Reason and Science Make Us Moral: Michael Shermer on The Moral Arc
Skeptic magazine editor discusses his new book.
"You can't just say, 'This is the way it is, therefore it ought to be that way.' You've got to have good reasons," says Michael Shermer, referencing the common "is-ought fallacy" most famously explained by David Hume. "Well, I claim that we do have good reasons: Democracies are better than autocracies. Free markets are better than tyrannical, top-down economic systems. There are certain things we know work. You can measure it!"
Shermer is the longtime editor of Skeptic magazine, a visiting professor at Chapman University, and author of the new book The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Towards Truth, Justice, and Freedom, in which he argues that humanity has become measurably more moral over time and that this is a direct outgrowth of the rise of Enlightenment ideals of reason, empricism, and the rejection of blind faith and tradition.
Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller interviewed Shermer and explored such topics as the meaning of morality, the relationship between morality and markets, the possibility (or impossibility) of consensus around moral truths, and the biggest obstacles impeding further moral progress.
Approximately 20 minutes. Interview by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Justin Monticello and Paul Detrick. Edited by Weissmueller. Music by Chris Zabriskie.
Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I agree with most of what he's talking about. But are democracies, prima facie, better than autocracies? It might be fair to say that most large-scale autocracies are worse than most large-scale democracies. But I think the Principality of Monaco is considerably freer than the (democratic) Republic of France.
I think that a privately owned family grocery store, is better than a grocery store where everyone in the neighborhood gets to take a vote on what the prices should be. For obvious reasons democracies are not particularly conducive to capital accumulation.
Democracy is just a mechanism for distributing power, it's not an ideal to strive for.
Substitute "the will of the people" for "the divine right of the king" and you get democracy.
I think you mean that in reverse? Both expressions are euphemisms used to legitimize the violation of the rights of property owners.
That was my point.
People who talk about volont? g?n?rale don't mean it, anyway. It's just an excuse for doing whatever it is they want to do.
The ideal to strive for is a system in which you get your way all the time, right?
False dichotomy more, Tony.
Describe an ideal system of government from your point of view.
It's over your head, I've told you half a dozen times and you either disappear from the thread entirely or hone in on some fine detail to exclusion of the theory itself.
Is it some strict set of economic policies that nobody is allowed to change even if 99% of the people wanted to?
What is economic policy, exactly?
Actions governments take that affect the economy, from fiscal to monetary to trade to tax to regulatory policy. You may want to claim you don't want to implement such a thing for the most part, you just want government to stay out. But, of course, that is a positive policy choice with its own set of consequences.
No it's not. I know from experience that you don't understand causation nor the burden of proof so this isn't surprising. Where does the government get the authority to make economic policy? Where does your neighbor get the authority to decide how you spend your paycheck?
It is a positive policy choice, as it is but one option among many, and certainly not some kind of default. You just want to claim it is because you want your personal political beliefs to have a mystical imprimatur. A government gets its authority from its ability to mobilize the enforcement of such; with any luck the government acts on behalf and with the consent of the governed. Since you wouldn't have a paycheck without such an institution in place (because there would be no such thing as money or enforced contracts), your neighbor gets some say over how resources are distributed in your shared society because... you share it.
Does the existence of the government predate the existence of the economy?
So does a rapist.
consign yourself to luck fine, but don't try to drag everyone else with you.
That's demonstrably false. You can have contract enforcement without a state and you can certainly have economic interaction without a state. See this is what I was talking about when I said this stuff is above your head.
How do I share a society with him? How much do each of us own of this society? What if I feel like I'm part of another society or no society at all?
The ideal to strive for is a system in which you get your way all the time, right?
Absolutely. Why would you compromise if you don't have to? Regrettably, since I am not omnipotent, I don't get everything I want. Even if I could get everything I wanted the best system would still be a classical liberal system. As long as I tried to ensure that my interference would only be a minor hindrance. Society would be richer and therefore I would have better options to choose from.
I think it's a contradiction to say you favor classical liberalism. Inherent in liberalism is progressiveness. You can't have a "liberal" system in which most of its major aspects, like the economic framework or set of individual rights, are ossified. Liberalism has moved on since the 19th century, and has adapted to include new ideas and new rights as we have figured out what works. So what you guys mean when you say "classical liberalism" is really a more conservative version of even modern conservatism--you want a system not only long dead but relegated almost to mythology. You especially like to leave out the aspects of that older version of liberalism that tolerated, say, the enslavement of a third of the population or the disenfranchisement of most. Liberalism has moved on, and more people are free now than they were under the system you are presumably referring to. Laissez-faire and basic property rights just aren't enough.
That's right. Liberalism has moved on less liberal ideas.
Tony, the liberals were against slavery, if you recall.
*Liberalism has moved on TO less liberal ideas.
Whoever was against slavery at a time when the matter was controversial was, by definition, the liberal party. But you don't get to say that we figured everything out with respect to freedom in the 19th century and still call your beliefs liberal.
Don't conflate your fasicsm lite with real liberalism. At the most basic level, if you call your ideology liberal and that ideology advocates vast and powerful institutions of political control, you're not a fucking liberal.
How would you maintain your preferred economic regime without a large enforcement apparatus? There have been more-or-less laissez-faire systems, but there's never been a system in which government was as weak as you claim to want it but that was stable or fostered individual liberty. As a real liberal, I simply believe in a lot more individual rights than you do. Having a government to enforce those rights is a given, you just want to pretend that it's not.
How would you maintain your preferred economic regime without a large enforcement apparatus?
