - wish to impose on him. What we call "tyranny" is simply the condition when individuals (and sub-groups) find the demands of the larger group (and those who marshall force) to be intolerable.
Published: August 28, 2009 11:33 AM

fundamentalistf
TT: " But modern secular society and the US political system are both far away from the Book, whether Biblical prescription or the Constitution. This leaves us vulnerable to the continued growth of the state..."

Very true. That's why we have witnessed the growth of the state correlating with the decline of traditional Christianity in the West. Unfortunately, atheists and agnostics are not siding with freedom; they are overwhelmingly socialist. So far, atheists and agnostics have faile miserably since the enlightenment at establishing freedom.

TT: “While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation…”

So what you’re saying is that random mutations occurred that gave some individuals a moral code which in turn gave them a survival advantage. However, if you want to be scientific about it, you have to have some kind of evidence. Has anyone found the “morality” gene? Where is the evidence that morality has certain groups an advantge over those without the “morality” gene? It seems to me you are swallowing a great deal on pure faith.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re correct that morals are nothing but a random mutation that gave some humans an edge in surviving. Why are we bound to follow today such accidents that gave humans that advantage millions of years ago? That doesn’t mean they’ll give us an advantage today.

Besides, there has been some variation in morality over the centuries. Genghis Khan took great pride in slaughtering every person in a city he conquered and making mountains out of their skulls. Of course, there was the morality of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Is it possible that several different genetic mutations occurred and caused these differing views on morality? If so, that means that our genes can’t claim that Hitler’s genes were immoral; they were just different.

As you can see, claiming genetic status for morality does not help escape the problems involved in moral relativity. If morality isn’t transcendant, that is, doesn’t come from some one with greater authority than man (or in your case an accident inside of man), then everyone is free to choose his own morality, even one that elevate murder to a sacred act.
Published: August 28, 2009 1:37 PM
fundamentalistf
PS,
TT, you'll find the answers to the questions you posted on your blog in the works of natural law philosophers. A good intro is "Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume" by Stephen Buckle.
Published: August 28, 2009 1:40 PM

TokyoTom
Roger, thanks for your comments.

That's why we have witnessed the growth of the state correlating with the decline of traditional Christianity in the West.

While I agree about the vulnerability, I wouldn`t lay that as a principal cause for the growth of the Western state, for which I would simply point to a loss of control by Rome and greater technological means for coercion and influence. See Hayek.

atheists and agnostics are not siding with freedom; they are overwhelmingly socialist.

An interesting thought, but who supported all of nonsense of the Bush administrations? And certainly the vast majority of voters wouldn`t touch an atheist with a 10-foot pole. Anyway, what brings you to your conclusion?

So what you’re saying is that random mutations occurred that gave some individuals a moral code which in turn gave them a survival advantage. However, if you want to be scientific about it, you have to have some kind of evidence.

It doesn`t seem you`ve looked at my links; Yandle might make the most agreeable start.

Obviously things are more nuanced than your statement; we are close cousins of highly social animals (bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas) that are highly socialable and display much of the same reciprocal behavior, including the means of enforcing it, and the disparate treatment of those less closely related or familiar and of those entirely outside the group (viz., the other or "enemies").

I`m merely postulating that human groups that proved better at internal cooperation were more likely to be successful when faced with environmental challenges and opportunities, and to pass their genes along, which gave rise to our innate sense of "fairness" and to tribal rules and religions. We clearly have much greater inherent abilities to cooperate; indeed, the relatively longer infancy and childhood of our species requires such cooperation. We are good not only at reading faces and the intentions of others, but signalling our own via various clues - including being unique among mammals in having white sclera, the better to show others what we`re thinking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13tomasello.html. The fact that we give so much away is a strong indicating that doing so was to our advantage; viz., that we benefit from cooperation.

