Jonathan Haidt - The Rationalist Delusion in Moral Psychology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 дек 2013
- Jonathan Haidt, professor at New York University Stern School of Business and best-selling author of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion," gives a special lecture on moral psychology at Rutgers University for the School of Arts and Sciences Signature Course, Human Nature and Human Diversity, taught by Rutgers philosophy professor, Dr. Stephen Stich.
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED
The point of this channel is to take talks that I find interesting, but that have poor audio and/or video quality, and trying to improve those factors.
If you find a video here that belongs to you and want it removed, just send a message to me on this page.
If you want to suggest a video for audio/video improvement, send me a message here, or on Twitter @hearthereasons 
Наука
Thank you, the older I get, the more I've come to appreciate Haidt's POV. And now we all have this wonderful machine called the Interwebs, for 'validating' our values, biases and prejudices... so we can be even _more_ 'rational'!
A lot of hyper emotional responses to Haidt's talk. For those struggling, I think what Haidt is getting at is people treat rationalism like an ideology, which it is not. Rationalism is a tool, a means, but not an end. Everyone is susceptible to motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Groups are even worse about this because there is less room for doubt and dissent. And this is why rationalism must never be held as a cultural mantle for group cohesion. Individuals may be dumb, but groups are even dumber.
He also stated that rationalism among philosophers is problematic.
Well summarized. Especially with doubt and dissent in groups: what is it about our biology that cannot hold 2 truths at once? What a challenge it is, but necessary.
Damn... Every good idea that pops in my head, someone has already done it... I swear, one day I will come up with something unique. Great vid!
a tongue of gold would still be unique
doesn't matter. spread your good ideas anyway
"Nothing new under the sun...." & "Everything old is new again...." 😉 Great ideas are still hard to grasp, and they still need translators....
Sadly, there is nothing new under the sun.
He makes multiple fallacies with his analysis and jumps to conclusions. He claims that using certain words means you are more dogmatic without showing that is the case. He strawman's his victims positions so he has an easier time vilifying them. It would be like if I said "This man seems to despises reason so he refuses to use it in his arguments. That is why he attacks people who push for solutions to problems through reasoned discussion as opposed to religious reading of ancient books."
His argument makes people who care about religion as people who blindly follow reason to reach their conclusion because that is what people do in religion, it is a false comparison. There is not concrete text that says the word of reason is x. Reason is just looking at all the evidence available and looking at the situation from other points of view to come to the best solution to the problem. It is not read a holy book of reason that tells you to enslave the heathen that surrounds you and it is fine to beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days since they are your property.
Only a few minutes into this and it's already one of my favorite videos.
I never found philosophy boring. I always found it fascinating.
this was probably my favorite book of all time, I wish it was 10x longer it was so good.
“...And outside of college, a great majority of people go with their gut feelings.”
Required reading for senior year. 💯
Especially in the United States.
That's why achieving social justice is an impossible dream here. Too many conservatives and "traditionalists" using insurrection and terrorism to make sure of tbat!
Maybe those who are oppressed and don't like living here should leave.
Either that or split up the country! 💔🇺🇸
@@MH-be6hr non american detected
13:00 Hume's model! I think that he calls it the Possum model in his paper.
I like the way that the model provides two paths one to society the other to the self and they are different.
We think we are reasoning for one reason (to evaluate, make excuses, make self love) when really we are working for mammon.
Economics seems to make this base world system work.
In complex thought, intuition has an important role in the empirical footwork, before analysis
Isn't it an absurd reduction?
57:11 An interesting take on moral truth. New to me, but one I find quite satisfying for some - as of yet - inarticulate reason.
Hey, inarticulate reason? So, is that a gut feeling?
Hi everyone. Could anybody please help me on how can I translate into Spanish the terms "hivishness" and "awe" in the context Dr. Haidt spoke of them?
Hivishness into english might be Cultish, Groupish, Team-Players, Tribal.