Are you serious? A self regulating system needs a regulatory agency? It needs contract law and protection of property rights but prices and markets are organic things that just work.
But this really just shows you cannot fathom a system without some sort of overlord maintaining CONTROL.
Or maybe you can't handle anything more complex than this fairy tale, and thus need it to be true? Come on. You say it's self-regulating, then immediately impose two big, blunt rules. You guys need to get this through your head: no system devised by humans is perfect, and that includes the laissez-faire market. And you need to stop conflating that system with virtue. It doesn't produce the best outcomes, period, and it is circular and absurd to say, as you might, that the best outcomes are by definition what come from a laissez-faire economy.
Don't hurt other people and don't take their stuff. If you hurt other people or take their stuff, I (sometimes we) will pay you back in kind. That is the heart of justice.
I know that complexity arising from self organizing systems is beyond you.
Markets are like life they thrive in even the harshest climate. Now if you have lots of food, open spaces, and the right climate then you get an incredibly complex jungle full of critters.
Laissez-faire has never really been tried. It is somewhat of a fantasy to want such a thing given that evil control freaks like yourself will bulldoze the rain forest.
There would be numerous enforcement apparatuses, just not a single centralized monopoly enforcer.
Yes you favor positive rights, which is to say, you favor slavery.
These exaggerations are not helping you defend against my assumption that your system is so simple because you can't deal with anything more complex.
Exaggeration? You have repeatedly argued that you have a right to the property and labor of others. That same species of rights was advocated by slaveholders historically. You are carrying the torch of the slaving tradition. Kudos.
Occam's razor.
I shan't read a funnier statement all day.
Doctrinaire Progressivism is illiberal because of two fundamental "features" of the philosophy:
1. There are no axiomatic characteristics of government that are independent of time/history.
2. Rule by expert.
Classical liberalism violates both 1 and 2, ergo Classical liberalism != Progressivism.
What does liberalism have to do with requiring "axiomatic characteristics"? Isn't that just another name for "things you're not allowed to debate about"? (That's illiberal.) Not sure precisely what you mean by "rule by expert." A dedicated bureaucracy is a tool in any society's toolbox. Like with anything, it works better when competence (or expertise) is maximized and corruption minimized. And I don't know what you're referring to but I don't believe in doctrinaire anything. My definition of liberalism is a continually improving system favoring maximum individual liberty and well-being.
axiomatic characteristics are things like laws and constitutions that guarantee things like freedom of association or speech...so a gov of laws not men. Some things are unalienable -like my right to my property. That something like that is optional is pretty fucking monstrous.
When you deny that there are no axioms of governance, then you are just saying we'll do what we want because. If you have no first principles that constrain your behavior, then you are just a savage.
I probably support most of the rights you're talking about and believe in, and I don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference if I simply add the caveat that perhaps we haven't gotten those things perfectly right and they are subject to change. Even freedom of speech. Doubtful that it would, but even our own constitution doesn't put it beyond the manipulation of a large- and dedicated-enough majority. Nor should it. You're leaving out a very important aspect of liberal society, one developed extensively on these very shores: pragmatism. Everything is subject to debate and alteration. Mature people don't need first principles. And the most savage are those with the dearest dedication to first principles.
I for one can safely rule out that I would ever murder a child. Tony would need to make a pragmatic calculation which is what makes him an inherently dangerous and evil person.
So you're not a violent child-murdering psychopath. I suppose you want a cookie for that?
I take a principled stance on that issue. You take a pragmatic one. I shudder at the thought of the day it becomes a pragmatic option for you.
I'm sorry, now I must ask the question:
Under what circumstances do you think it's moral to murder a child?
I only ask because you didn't deny it and I think you may be some form of Utilitarian. BTW, saying "never" is an acceptable answer.
Without axioms there can be no set of self consistent theorems.
I can't help you with your lack of first principles, I mean if you think you can just change what you consider to be moral or immoral, ethical or unethical on a whim then you have definite personal issues.
The ideal to strive for is a system in which you get your way all the time, right?
Yes. It would be IDEAL for me (and you, and everyone) to get everything they ever want all the time.
Which is impossible in a society composed of more than one person. I'm just curious which form of autocracy all the democracy-skeptical libertarians favor.
Anyone who believes in free markets, and understands the very simple premise, certainly does not favor any sort of autocracy. We understand that market forces composed of voluntary exchange of goods/services for mutually realized value relegates autocracy to obsolescence. We all know that democracy in itself has a major flaw in that the ignorant voter will eventually vote himself into slavery for most people are cowards. Democracy is not the problem however. The growth of government as a result of the right to vote is the problem. That can be explained in the complacence of wealthy populations when everyone is making good enough money. The wealth comes from capitalism. The complacency come from the average dolt that continually curses capitalism because they are sheep. Right Tony?
That said, those who understand capitalism know that any other economic system is doomed to failure via historical evidence but at least free markets give us a chance.
Surely you can understand why someone might not buy the promise that as long as you leave people free to make exchanges, there will be no corruption or power grabs. You can't have capitalism without rules. Democracy ensures that the rules are more-or-less agreed upon by the people who have to live with them, and aren't imposed.
Force of arms isn't an imposition? How Orwellian...
You can have Capital without rules. You must be willing and able to defend it. But you can have rules without government.
If I don't hurt anybody why do you care? Fucking monster.
I don't, but then you guys seem to feel entitled to pretend that things that actually hurt people but that don't fit within your narrow worldview simply don't exist (like pollution or generational poverty). That's not playing fair.
Generational poverty is a condition created by Progressives. Blacks had it better before the Great Society enslaved them in generational dependence.