More proof of course can be easily seen in the fact that societies groups with greater internal cohesion tend to do well in inter-group competion. Such cohesion was foster by religions (which also fostered the formation of larger societies that were better able to engage in specialization), as well as by more basic tribal reactions that put group pressure on dissenting individuals.

Why are we bound to follow today such accidents that gave humans that advantage millions of years ago? That doesn’t mean they’ll give us an advantage today.

We can`t change human nature, but we can be aware of it, and we do, via culture (and formal/informal institutions, such as property) try to channel it productively and to dampen socially costly excesses. Much of this has not been a deliberate process, but simply a process of the survival of successful societies.

there has been some variation in morality over the centuries. Genghis Khan took great pride in slaughtering every person in a city he conquered and making mountains out of their skulls. Of course, there was the morality of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

A close look at what you call variation in morality seems to me to be purely a cultural advance as societies extends their boundaries by created wider, more inclusive bonds, both through religion and law. But we have ALWAYS treated outsiders differently from insiders; moral codes were group codes that created few if any rights to or responsibilities towards outsiders. Few societies have blinked an eye at the slaughter of those considered to be outsiders; the same can still be seen in our blase lack of concern for the deaths of Iraqis generated by our toppling of Saddam (which has surely been orders of magnitude greater than ours), or for "collateral damage" in our pursuit of those whom we sometimes called "freedom fighters".

Has there been a continued evolution of man in the past few thousand years? Surely; we can see it the spread of lactose tolerance, for example. But as cultural standards are so important to morality, it is impossible for now to tease out a biological evolution in morality.

If so, that means that our genes can’t claim that Hitler’s genes were immoral; they were just different.

This is confused; we all have different genes, and the expressing of those genes (phenotype) is strongly influenced by culture, up-bringing and experience. But we do see generalizable differences in male and female behavior, for example; females had the job of raising children and protecting the hearth, while men and less to risk in struggles for power and more to gain in confronting out-groups.

Thus our societies have always had different moral codes for men and women, and our cold, mass-murdering marauders have always been men.

claiming genetic status for morality does not help escape the problems involved in moral relativity.

Agreed!

If morality isn’t transcendant, that is, doesn’t come from some one with greater authority than man (or in your case an accident inside of man), then everyone is free to choose his own morality, even one that elevate murder to a sacred act.

First, our undeniable reliance on communities for support is not an "accident", but is something that proved powerfully advantageous, just as it remains part of our genetic make up.

Second, certainly in many (if not most), killing outsiders (what we even today loathe to call "murder") has been sanctioned, perhaps even "sanctified" (an certainly the slaughter of outsiders has been frequently blessed by in-group moral/religious authorities) - which of course implies a group ethic and not a purely personal choice.

But of course, the looser societies are, the weaker the formal and informal group sanctions and more individuals are left to their own decisions. Thus, as the state has coopted and supplanted voluntary society, the more "immoral", licentious and selfish behavior that we see.

Finally, in my view morality has never truly been "transcendent", but is derived from a shared inheritance of strong interpersonal cooperation, further shaped by the groups within which we "grow up", which groups all have their own (and mutually contradictory) "sacred postulates".

TT

PS: Thanks for pointing to Buckle; my quick question would be whether "natural law" is something that applies to the behavior of all life forms, or simply man (and would blink out of existence if man were to).

Link to this post.

Evolution, religion and our insistence on a still undefined "objective" moral order

TokyoTom — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:48:00 GMT

I refer to my previous posts on the interesting subject of whether there is an "objective moral order", which Gene Callahan broached in a May blog post, returned to in a subsequent post but abandoned, to be picked up but ultimately punted by Bob Murphy (and again by Gene when he visited Bob`s thread).

- as Bruce Yandle has suggested,

- as David Sloan Wilson has argued in his book "Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society".

I note that the NYT has recently run a series of posts on related topics.

But I didn`t really kick off this discussion - why are Callahan and Murphy so reticent to describe what it is they think they mean when they assert that there are "objective moral truths" and an "objective moral order"? (I can understand why I seem to have earned the clear hostility of one them; after all I have proven by my persistence or thickheadedness to be, if not an "enemy", then in any case not one of the august clear-sighted.)