Fascinating to see where Haight came from before he got famous
From Haidt's ideas on thought post Libet (1999) and Nisbett and Wilson (1978), is after the event moral justification or, would it be fair to say that thoughts are excuses? Thought = after the even moral justification = excuses?
Personally I think that that thought is not so much an excuse (thought it is that too) practice for actual excuse speech, but useless, and not for saying to others, but to keep us self divided, with the results argued by Adam smith. We act continually at a distance, "split" from ourselves, a spectator of ourselves, representing ourselves to ourselves, with the results that self interest is no longer so selfish, and that as a result there is an "invisible hand" that allows human freedom to thrive economically.
The important thing is that reason should be thought to be useful (as decision making, or even excuse making) so we keep doing it.
Unfortunately, "we keep doing it" is not necessarily axiomatic at this point. Although, it could be pedantic.
Mindfulness meditation is very helpful in seeing and gaining some control over our "intuitive" moral judgments and patterns. Buddhists have a long history of understanding that emotion is at the heart of our decisions and reason offers little control, but have developed methods to gain rational control to the extent that we are willing to devote ourselves to it. For example there is a mind training chart that shows the mind at first as an unruly elephant (intuitions) leading around a monkey (rationality), but by the end the monkey is riding and controlling the elephant.
Unless you're the type of person that is willing to spend your life meditating in a cave you won't reach total mastery of the mind, but the research shows that a little meditation can help a lot in gaining some level of control. It isn't as hopeless as Haidt suggests.
Great lecture- My one complaint is the wording intuitive and rational, because if you look at the process of creating it takes intuition and heaps of rationality.
Oh, I love it, "Heaps pf rationality." Why not say its ginormous? It certainly represents a rationality of sorts.
The rationalist delusion also extends to cognitive psychology, where there is the false notion that rationality is always correct, over our intuitions.
Consciousness should be the determining factor of when an abortion could be performed based on the individual fetus. "Let it be written, let it be done."
It is the law of the Medes and the Persians, however, God's law is higher.
I find this guy infectious.
Now, is that viral or bacterial? Hopefully, it is not pandemic.
What was the date of this presentation please?
Yes!
@@louisaccardi6808 38:50 shows it occurring April 8th, 2013
I think it's relatively easy to undermine the claim that the "New Atheists" (would have liked to have seen Hitchens book evaluated as well) by the use of declarative language because the books are arguing that science and reason should not be supplanted in the schools by religion. So arguing that evolution "certainly, indisputably, inescapably" is supported by evidence whereas there is "no, zero, admittedly and absurdly little" evidence would not be born of anger, but is true.
25:20-26:25 Another theory hits the dust!
I still value JH, he offers much food for thought and has been an early unraveler of 21st century afflictions. Like any research, not all theories survive.
Great observation, I thought the same thing. And the culture from the 80s through early 90s was more patriotic and conservative than today. That had more to do with the crime rate dropping, especially compared to the 60s and 70s.
5:30 he says when the emotion center of your brain stops working, you lose your ability to reason.
Is that an emotional conclusion or a rational one? Haidt needs to re-read his Kant.
@@martinzarathustra8604 Actually it has been verified many times clinically. When someone experiences brain damage such that there is no longer any emotional context to whatever happens around oneself,.. one largely loses the capacity to make decisions because there is *_no_* emotional context or marker to tell one if one choice has greater value than another. Even when reason can give an adequate explanation of why one alternative is better than another,.. without at least some emotional marker,.. the subject finds they are unable to choose, regardless of logic, evidence, consistency, or truthfulness. Emotion alone is not adequate, but neither is reason alone either.
@@davidhunt7427 Is this an emotional argument or a rational one?
Again, this has been covered in philosophy already. It matters little that if you have brain damage you cannot adequately reason properly. What we refer to reason has nothing to do with memory or emotion per se, even if memories and emotions might be "required" for reason. Reason is not reduceable to anything other than reason, and therefore is the epistemological barrier that no human can overcome.