That is an absurd statement.
Backed up by tons of data. Go have a look. Black families started to break up then, crime started going up, literacy plummeted, etc. The War on Poverty fucked about 4 generations of blacks.
They had better literacy numbers pre-Jim Crow.
The Great Society projects led directly to deep--and sustained--reductions in poverty, and not just among blacks. This is a line of old conservative history-rewriting bullshit you guys plop on the table whenever you want to take credit for sitting around and doing absolutely nothing for black or poor people for 50 years.
The big gains of these projects went to the elderly (as in Medicare), but the fact that the black population hasn't achieved economic parity isn't evidence that they didn't work, only that there's more work to be done.
"sitting around and doing absolutely nothing"
Nixon did a ton of to Build a life supporting bridge for Black Americans in the 1970s.
Currently, most of it is none of your business. You dont have the right to engineer peoples lives due to the color of their skin. Left wing co-dependency is a sickness.
"sitting around and doing absolutely nothing for black or poor people for 50 years."
Right, because we do not have a white savior complex and trust them to best manage their own situations.
On the other hand, unlike you liberals, we did not destroy their best schools with forced busing, did not throw thousands of them in prison through the drug war, did not destroy their property with urban renewal, did not subsidize the flight of jobs from their neighborhoods with the interest deduction and highway system, did not prevent them from working with occupaitonal licensing laws, and did not prevent them from finding cheap housing with zoning laws like free parking mandates, heigh restrictions, and historical preservation.
I'm sure poor people and blacks did not benefit when Milton Friedman, Martin Anderson, Walter Oi, and David henderson ended the draft.
The national poverty rate was declining at a rate of 1% per year right up until the Great Society programs came into being.
Yeah I'm familiar with this line of nonsense. The trend was downward at the time, and was preceded by a history of large swings. Since the programs were implemented, the poverty rate has never again risen above about 15%. That graph you no doubt have in mind says one thing: you are wrong. The programs succeeded in stabilizing poverty rates and preventing them from swinging back to 25% or more.
That which is unseen.
Stabilized them at the prescribed level of poverty to keep them happy on the plantation.
Fake questions are not productive
It depends on the type of democracy. The commonly used definition, i.e., martial democracy, involves a "winner take all" solution to issues and choices, and is generally no better than an autocracy. However, an alternative definition, market democracy uses the free market to choose solutions (which may differ person to person) to issues and choices. This is a far better system than an autocracy.
I will probably get flak for this, but I think the opposite is true- good reasons and good science start with good morals. Part of what makes a progressive the way they are is a lack of morality. Their values are messed up: they hate truth, they value material goods above humans, and they hate justice.
You're probably right. They fight against GMOs, without evidence, despite the fact that they are far less resource intensive crops, and would limit run-off pollution as well as CO2 omissions. They fight against nuclear power despite it having the same benefits. Their revealed preferences are interesting.
I'm in the morality-and-ethics-matters camp. This total hedonism (in the very broad sense) and ends-justifies-the-means mentality is sickening. It's no wonder we have no moral compass or concern about reality when self-serving bullshit is the order of the day.
In my experience, the false assumption usually happens because they don't understand "the seen vs. the unseen."
They'll make the argument that the ends justify the means, but never think about the unintended consequences and ripple effects that occur. Minimum wages are a good example - they see the immediate effect of workers getting paid more and are perfectly fine using government power to achieve that end. But they don't see the people who lose jobs because their employer can't afford them anymore or the low skill workers who can't get a job because their skill isn't worth the minimum wage.
At the most basic level, that inability to notice the 'seen and unseen', stems from a deep-seeded and nearly irreversible cognitive disorder. Instill a child with false morality like those that abound in various socialisms, and you've almost certainly crippled that child's ability to reason. And in all likelihood, the disorder will be inherited by that child's eventual offspring.
The problem Free Society is that narcissism leads to a complete lack of humility. If you are enough of a narcissist, you believe you can save the world or save other people and achieve all of these good things. And the great the good you think you can achieve, the more evil the means you are willing to embrace to accomplish it. What in the grand scheme of things are the deaths of even a hundred million people if their deaths result in a just world? There is no more noble ideal that than the ideal of socialism and communism. The idea is of a just world without any need or deprivation. Once you buy into the idea that it is possible to create such a world, it is a very easy step to start thinking it is okay to murder anyone you feel is standing in the way of such a world's creation.
Which is why moral relativism is a social disease that may very well be humanity's undoing. I really believe that humanity's truest and greatest threat comes from false morality.
As social animals, nothing short of an asteroid impact could be more detrimental to our species prospects for survival than a social disease like this.
Our biggest undoing is when we start thinking some of us are more equal than others. This is why Christianity was able to produce a society that gave us natural rights. The people who came up with natural rights were raised in a society where all things were measured against God. Compared to the creator of the entire universe, what is the difference between the lowest, most handicapped, weakest person on earth and the highest person? Nothing. So that highest person can in no way claim to be superior to the lowest.
Take away God and judge all things by this world and that difference starts to look pretty big. And once you start to believe that difference matters, then all sorts of evils result. Why shouldn't you make choices for them? Why shouldn't you rule them? Why not just kill the weaker ones so they don't breed and contaminate the gene pool. And their quality of life isn't worth living anyway.
However you want to do it, be it religion, natural rights, whatever, you can never have a moral or just society unless you embrace the innate value and equality of all people. Some animals can't be more equal than others.
We are equal before the law (moral law especially) as our humanity dictates, but we are not all 'equal' prima facie as reality dictates.