Here are a few questions I left with them at Bob`s most recent post:

- And if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its parameters, and to explain (and test) it with "laws"?

- What are some of the parameters and laws governing the moral order?

If I`m being self-deluded about the willingness of those who believe that there IS an objective moral order to explain it (and to evidence it in their actions), I hope a good reader or two will let me know.

[Update] Gene Callahan, objectively unreal: If a blog comment is deleted, did it ever exist? And is the indignation I feel based on a moral code that has an "objective" existence?

TokyoTom — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:43:00 GMT

Your foolish reporter, having rushed in where even angels like Bob Murphy fear to tread, now reports the latest "unreal", or at least the rather unbelievable, turn of events (and non-events), at Gene Callahan`s Crash Landing blog.

Readers may recall my earlier report regarding Mr. Callahan`s blog post on the intriguing topic of whether "morals are objectively real", which blog post oddly "disappeared" and was subsequenty resurrected (after my report here).

The latest news is that our philosopher king has, rather startlingly, slammed shut and bolted the windows and doorson the subject blog post, after uttering a stream of grumpy and dismissive comments, "The Doctor Is In" sign has been yanked, and replaced with the sign

"New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator."

Comments are now closed on THIS thread - even though they remain open on ALL OTHER posts by Gene, from as far back as June 8.

That the proprietor added a parting shot (misdirected at a strawman, of course) after yours truly responded to prior comments is not particularly surprising, but what is very stunning is that my response itself has been DELETED, so that it appears as if, after being castigated by my superior, I sinply tucked in my tail and slinked off.

[Update: I note that I was alerted to the fact that comments had been turned off when Bob Murphy kindly sent me and email (cc`d to Gene) that indicated Bob`s willingness to take up this subject on his own blog; when I asked why he hadn`t made this offer on the blog thread, he replied that he coul dn`t as comments had been closed.]

It was only after Mr. Callahan declined to respond to my email request for an explanation that I decided to remark here on this rather sad state of affairs.]

This type of behavior may lead some to question Mr. Callahan`s maturity and sense of honor. Is this how one treats "friends" or other invited guests, especially someone purportedly interested in a conversation about "truth", simply because one does not like what others have to say?

Others may simply ponder whether Gene, fuelled not by dispepsia by by a fit of youthful good fun on a post regarding the "objective" nature of morals, has simply playfully tried to raise the questions of (a) whether blog comments, if removed by the blog proprietor, indeed ever existed, (b) if not, whether judgments as to his`s behavior can have any objective basis whatsoever and, of course (c) whether morals themselves have any objective reality.

But while others may disagree on how to evaluate such behavior (I have my own conclusions, but insist there is no objective moral order that makes me right and Gene and others wrong), I am confident, at least, that my now non-existent comment was objectively real. For the benefit of others, I post below my complete comment (typos and all), in precisely the form I received it in my Inbox from "blogger.com", Gene`s blogging platform (one gets these little messages by suscribing:to the comments on particular posts)..

This、I hope, demonstrates that thoughts, however evanescent, are real.

Which leaves inquiring minds to ponder just what, if anything, Mr. Callahan hope to accomplish or demonstrate by his apparently petulant and ungentlemanly behavior, and whether he is satisfied with the results. (Discussions of whether there is an objective moral order - one not relative to man or to particular societies and individuals - will have to be left to another day and, alas, a venue other than Crash Landing, which sems to be crashing and burning.)

Here`s the comment (which was initally posted before Gene`st last word); readers can check the blog post itself for context.

from	TokyoTom <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
to		TokyoTomSr@gmail.com
date		Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:09 PM
subject		[Crash Landing] New comment on Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is....
mailed-by		blogger.bounces.google.com

TokyoTom has left a new comment on the post "Morals Are Not Objectively Real and Neither Is...":

"As thoughts?! And thoughts consist of mass and energy?"