@@martinzarathustra8604 I take your comment to mean that there are parts of reason that, in turn, rely upon the use of axioms (self-evidently true statements requiring no further effort to prove) which can not be dispensed with nor can they be proven. I agree. I regard emotions as being somewhat similar to our natural senses,.. but where our natural senses are looking out into the world, our emotions are looking into ourselves. Just like our natural senses, our emotional senses can make mistakes and need reason to verify them, but it isn't _reasonable_ to just dismiss emotions either. Emotions are not everything, but would we really be alive/conscious without them?
By the way, I would really appreciate it if you would read and comment upon my question from above concerning what *_must_* free people do.
@@davidhunt7427 Close, only I wouldn't go so far as to say reason itself is necessarily self-evidently true based on mystical axioms. It just so happens that reason confines us to its playpen, and there is no way to judge it without using it.
His story about the crime and violence in New York being due to lead in gasoline is an example of his reasoning following and supporting his initial emotions and passions on the subject (like the rider trying to control the elephant). He is a liberal politically so he doesn't want to attribute the sudden improved crime situation to the city falling into a Republican mayor's hands.
Lead in water does affect the behavior of a society, a society that is polluted and under biological attack becomes desensitized.
But yes, you do see a lot higher crime rates in “liberal“ ran cities.
Child abuse is way up in California for instance, they just passed SB-145 decriminalizing pedophilia.
Demoralized
I am eagerly waiting his book about capitalism.
Same, same. I have read everything by him to date, and do not plan to let his next one get away from me!
They still want people to teach and learn critical thinking in schools. It is a massive push in High school in particular
No one is being taught critical thinking today in the USA in K-12. It's all propaganda and indoctrination.
43:50 and on... first year student? Do these kind of things really need to be explained to physics student?
The guy doesn't understand the non-provability of a negative claim.
Yeah, that was him showing his childish ignorance
vaultsjan: Why certainly, since they took this class.
@@pbradics3670 Now there is a statement that implies that someone with a Doctorate might know more than us peons.
2:30
27:00
34:30 ----
48:00
51:00
57:00
27:00
I love this guy! He and Jordan Peterson are two absolute treasures that I've discovered within the last few months. I mention Peterson because that's how I heard of Jonathan Haidt.
Check out Steven Pinker.
Howard Bloom is a great multi-disciplined scientist, his book "Genius of the Beast - a radical revision of capitalism" was huge impact on me, red pill i guess. But not such a fan of his recent politics.
Pinker us a charlatan, Peterson is bunk, but this guy is okay.
Steven Pinker is a delusional rationalist. Haidt is great, with his practical sense.
You might want to check out Camile Paglia too :)
The New Atheists were writing to counter the arguments of creationists. That is why their language seems sacralized. Prof. Haidt just stated that "philosophers were arguing how many Angels could fit on the head of a pin, when there are no Angles." This language would not be identified with demagogy, but it is exactly what the New Atheists were arguing. The New Atheists never looked at developing sacred forms as an evolutionary adaptation, but I think they would accept such a theory as plausible.
33:12 on the frequency of anger and certainty words in religious and new atheist books. This work may not be published which is a shame.
Of course atheists are angry with religious fools. Why wouldn't they be angry?
@@andresmith7105 Religious fools? Call no man a fool. However, even the Bible calls those that say there is no God fools.
Familiarity breeds contempt. There is a religious and a genetic argument to be made against incest. There is also a common sense argument to be made. My siblings and I occasionally squabble. The older we get the less we squabble but we still have minor disagreements from time to time. We are also fiercely loyal to one another. There is no sexual history, good, bad or indifferent to threaten that cohesion. Our fierce sense of loyalty is cemented by famial love and loyalty which should be stronger than sexual love. A parent is typically militantly loyal to their children to the point that they will even allow their child to suffer negative consequences for bad behavior in hopes that it will modify their behavior for the positive. However, woe be to any person who tries to unjustly make that child suffer. As the old saying goes: Don't fuck with mama bear and papa bear.