Let's leave the mythological beings out of this. The difference is what you just described, as large as can be. On one hand you have a slobbering unselfaware, unintelligent person (still a person of course) and the other you have a supreme intellect et cetera. When your wife was pregnant, were you really neutral on the issue of whether or not the child would be intelligent and healthy? Of course it's just as immoral to chuck your retarded baby from a bridge as it would be to throw your healthy baby from the bridge, but the rights of the inferior person are not inferior because the person is all around inferior relative to others.
That is to say, just because a person is inferior as compared to others doesn't mean their rights are necessarily inferior others.
That is to say, just because a person is inferior as compared to others doesn't mean their rights are necessarily inferior others.
I don't see why not.
That's your issue.
he difference is what you just described, as large as can be. On one hand you have a slobbering unselfaware, unintelligent person (still a person of course) and the other you have a supreme intellect et cetera.
Then rationally you have a right to rule over them. You are smarter, you are wiser and better by any objective measure. What dignity do they have that isn't subject to your superior reason and wisdom?
If man and the material world is the measure of all things, you are right. Those differences are significant. And if they are significant, the consequences of them are as well.
Aristotle said in the Politics that if man is the highest being, then politics is the end of life. And he was absolutely right. Without God or something outside this world, some animals really are more equal than others. I don't like that conclusion very much, but I don't see any other.
That's a huge non-sequitur. The best dentist in town doesn't possess a right to kill or enslave the other dentists simply because he's the best one.
Maybe through experience they're better at mopping floors or mending fences. Their self-ownership is the seat of their dignity and worth.
What else is there? Is there some parallel dimension or supernatural realm you'd like to point us to?
It is what it is. There's no reason beyond wishful thinking to believe there is a god, particularly whichever god or flavor of said god you prefer to assume is real. Morality is entirely about interactions between humans. There's no legitimate reason to include supernatural forces in theories of morality.
If it is what it is, stop telling me about rights and equality because you clearly don't believe in them. That is my point. You do believe in them, you just can't explain why anyone else should.
Deductive reasoning and logical validity. You are the one who can't explain why anyone should. Sorry, but 'because magic' isn't a valid basis for any belief.
Even the worst secular justification for a thing is better than the best magical justification.
Deductive reasoning and logical validity.
No. Reasoning if value neutral. the only reason it is "logical" is because you feed the right assumptions into the logic. feed a different set of assumptions in and you will get a different and equally rational result.
The question is why are your assumptions valid? And you can't and will never be able to explain that through logic.
Well I'm at a loss for the supposed assumptions. I didn't say anything about the need to have semitic goat herders to bequeath their vast knowledge of Yahweh upon me.
What's your reasoning behind why I should believe in your version of morality? If you say god, or Tucan Sam or Zeus or any of that shit I'm going to assume you have precisely dick to say about rational beliefs. And a fair assumption it will be.
Because Christ endorsed NAP and added an addendum to it. Not only should you cease doing evil to another, you should do good to them too. And no, the latter doesn't repeal the former (you can't do evil to someone in the name of calling it good).
Even if you don't believe in God, he's the author of the libertarian society (last verse in the book of Judges).
Man will try to become a 'god' if you teach him one doesn't exist. Whether it be self, knowledge, power, or the majority, it will all be used for evil. Every man wants to be 'god', which is the original sin.
I'm in the morality-and-ethics-matters camp.
The problem is, the Hebdo killers, ISIS, true drug prohibitionists, and whatever other true-believers committing aggression for the sake of their beliefs are also in the same camp.
Well spoken BG
This is the way it is, therefore it ought to be that way
This is probably out of context, but it really needs to be qualified.
The same statement could be used by progressives to say "The world is unfair, therefore we have a right to pass laws to try to make it fair."
In a "Truth is stranger than fiction" way, you have to figure out what can be changed and what can't. Reality doesn't require that you understand.
And I'm a fan of the idea that science can define explicitly what it is that you are doing, but it can't tell you whether that action is moral or not.
And of course, there's the idea that it's a leap of faith to assume that our methods of logic and reason have any baring on reality whatsoever.
I quit reading Skeptic magazine long ago when they jumped on the AGW bandwagon. I was right to do so.
Yeah, they really got much more political in the last decade and seem to shelf their skepticism when it conflicts with their politics. Disappointing.
It comes through in a lot of their affiliated podcasts as well. A lot of smug + a huge willingness to defer to "government rules."
Shermer is yet to receive his fill of Hoppe.
Democracies cannot be better than autocracies for the simple reason that democracies tend to favor the autocrat over the non-autocrat (i.e. the populist strongman over the more subdued constitutionalist.)
While I can accept his argument that reason and the rejection if blind faith has helped humanity become more moral, I do not agree with his argument that part of this is because of empiricism, since the notion itself is absurd. You arrive at moral truths through logic and argumentation, not by making experiments. You don't prove the Golden Rule through empirical research because that would mean submitting test subjects to painful experiences. Instead, you recognize the truth as axiomatic.
For a quick and easy explanation from Hoppe himself, I would direct people here. Democracy may have smoothed some rougher edges of traditional statism but on the whole, large-scale political democracy has been a setback for humanity and limited government.
I agree. Morality is to be logically deduced from axiomatic truth. It's morally reprehensible to murder babies not because it's empirically validated as true, but because it violates the utmost fundamental moral principles that have been discovered to exist between human beings.
Science and empiricism require falsification to gain knowledge. But I think it's a mistake to say that anything that can't be falsified can't be true. There is no rule that says that truth has to be falsifiable and by assuming so, you're throwing away an entire realm of knowledge.
