tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111992374958312797..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Morality, Divinity, and HumanityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1121094398479096332005-07-11T11:06:00.000-04:002005-07-11T11:06:00.000-04:00Another key problem with the "why don't we act lik...Another key problem with the "why don't we act like animals" argument from creationists is that most animals don't murder (their own species, that is), and that even the tiny sparrow will defend her nest and offspring against the larger and more vicious raven -- why don't we act like other animals?<BR/><BR/>Great question. They seem to understand that morality is in their personal interest, and though they fail to attend church, they stick by their morals. That's not a great argument for those who attend church and plot to murder their fellow species members.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120175283349587112005-06-30T19:48:00.000-04:002005-06-30T19:48:00.000-04:00Kleiman doesn't merely claim that the debate is ab...Kleiman doesn't <I>merely</I> claim that the debate is about morality rather than biology. He further asserts that, because of this, creationists can't "justly be faulted as unreasonable or superstitious for objecting to" evolution. He then presents two arguments which might be thought to vindicate the creationist on this point: one which aims to support the idea that Genesis supports good morals, the other making claims about the adverse moral consequences of evolution. To these arguments I applied the straightforward descriptive labels "pro-creationist" and "anti-evolution", respectively, and those labels do accurately capture the thrust of those arguments. The aim of my post was to point out the flaws in those arguments.<BR/><BR/>So I think I've responded to a perfectly straightforward and reasonable (even obvious) interpretation of what Kleiman wrote. But here's the thing: <I>it doesn't matter either way</I>. I really couldn't care less what Kleiman intended -- like I said, I'm interested in the substance of the arguments, not their origin. If he meant to argue something else, I just don't care. I'm responding to <I>these</I> arguments. They could have fallen from the skies for all I care.<BR/><BR/>So enough of this tedious tangent already. If you like, just mentally replace every mention of "Mark Kleiman..." with "Suppose that somebody were to argue..." If anyone has an objection to the substance of my arguments about evolution and morality, then I'd be interested to hear <I>that</I>. Otherwise, not so much.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120112561944959972005-06-30T02:22:00.000-04:002005-06-30T02:22:00.000-04:00So put 'cut them some slack' in -- what does it ch...So put 'cut them some slack' in -- what does it change? Nothing. The claim is still a proposal to those who are not creationists, and does not imply anything about whether the creationists are right or wrong, rational or irrational, well-informed or ill-informed. Nor does it imply that anyone should support creationism; rather, it simply implies that one should change the mode of one's resistance to it.<BR/><BR/>You provide two arguments that you <I>call</I> the 'pro-creationist side' and the 'anti-evolutionist side'; but there is nothing in Kleiman's post suggesting either label. What you actually present is<BR/><BR/>(a) Kleiman's description of some of the moral claims derivable from the Image of God thesis;<BR/><BR/>(b) An incomplete bit of the argument about the implications of 'middle-school Darwinism'.<BR/><BR/>In the context of Kleiman's post, neither (a) nor (b) is used as a pro- or anti- anything; they are both subserving the larger argumentative function of supporting the thesis already noted, i.e., that the larger argument is about morality. (b) can't even be considered 'anti-evolutionist' unless you consider all evolutionists to be 'middle-school Darwinists'. Given that the 'middle-school' here almost certainly indicates that we are primarily talking about popular conceptions of evolution, rather than any deeply informed view of evolution, this seems a stretch.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the structure of Kleiman's post is this:<BR/><BR/>I. A Query Raised: Why is the anti-evolution crowd so vehement?<BR/><BR/>II. Kleiman's Proposed Answer: For them it is not really about biology but about morality.<BR/><BR/>III. Reasons for the Answer<BR/>IIIa. Moral Implications of Genesis<BR/>IIIb. 'Middle-School Darwin' Problematizes the Moral Implications of Genesis.<BR/><BR/>IV. Implications of II and III<BR/>IVa. For our approach to the dispute itself<BR/>IVb. With regard to tortureBrandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120111464976980502005-06-30T02:04:00.000-04:002005-06-30T02:04:00.000-04:00(Having said all that, I care more about the argum...(Having said all that, I care more about the arguments themselves than whether some particular blogger did or did not intend to make them. I intend my post as a response to the arguments, not as a personal criticism of Kleiman, who I don't know and don't much care about. I'd be much more interested in discussing the substance of the arguments.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120111248697209132005-06-30T02:00:00.000-04:002005-06-30T02:00:00.000-04:00Your "paraphrase" conveniently ignores the whole "...Your "paraphrase" conveniently ignores the whole "cut them some slack" aspect of Kleiman's suggestion.<BR/><BR/>It's also odd that you suggest "<I>there is no 'pro-creationist side of Kleiman's argument' and certainly no 'anti-evolution side of Kleiman's argument'</I>". I provided <B>direct quotations</B> of the arguments in question, so I'm not sure how you can deny their existence.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120110125035955802005-06-30T01:42:00.000-04:002005-06-30T01:42:00.000-04:00Richard, nowhere in Kleiman's post does he say any...Richard, nowhere in Kleiman's post does he say anything remotely resembling what you attribute to him except for the quotation that you mention at the top of your post. But this clearly does not imply anything about whether creationists are ignorant or not: it implies simply what it says, namely, that (to paraphrase slightly) 'rather than dismissing them as ignorant, we should acknowledge that the larger argument is really about morality'. This does not, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, imply anything about the level of ignorance; it simply states a proposal for action by those who are not creationists. It is certainly true that there are aspects of Kleiman's post that are less clear than they could be; but this is not one of them. No mind-reading is necessary. It <I>is</I> everybody else's fault, at least to that extent; instead of reading what Kleiman's post said, they read into it ghosts of their own imagining, based on vague verbal associations. It does happen, and I see no reason to reject my original conclusion that it happened here.