Yes. There are no diembodied thoughts. "Thoughts" is a word that describes our perception of physical activty in our brain. We might record or communicate our thoughts, which communications also have a physical basis.

"No, Tom, he's speaking of mental age"

Is he your sock puppet, or are you dissing me on your own?

"most people get through their materialist stage by about 20."

I disagree - most people never seriously think about thinking. And all cognitive scientists are older than 20.

""discussion" doesn't exist since it's not made of matter and energy"

Who says? Not me. Discussion and dialogue - communication - definitely exist and have a material basis. Is the "freshman philospohy BS" I`m parroting so difficult that even you can`t follow it?

"I know, there is no "point" to anything, as it's all just a bunch of atoms colliding".

You might know this, but I certainly don`t. I appreciate the helpful attitude, but maybe you can let me put my own thoughts in my own mouth?

"there really is no sense trying to "discuss" ... things with "someone" ... who can keep such rubbish in their head is really quite "pointless""

I get your drift despite the grammar, but if all of this is so　easy AND pointless, why do you have such difficulty actually describing what I say (that freshamn philosphy BS), why didn`t you dispose of it months adgo on your peaen to Danny Shahar (who seems to agree with me, BTW), why did you even bother with post, and why have you still, after all of this time, failed to respond to my questions above (about whether the objective order is something that exists apart from mankind, and is universal to all men and all life)?

Too easy? Too boring? Too pointless?

I had thought that if I came here, I would get to kill the English. Have I come to the wrong place, then?

"I hope your electrons thrive in the future, Tom!"

Mant thayks; that`s the nicest thing I`ve heard all day. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but electrons don`t thrive - and even though they may be get excited, they never get disappointed!

Post a comment.

Unsubscribe to comments on this post.

Posted by TokyoTom to Crash Landing at 2:09 AM

A further remaining question is whether Charlie Brown will ever again accept Lucy`s invitation to kick a proffered football.

[Updated] Are blog posts by Gene Callahan Objectively Real? Perhaps not

TokyoTom — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:28:00 GMT

...(read more)

Man & religion: Is there is an objective moral reality? In which I hazard a few thoughts

TokyoTom — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:25:00 GMT

I make no pretense of having any formal training in philosophy, but it strikes me that the answer is no. I post here a few thoughts I penned in an exchange with Gene Callahan at his blog, Crash Landing on May 18 and 19, in connection with conversation...(read more)

Op-ed by nuclear physicist on climate change: questions for "skeptics"

TokyoTom — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:28:00 GMT

John P. Holdren , an MIT and Stanford -trained nuclear physicist who is professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and director of Harvard's Woods Hole Research Center , former President...(read more)

Gene Callahan: public moral opprobrium is an appropriate non-statist lever against climate change

TokyoTom — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:04:00 GMT

I previously noted Gene Callahan`s interesting essay , "How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming" , in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty , at the website of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). While I haven...(read more)

Can Pigovian taxes be Coasean bargains? - The case of climate negotiations

TokyoTom — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:27:00 GMT

David Zetland's libertarian-environmental blog, Aguanomics , has recently been carrying on some excellent discussions on resource and environmental economics, with interlocutors like Bob Murphy , Gene Callahan and others. In the context of two recent...(read more)

Jim Hansen warns of slow-motion disaster and welcomes future public trials of fossil fuel CEOs for buying government delay

TokyoTom — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:25:00 GMT

Prominent climatologist Dr. James Hansen , Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, who has long been warning of the long-term consequences of man's...(read more)

Climate change damage and property rights: do Lockean principles require Western nations to compensate poorer ones?

TokyoTom — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:03:00 GMT

Dedicated libertarian law professor Jonathan Adler and longtime libertarian policy analyst Indur Goklany discuss the above issue at in a Roundtable entitled " Climate Change and Property Rights " hosted by Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation...(read more)