Shermer was one of the people behind the move to call the anti-religious "brights" (a more accurate word for such people would be "arrogants"). Not only that, but he claimed that the word wasn't intended to insult the religious. I haven't taken him seriously since then.
Well, I claim that we do have good reasons: Democracies are better than autocracies. Free markets are better than tyrannical, top-down economic systems. There are certain things we know work. You can measure it!"
Not necessarily. Democracies can be tyrannical and evil as hell. There is another word for Democracy, the mob. Small government and freedom works better than autocracy. And the reason why free markets and small governments work so much better is because the collective wisdom of many acting in their perceived self interest is a hundred thousand times better than the wisdom of various top men in charge of everything.
Really "science" and "reason" don't make us moral. No one tries to be immoral. We are immoral because we use our reasoning powers to rationalize how doing something immoral is really moral. Every top man mass murderer i the last 100 years was absolutely certain he was acting reasonably and what he was doing was scientifically certain to produce a better world.
Democracies are better than autocracies. Free markets are better than tyrannical, top-down economic systems.
And the tendency of democracies to install and validate tyrannical top-down economic systems? How does that factor in?
Without a solid rule of law and institutions that everyone respects, any democracy will quickly devolve into an autocracy. I really wonder if this guy knows much about history. I can't see how anyone familiar with history could say that democracies, by themselves, are always a good thing. They just are not.
Instead of putting reason and science at the top of the hierarchy, how about we put the individual there? And instead of congratulating ourselves about how rational and scientific we are, we learn some humility and admit that that individual, no matter who he is, is entitled to a dignity and ownership of himself and his own self interest in such a way that no one else has a right to interfere with it or try to control it absent him doing direct harm to other people. How about we just admit that we don't know what is best for that individual and have no right to dictate it no matter how rational and scientifically we go about doing so. How about that? \
I listen to guys like this and all I can think is "be ware of top men bearing claims of Democracy."
nstead of putting reason and science at the top of the hierarchy, how about we put the individual there?
Yeah, I think he may be making an implicit assumption that "reason" and "science" are obvious and agreed upon, when in reality they can be as subjective as anything else.
Reason is value neutral. I can make any proposition "reasonable", if I just put in crazy enough assumptions.
If a class of people are standing in the way of a just society, and achieving a just society is the ultimate good, then why is murdering those people wrong?
And we all know how science can be tortured to justify evil. People thought race theory and eugenics were the best and cutting edge science of the day.
I'll have to dig them up again, but there are letters from prominent cultural figures like HG Wells talking about eugenics and how we need to keep the lower classes from reproducing but we need to find a way to do it "nicely."
I can make any proposition "reasonable", if I just put in crazy enough assumptions.
I think you may be conflating the terms "reason" and "logic." If most anyone would consider your premises crazy, they might also classify them as unreasonable.
Sure, there are things that you can measure, but would that provide evidence for the validity of a position (e.g. freer markets are better than less free markets)? What evidence could you gather that would provide proof of regularity to a system driven by choice? Again, you cannot prove that free markets are better than non-free markets by making experiments, because that would mean you would have to condemn a group of individuals to privation. You can thus only obtain a picture of events at a certain point from where to make inferences but this process can lead to misleading results (case in point the already-debunked Phillips curve).
Instead, the truth that free markets are better is realized through reason and logic, i.e. the truth is DEDUCED rather than INDUCED. Allowing people to freely choose has to be better than not allowing them to do, because that is what one would want for him or herself: the freedom to freely choose. Denying our own freedom to choose is a perfunctory contradiction, because the denial is a choice.
Well put. What you can't measure is the alternative universe where you made a different decision. So by default, what you can measure is confirming your bias.
Free markets are only "better" if material wealth, freedom and well being are your standards of measure. Those sound like good standards to me. But I fail to see why they are so self evident that no one would ever see it otherwise.
Free markets are not very good at producing equal results or security. Markets are unpredictable and give participants a real sense of insecurity. Some people really hate that. Some other people are envious such that the lack of equal results bothers them.
The other thing is that while free markets work the best in the aggregate, on an individual level, they can produce some pretty unjust and lousy things. It sucks when your business goes broke because of a downturn in the business cycle or when you lose your job. Bad things can happen to good people in markets.
This guy is frankly not very interesting or insightful. He seems to really have a poor grasp of how markets actually work in the real world or why some people would rationally be put off by them.
In a sense, humanity has already performed the experiments of free vs. controlled markets. North v. South Korea, Hong Kong v. China, East v. West Germany. The same peoples, with very different results in outcomes due entirely to the systems they had to live under.
Sure we have. And there are people who will tell you honestly they would prefer the authoritarian states. Yeah, I wouldn't and most others wouldn't either. But that doesn't mean some wouldn't see it differently. It just depends on what you value.
condemn a group of individuals to privation
Like North Korea? That seems to be a valid 'experiment'.
"Well, I claim that we do have good reasons: Democracies are better than autocracies. Free markets are better than tyrannical, top-down economic systems. There are certain things we know work. You can measure it!"
This made me laugh. Better? The question is "better for whom?", and no that can't be measured.
Reason and science don't make us moral (or immoral), they're just tools. Their are perfectly good reasons to lie, cheat, and steal - it all just depends on the person and the environment.
(Full disclosure: I haven't listened to the entire thing, maybe he says exactly what I have at some point, in which case... uh, good)
This made me laugh. Better? The question is "better for whom?", and no that can't be measured.
That is a great point. I am pretty sure an autocracy would be pretty awesome, provided I am one of the autocrats.
Its not so bad, really.