I see one problem. Haidt thinks a better result can be got by combining insights in a range of disciplines. But what if almost all people in these disciplines adhere to one particular dogma, e.g. materialism? Then groupthink can take over and we won't get a better outcome. For my 5¢, I think a version of reality such as that of Bohm's (discussed in his 'Unfolding Meaning') will ultimately prevail and we will end up with a very different view of reality.
Good point group think is a problem and the prevailing materialism a problem also. I have read Adler 's Mind Over Matter and concluded a new way of thinking about science is necessary. However it is philosophy that it must spring from not psychology or biology or even physics. There is much work to be done in philosophy of science, math and physics for this new mindset to evolve.
It would be nonlinear and laden with psi phenomena.
There is much work to be done in ontology, phenomenology and epistemology for the emergence of a new view of reality
Mollyann Wingerter
Indeed. I wonder how well Haidt's consortium will be able to deal with the problem of musical aesthetics, where a musical colleague and I argued that the usual approaches seem to have inadequate explanatory power (www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/tucson.txt). In particular, special brain circuitry alone is unlikely to account for "the specific forms that appear to be favoured in music, and which appear to possess a curious generative capacity or 'fertility' not possessed by arbitrary patterns of sound".
Yes Plato has the harmonics which delves into musical and natural sound aesthetics. I believe it is the soul in operation which is of the mind which is not material. Harmony conforms also to advanced mathematics in form and therein is mind also and a form of rationlism which is sound in logic and not delusional. Ethics too belongs in logic and yes intuition is sourced for its purposes and is NOT biological solely. I could go on in defense of philosophy but I am sure you get my ideas! Lol keep in touch willowswaying@gmail.com
@Brian Taking your point about favoured sound forms, would you go on to suggest a dualistic approach to reality or would you extend the application of science as we know it?
43:40 (ish) Questioner comments: “Religion and science are both based on faith.” He should think about that a little deeper. Religion and science are both creations of our human mind and thoughts. Religion is based on human struggles, emotions, bound by faith, believing - Whereas Science is built upon a set of rules. Science demands truthfully measuring and honestly representing evidence/facts, both your own and others. & Sober critical thinking.
We need each other to keep ourselves honest ;-)
Exactly. The more I think about it the more I find the only exact science is chemistry. If even medicine is an art and not a science and all human science come from men and women elucubrations.
I don't agree with much of what Dr. Haidt presented. Although, I do agree that this video stretched my understanding of this discipline and how other thinkers form their ideas.
23:50
Actually the feeling of disgust about incest is adaptive. It's well documented in evo psych. It's not mere prejudice. Animals do not experience disgust however they demonstrate the same prejudice toward incest.
As I read though the comments, the world around us in chaos and fear not seen in our lifetimes, I am not seeing any concern with the fundamentals of existence in times of great turmoil and I was hoping not to have to find out on the fly how to live when you are scheduled to die.
Hi, I have a question on how Libertarians fit into this scheme. I would love feedback on this if anyone has some for me. In Prof. Haidt’s work in “The Righteous Mind”, he talks about the liberty/oppression scale. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t Libertarians be rising up in arms against Donald Trump? The liberty/oppression scale is specifically designed for human beings as a moral “receptor” to recognize bullying/authoritarian behavior and to keep it in check. I would think, of all the political groups, that Libertarians would be endowed with this in the highest amounts. But I’m not seeing that. Why? I would think Libertarians would be throwing fits by now against the authoritarian Trump. All they seem to be doing is a curmudgeonly agreement, “yeah, immigrants, stay the hell off my lawn.” Am I missing something?
The Libertarian party has been corrupted by Liberals who where kicked out of Democrats by Socialists/Communists. As for Authoritarian behavior the Dems are so obsessed they'll secede before he can do anything as authoritarian as PATRIOT Act or PPACA.