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1120002738186368332005-06-28T19:52:00.000-04:002005-06-28T19:52:00.000-04:00Brandon, you can call it a "misreading", but I bui...Brandon, you can call it a "misreading", but I built my post on quotes that suggest otherwise. Perhaps Kleiman wrote his original post in a misleading manner that failed to convey what he wanted it to. But then I'm not sure why you think that's everybody else's fault rather than his. I've simply responded based on what he wrote, rather than my mind-reading skills. Sorry if the latter aren't up to scratch.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1119995443875164972005-06-28T17:50:00.000-04:002005-06-28T17:50:00.000-04:00Richard, I find are your argument rather confusing...Richard, I find are your argument rather confusing. Kleiman's post is essentially about civil discourse and, in particular, about how one can go about building (for instance) a strong and broad-based anti-torture discourse in society. So there is no "pro-creationist side of Kleiman's argument" and certainly no "anti-evolution side of Kleiman's argument" -- just a reflection about how one can work with such people for the common good, and that requires looking at what might be done toward a common ground. The responses that have been given to this in the blogosphere are (IMHO) utterly absurd trigger-finger responses from people who aren't bothering to think through the actual argument being made before they criticize it. For instance, Kleiman doesn't say that focusing on morality "makes creationists...less ignorant" -- as far as I can see, this is your misreading, and involves the addition of completely gratuitous suppositions. His point is that there is practical advantage to focusing on morality, because there are things that can't wait for this sort of dispute to be resolved, particularly given that they can be resolved in the meantime by encouraging others to be consistent in the right sorts of ways.<BR/><BR/>I responded to these kinds of misreading <A HREF="http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2005/06/links-of-note_26.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> (you may have to scroll down a bit).<BR/><BR/>(I'm also unclear as to why you are treating the 'Image of God' doctrine as one about externally imposed worth; this is virtually never the way the phrase is actually interpreted -- quite the opposite. Indeed, one of the clear absurdities in responses to Kleiman has been a failure actually to take the trouble to determine how the Image of God thesis is interpreted in practice. Instead, they just proceed on assumptions about the nature of the thesis that can easily shown to be based on ignorance -- unfortunately, Lindsay's post, which is indeed one of the better posts, succombs to this same failure. What has irritated me about this exchange is how various defenders of reason have leaped into this discussion in ways that show that they have taken no trouble to inform themselves about the facts. And in this case it is simply inexcusable. Not only is the Image of God thesis a thesis that persons have a value in themselves, historically it's easy to see that the latter thesis is a secularization of the former. This is very explicit in someone like Kant.)<BR/><BR/>Sorry about the rant-like nature of this comment. Your main argument is interesting, though. I'm not really clear why, though, you say a free agent cannot have an externally imposed purpose -- human society works in part by the constant external imposition of purposes, whether the agent in question will or nill. Whether I will or nill, I am a taxpayer in Canada -- that's an externally imposed purpose, one of many, with attached obligations. I certainly don't pay Canadian taxes out of the goodness of my heart; rather, I pay them precisely because my place in society comes with an externally imposed purpose (to be a source of income for the government of Canada), and the consequent obligations, moral and legal, that are involved with having that purpose. I could certainly choose not to comply, but that really doesn't change the fact of the matter.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1119977868959337082005-06-28T12:57:00.000-04:002005-06-28T12:57:00.000-04:00Richard...When I read your post, I immediately tho...Richard...<BR/><BR/>When I read your post, I immediately thought "practical-reasoning Kantian a la Korsgaard or Herman."<BR/><BR/>But we all know you are more in the utilitarian/consequentalist vein.<BR/><BR/>So, my question is, why don't you buy the whole "practical reasoning and the moral law as being constitutive of my practical identity" family of argument.sAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1119957337898991782005-06-28T07:15:00.000-04:002005-06-28T07:15:00.000-04:00>The worth of a human being is not conditional upo...>The worth of a human being is not conditional upon their reflecting God's "image".<BR/><BR/>1) there is a question whether one can make a plausible argument about somthing that the other side argues cannot exist by definition. (although it does undermine the cause and effect part of the argument since there is no "cause" or "effect" in that scenario)<BR/><BR/>2) If you were lets say a vegetable (or pig if you want somthing more sentient) you might have utilitarian value because you can be eaten by a human - however one would not expect a vegetable(pig) to see it that way. Noting that a normal vegetable/pig doesn't see it that way is not proof it is not true.<BR/><BR/>3) "The worth of a person derives from their humanity, not the blessing of divinity."<BR/>there are issues with this since the use of "humanity" is both arbitrary and extreemly convenient to you and me.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise I basically agree there is no fundimental conflict and it is a bit of nonsense to argue<BR/>1) believing in evolution must involve imorality<BR/>or <BR/>2) believing in evolution must involve being athiesticGeniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1119925747357053052005-06-27T22:29:00.000-04:002005-06-27T22:29:00.000-04:00The biggest problem with the anti-evolutionists is...The biggest problem with the anti-evolutionists is showing exactly how it is a problem for morality. The real issue seems to be that there is a model where God isn't necessary (which isn't the same as saying God isn't involved). This frightens some who fear this would lead people away from God. So they attack evolution.<BR/><BR/>Some evolutionists, of course, don't exactly help matters, arguing more or less the same thing.<BR/><BR/>But as you said, it isn't exactly clear how there is a conflict. Certainly I've never read a cogent argument showing a conflict.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.com