[stubs out cigar on orphan's scalp]
Bingo.
And a well-articulated Michael Shermer book isn't going to make you give up your libido dominandi any time soon.
Shermer is a great example of a Libertarian who thinks everyone in the world thinks just like he does. If you think all people are equal and are a good, rational, reasonable libertarian like Shermer, sure autocracies are bad. If however, you really think you and people like you are superior and some other group inferior such that they are better off with you and your fellow superiors running their lives, a autocracy is the only rational answer.
If that were the case, autocracies would be better than fantastic. If every king were a libertarian philosopher?
I consider it a uniquely leftist phenomenon where people are thought of as being equals with more or less similar attributes, skills and desires. But this is wishful thinking.
Some people are better than others. Would you concede that as a thinker, a person who arrives at libertarianism has done a better job at thinking than a person whose thinking brought them to support for Stalinism? An engineer is probably better at designing a birdhouse than a janitor and indeed the reason the janitor is not himself an engineer is due at least in part, to the limitations of his own ability.
Some people are better than others but not in ways that matter. Is LaBron James a better athlete than me? For sure. Is Stephen Hawking smarter? Orlando Bloom better looking and more charming? Yes and yes. While those differences matter to some degree in life, LaBron James gets to play in the NBA and I don't. Hawking gets to teach at Oxford and Bloom gets to bang super models and I don't. They don't mean anything beyond that. The fact that Hawking is smarter doesn't mean he is more equal before the law than me. It doesn't mean he knows better than I do what is better for me. It doesn't mean he is more or less of a human being or entitled to more or less autonomy and dignity and respect than I am. And that is what is important.
The problem is how do you express such a distinction in a world without God. I ask that not to debate God but to figure out how to achieve that understanding even in people who don't believe. If there is a God, you just say we are all so insignificant in comparison that we are effectively equal before God and thus must respect each other as such. But without that, how do you get people to believe and understand the innate dignity and autonomy of the individual, separate from whatever worldly gifts they may have. Without people believing that, how do you keep them from deciding its okay to kill and rule over those they see as inferior?
Correct, but that's not really the issue when we say that some people really are better than others. Some people are better at being people, than others. Non-sociopaths are by-and-large better human beings than sociopaths, since they are essentially better representatives of humanity and human behavior. That may sound subjective but it's really not. Since no reasonable person would conclude that it's basic human nature to murder children or eat your neighbor.
I'm an atheist and I possess an uncommonly detailed knowledge of ethics. Secular ethics do exist and entire schools of libertarian thought are based on it. All you need to do is propose some logically consistent and universally valid moral axioms and remove any supernatural claims, and bingo bango your proposed ethics just became secular.
I'm superior to lots of people that I haven't violated, for the record.
"Non-sociopaths are by-and-large better human beings than sociopaths, since they are essentially better representatives of humanity and human behavior. That may sound subjective but it's really not. Since no reasonable person would conclude that it's basic human nature to murder children or eat your neighbor."
"I think eating his neighbor was in line with basic human nature"
"Well you're not a reasonable person"
Sounds familiar to something.
"All you need to do is propose some logically consistent and universally valid moral axioms and remove any supernatural claims, and bingo bango your proposed ethics just became secular."
That's all!? I'm not sure if I've seen a single example that meets this criteria.
"Rape is bad". If you can't apply that universally and consistently then there's something wrong with you.
"Only Tak Kak may commit rape."
Universal, consistent.
Perhaps I'm not truly a Scotman.
Saying "only Tic Tak may commit rape" is not universally valid since it precludes universality entirely.
It maxim applies to everyone. Your qualm is just the particulars of it.
Whether it's valid is a different story.
"Rape is bad".
There are thousands of websites devoted to the proposition that some people disagree with that. Some people like rape. Some people have a kink and get off on being raped. They would tell you that rape can be great. Are they necessarily wrong?
Kinky rape porn proves that rape isn't always a bad thing?
Yes. Liking something doesn't make it objectively good. I'm convinced you are a moral relativist. You may not even know it yourself.
Yes. Liking something doesn't make it objectively good. I'm convinced you are a moral relativist.
That is just begging the question. You don't like it sure, neither do I. But why are they wrong and you right? They disagree. All you can say in response is "but I think that is wrong". That is just you making an assumption. There have been lots of times and places where rape was considered perfectly moral. I find it revolting, but I can't tell exactly why that makes it in fact revolting and them immoral for doing it. I find Denver Bronco fans revolting. So what?
A rape victim has by definition had their personal will and right of self-ownership violated. There's not a mentally capable rape victim in history that consented to their rape, that's not an assumption.
But was not so in reality.
That's alarming. That device in your skull if it's functioning half way decently, comes pre-programmed with certain proclativities towards empathy and compassion. As fundamentally social creatures this is necessary. As a reasonable creature, you also have the ability to learn and expand upon your innately human characteristics.
If you require magic and superstition to wrap your head around why it is that rape is a bad thing, then you clearly are missing some very basic human attributes either through conditioning or anatomical deficiency. That's a real pity.
What is so hard to understand regarding consent? if someone gives consent, it is not rape. it may be a fantasy about rape, but it is not rape.
Sure Flipper, but it is hardly agreed for all time that rape is always bad. Spousal rape was legal for most of human history and is legal in large parts of the world today. That shocks our conscience but it is hardly clear all of them are wrong and we are right. We just don't like rape and they do.
The people who don't agree are wrong.
Statutory law does not an ethic make.
And they are morally deficient human beings for advocating the literal rape of others.
Seems particularly apropos to a Shermer discussion.