Is it a miracle? To what's miraculous about science. What if there are unseen forces which the brain tries its best to interpret. If there are people who are more sensitive to being collect these forces as confused data which can be turned into dreams or visions or ideas.
4:00
8:50
Religion: Thou shalt have no gods before me. Rationalism: Thou shalt not trust anything but their own reason.
Rationalism: Thou shalt not trust anything but your own reason when it is verified by experiment and can provide answers to doubts from others.
*_That moment of going from confusion to clarity, that transition is what science is and that's what makes it exciting. And if only more kids would have that experience, I just think it would change the world._*
~ Brian Greene
*_I am certain there is too much certainty in the world._*
~ Michael Crichton, MD.
*_There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period._*
~ Michael Crichton, MD.
*_Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_Success is born out of arrogance, but greatness comes from humility._*
~ Marco Piere White
*_All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest."_*
~ Friedrich von Hayek
finally. some good fucking philosophy
Pretty amazing lecture
Oh my, surely you jest?
i would do almost anything to see agnes callard debate this philosophical name dropper
Wilson's prophesy of word porn ?
He subdivides "thinking" as reason, emotion and intuition but emotion is a response. While reason is a deliberate and conscious process, intuition is non-deliberate subconscious process where the result may or may not perculate into the conscious mind.
Any discussion of reason, moral and self should also include what eastern philosophers discovered centuries ago, that there is also a sense of agency whose identity we are conditioned to protect and project, called in eastern terms the ego or self, in the west might be called the psyche. It is really that sense of agency which leads to the rationalists dilemma because it is what is influenced by self-interest, reputation, and social importance.
Eastern philosophers and meditators (East and West) call the two ends of the spectrum duality or non duality, or selfness or selflessness, the self and the no-self. In neurological terms it is using the default mode network (DMN for the self condition) and the Task Positive Network (TPN for the no-self condition)
The experience of no-self is not one that can be taught in a class or from a book. It involves changing perceptions, not changing thinking. And it involves a process of deconditioning the brain from using by default the DMN and using automatically and more continuously using the TPN. This process involves meditation 60-90 minutes per day, and mindfulness as continuously as possible throughout the day. It also involves letting go negative emotions and the desire or will to project and protect the sense of self. IMHO, anyone studying philosophy or moral psychology should be required to do such meditation and mindfulness. Otherwise any of their interpretations are bound to be constrained by their sense of agency, the self to be protected and projected.
are there any logical arguments against incest?
yes, your babies will come out fucked up!
lol babies arent necessary lol.
No diversity of DNA, no ability to adapt & evolve. Incestual attraction causes panic disorders, agoraphobia, social and simple phobia.
It undermines the fabric of the community. That is why George Soros will probably be promoting it soon to Western cultures.
Excellent! Do not call anyone' Phylosophy after Athens, for Alexandra hang on the Law and the Prophets. Everything else fast forward hence is: Moral Phylosophy.
I'm not sure if this is rational and reasonable by the latest interpretation of Philosophy.
Sciencing is like the "Journey of a Thousand Miles", it starts with a single step, correctly and completely identifying the complete context of study destination, one step to completion, before any further abstraction components are begun, identifying the appropriate reshaping terminology with which to process and proceed in Singularity-superspin-superposition.
Which is why the Standard Model of the Universe is fundamentally misidentified as a remote time result of The Big Bang mythologised interpretation, instead of QM-TIME Completeness and Actuality.
In Principle, the cause-effect of Logarithmic Time Communication AM-FModules here-now-forever, self-defines this coherence-cohesion objective in universal hyper-hypo recirculating information, resonance pulse-evolution. Unless and until the real-time realization of sync-duration Eternity-now existence, as projection-drawing in Singularity Perspective, no Philosophy of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry development will have legitimate meaning, in the ordinary, Observable, default Actuality Principle.