All you need to do is propose some logically consistent and universally valid moral axioms and remove any supernatural claims, and bingo bango your proposed ethics just became secular.
Sure. But given that thousands of years of thinking about this issue hasn't resulted in finding any, believing that there are "universally valid moral axioms" such that everyone can agree on them can be found strikes me as very superstitious.
To me natural rights atheists are nothing but theists who have substituted a set of assumptions for God. You say all men are created equal because that is their natural right. I see no difference between saying that and saying they are equal because they are equal before God other than language. The principle is the same and requires an equal amount of assumption in both cases.
"Murdering children is bad."
The difference is that your preferred version assumes all of the unsubstantiated claims that go along with claiming the existence of a god. My secular ethics also don't require unicorns or leprechauns for validity, in fact if I were to rest my validity on those supernatural creatures I would be putting my ethics on shaky foundation.
"Murdering children is bad."
Except when it isn't. What if murdering the child is the necessary bi product of a greater evil? We murdered thousands of children in the second world war. The alternative to doing that was not fighting and allowing the fascists to rule.
The categorical imperative doesn't work. No matter what axiom you come up with, there will always be a set of circumstances extreme enough to make doing it the moral thing. And if you can come up with an exception, it is no longer categorical and we are right back where we started.
The difference is that your preferred version assumes all of the unsubstantiated claims that go along with claiming the existence of a god.
And your secular version assumes a bunch of things called rights that are neither material or in any way agreed to exist. You like rights. Some people like unicorns. Neither of your belief makes the object of it actually be true. It just means you like it.
I can't think of any circumstance where murdering children becomes morally permissible. You aren't merely talking about a stray bullet hitting a child. You're talking about things like the firebombing of Dresden, where the incineration of men, women, and children had no strategic advantage beyond the theory that it would break their will to fight. Not that a supposed strategic advantage confers a right to kill a baby.
When you're pure evil or a moral relativist. If you were on a lifeboat and killed a baby for sustenance, yes that aids your individual survival but that doesn't make it less of a moral transgression.
These lifeboat scenarios are so far beyond normal interactions between people that they are worthless as a guide for acceptable human behavior.
How does that not describe your god based morality? Is there something about your god that is material or universally agreed to exist? Not that that matters because you wouldn't be able to get everyone to agree that the moon exists.
Thankfully, consensus does not an axiomatic truth make. Norms of behavior do exist. We can observe them and deduce valid moral principles from them. Shared abstract concepts exist in the minds who've given them thought. Logic and reason as methods of thought do exist, infallible wisdom given to semitic goat herders does not exist.
How does that not describe your god based morality?
It does. That is my entire point. One is just like the other. You believe in God just as much as I do. You just call him "morality" and "natural rights".
That's absurd. I believe there naturally exists certain codes of conduct between human beings by virtue of our shared human nature. That in no way necessities a magic man in sky or any other superstitious nonsense you take as a given.
When you're pure evil or a moral relativist.
Not at all. There nothing evil or relativistic about wanting to stop the fascists and also understanding that murdering a lot of people was the necessary and only way to do that. The choice was murder people and children and stand aside and do nothing while the fascists did much worse.
These lifeboat scenarios are so far beyond normal interactions between people that they are worthless as a guide for acceptable human behavior.
No they are not. They are just the problems of morality writ large so we can understand them easier. Its wrong to lie, should I tell my wife she really does look awful in that dress? Should I be brutally honest at all times with no regards to people's feelings? Should I go tell my friend's wife after he just confided to me that he had had an affair but now regrets it?
those are hard questions that don't lend themselves to a single universally agreed answer. If they did, ethics would have been long ago settled. More importantly, none of your imperatives are going to solve them.
No you say murdering a baby would be acceptable under circumstances X, Y or Z. That is relativism. You are a relativist.
If they were writ large, they wouldn't be exigent circumstances, they'd be commonly encountered dilemmas that just as a matter of fact are not common at all.
If ethics were easy, your religion and other superstitions wouldn't be so common. The fact whichever ethical questions you've singled out are not easily logically deducible or universal in their application does not mean that there does not exist any ethical principles at all.
Says the Christian relativist lifeboat captain.
"To me natural rights atheists are nothing but theists who have substituted a set of assumptions for God. You say all men are created equal because that is their natural right. I see no difference between saying that and saying they are equal because they are equal before God other than language. The principle is the same and requires an equal amount of assumption in both cases."
Max Stirner made this point 170 years ago. There aren't many atheists honestly, they just swapped one god for another.
What about atheists who don't subscribe to the natural rights concept?
Well, natural rights is just one form of recreating God, but to the atheists that expel all ideas of "rights, equalities, and justice" - it's unfortunate how few there really are.
Just look at the silly Atheists+ group (if they still exist). They parallel mainstream religion so perfectly you'd think I'd have made them up for an obnoxious novel I was writing..
(Quickly, I'm not knocking the idea of God or the necessity of having one even if he isn't real, just this particular instance.)
Even when people don't believe in your superstition, you'll maintain that they believe in your superstition because you disagree with their stance on an issue that has nothing to do with your superstition. You're a reasonable guy.
It's kind of funny to watch you try to defend natural rights without having a basis to do so.
I do not mean that to sound like an insult; I just know you're going to fail in the argument against the smart devil's advocate.
Is that directed towards me?
I'll say this, for the most part all people believe in *a* superstition, whether that be God or Rights. And frequently appeal to it as a defense of their action. MS referred to them as "spooks." Religious people are better in my opinion as they openly admit it's faith whereas atheists deny it. (This is just me speaking generally, there are certainly exceptions.)
If that wasn't towards me then please ignore this.
I won't badmouth him too much, because I'm sure he's more nuanced than he's coming across.
This is a dangerous line of thinking though, it's most common among liberals but some modern libertarians do fall prey to it as well; that society is just interchangeable parts and can be "fixed".
Conservatives (old mostly forgotten conservatives, at least) seem to have gotten it down.
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us. It was not Reason that discovered the singular & admirable mechanism of the English Constitution. It was not Reason that discovered or ever could have discovered the odd & in the eye of those who are governed by reason, the absurd mode of trial by Jury. Accidents probably produced these discoveries, and experience has give a sanction to them."
Everyone reads the Road to Serfdom these days. And that is a good thing. It is a good book. There is another book of Hayeks that few people seem to read and I wish more would; The Constitution of Liberty.
It is the information problem applied to morality. He makes two points that both sides forget. First, mores and rules are the product of centuries of trial and error and contain a collective wisdom no one person can understand. Second, people collectively have the ability to learn such that no bad trend goes on forever and ways of living that don't work or destructive behaviors will over time die out if left alone.
And Shermer finally gets around to saying something like this, but he's still better than the fundamentalists because his (at least theoretical) acknowledgement of the value of tradition is based on rationality, and we all know that most traditionalists aren't rational.
and we all know that most traditionalists aren't rational.
And since there is no collective wisdom contained in tradition, there is no wisdom in tradition beyond what our personal reason tells us is there.
Yes, Hayek was brilliant there. Now, to be fair, he never called himself a conservative - as it meant something very different in Europe - but he makes the same basic point as Oakeshott, Weaver, etc... basically the Conservative argument.
Is Shermer a libertarian? I'm not so sure that he is.
http://www.skepticblog.org/200.....bertarian/
I just glanced at the post, but that sounds like he's more in the libertarian camp than not.
I didn't know if you had some litmus test in mind there, but I think it's fair to call him at least a moderate libertarian for no reason other than his self-identification.
He didn't strike me as such either. For myself, libertarian is the emphasis of liberty of the individual. Of course, others use a much looser definition of the term that covers practically anyone.
Shermer: "Every human being should be a member of the moral community."
I wasn't quite sure this was true, and if you look at the 2:50 mark in this video you'll see that Shermer would *exclude* a specific category of human beings - innocent children in the womb - from the moral community.
http://www.skeptic.com/resource-topics/abortion/
While Shermer is talking about rights for chimpanzees and how secularists are so much more advanced and humane than traditional religions, *real* supporters of human rights are supporting bills like this:
http://www.nationalrighttolife.....L6ofEfF9W8
"I wasn't quite sure this was true" = "I wasn't quite sure be believes this"
Yeah man, let's start going out there & shooting all the abortion doctors... Crank back out the back-alley coat-hanger abortions, THAT will fix it all! More force and violence from Government Almighty is SUCH a GREAT fix, it ALWAYS works!
$89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Here is what i did
?????? http://www.paygazette.com
I have been too busy today to take part in this discussion, but it made a good read. There is some good stuff here.
Still can't see how being being tortured and murdered "democratically" by the majority is better than being tortured and murdered by an autocrat.
To no part of the thread in particular-
Federal Income Tax 20%
State Tax, net of write off effect on Fed 6%
Both sides of FICA 15%
Property taxes 3%
Miscellaneous - Sales, Excise, Auto Fees etc etc 1%
Estimated corporate nested in things I buy 3%
Total Taxes and Fees on my middle class income - 47%
Add in mandated items I MUST by from the market, cloistered in a rigged market system (insurance), add in goods and services banished by my "betters", and the total amount of my labor taken from me, or value judgments redirected by others, by Force is over 50%.
Add in pro-rated share, by household (my family of four), of the JUST THE FEDS liabilities over assets of $17 Trillion/81 Million families=another $210,000 of "debt" on my back.
Add in the burden of troops stationed around the world, keeping leaf smokers in cages, and keeping all the various parasites satiated,
I FIND IT HARD TO FIND ANY MORALITY WHATSOEVER IN OUR CORPORO-FASCISTIC ECONOMY.
Democratic, autocratic, capitalist, socialist whatever. Whatever THIS is that we have is evil and is crushing the average person. Parasites now vastly out number the productive, and the whole rotten house of cards is coming down.
The "is-ought" have been ruling the roost for over 100 years now, and we're rightly screwed.
Germany of the 1920 and 30's was arguably the most educated country and possibly had the greatest culture in the world and yet permitted the atrocities of the Nazis. Science and reason are not enough.
Yeah, that whole Eugenics thing was just so moral. It's good to execute (or just sterilize) the genetically unsound because science says so!
And really, it's not just back then, you see people advocating it now, except in the womb. But killing people just because they aren't genetically perfect is still wrong, even if it's tidier, no death camps and such.
The partisans of the Enlightenment know that something with their project has gone wrong, it seems, if they feel the need to keep coming back to defend democracy. If they had such a knockout case for democracy, why would they show such touchiness and anxiety about it now?
You have to wonder if Mencius Moldbug and the Neoreactionary movement he helped to articulate has gotten traction because their case against democracy has merit, and that Shermer knows it.
Well said!! Shermer is great!
hguf
al3ab banat
friv 4
friv3
hguhf
friv 2
friv 1000
friv 3
http://j33x.com/tag/hguhf/
http://j33x.com
http://www.jeux44.com
http://www.al3abmix.com
"You can't just say, 'This is the way it is, therefore it ought to be that way.' You've got to have good reasons,