The default reason why people adopt Veganism or Vegetarianism follows out of the realisation of what not only incest, but "everything is connected" truly means, in e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional, logarithmic condensation modulation awareness of continuous cause-effect connection in Completeness. Ie where do you draw the line? How much can we take without giving, in which order, and what actually happens to collective Consciousness, in the Mirror Test Reality of parallel coexistence, in QM-TIMESPACE.
I did not agree with Professor Haidt at first, but then I was persuaded by his logic and evidence employing my impartial faculty of reasoning. Oh, wait a second...
Yes, wait a second. He was not arguing against reasoning. That would be the straw man. He was arguing against the assertion that rationalist are immune to the same dogmatism they criticize about religion.
His point is that rationalism has its limitations. The irony isn't lost on him when saying that mind you. His argument is based off the rule that "intution comes first, then rationality second."
22:50
What about making the guy on the left aware that the kid can't see? Yes, he might refuse, and then you know he's a jackass. And what do you suppose is the result from that? Either he gives the box to the kid in recognition, or he keeps it, and people give him the evil eye, and social consequences follow, perhaps including someone forcibly taking the box.
After all, the box is not established as His in this example, nor is he on his property. Thus, it is a community box and community space. And, given that he is still able to see after giving the box, there is little reason he would not.
Therefore, in all likelihood, he would give the box. So frikken TELL him the child can't see - he probably doesn't realize it!
In all likelihood it is all probable, but not necessarily factual.
About 16:00 Wheatley & Haidt 2005 Flash of disgust when you see the word "take" (or "often") about 10% more wrong and 1/3 of subjects condemned Dan 15:23 "I don't know it just seems like he's up to something" "popularity seeking snob" "brown-nosing" for doing nothing wrong "he tries to to take (pick) topics that appeal to both professors and students in order to stimulate discussion." Disgust motivates reasoning.
"Press secretary. Find me a justification for condemning Dan."
"I think that we can nail this guy on brown nosing"
Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe. Psychological Science, 16(10), 780-784.
16:26 Fart spray , dirty desks, trainspotting video moral condemnationSchnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096-1109. doi.org/10.1177/0146167208317771
16:32
When asked general knowledge questions for which the subjects had an
anchor their response deviated further from the anchor when shaking than
when nodding their heads. I.e. they would think that the anchor is wrong if they are shaking their head and right if they are nodding. E.g what is the boiling point of water on Everest? What Temperature does Vodka freeze at? The anchor in each case is the boiling point of water at sea level and the freezing point of water. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting Adjustment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: Differential Processing of Self-Generated and Experimenter-Provided Anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391-396.
Perhaps the Japanese would think of pictorial anchors.
Honestly the brother and sister fucking story does not bother me 1 bit, I can't be the only one.
Model 2, Yes! Reason as a servant it is a virgin. Equal to 1 Corinth. 7 , want you to be without care. Danger comes from Genesis, as sin lies at the door, and its Desire is for you, but you should rule over it. ( Sin, desire and rule are verbs of emotion in Phylosophy )
I could think of a different reason that does involve emotions but still has reasoning to it....not to sleep with a sibling. we have research that indicates strong family units are often the backbone of society. by sleeping with a sibling you are introducing a lot of complexity into that relationship.....you've now created ground for intense jealousy to grow....causing instability and possibly fracturing what was otherwise a strong family unit able to work together cohesively. its only a matter of time in this scenario that the jealousy will occur since most humans lean toward monogamy BECAUSE of these jealous feelings. so there, you don't need to say its only wrong because of deformed children. but the average Christian I encounter, I regret to say, isn't that smart because they stop at the easiest moral conclusion (incest is wrong because deformed children) and assume that's their trump card and no one can ever beat it so they have no reason to think out the dilemma a little further or try altering the factors of the situation.
If the test subject had more time to think, to support his instinctive disgust at the idea, he might have said what you just said. But his emotions and his passions led the way and his rational mind needed time to make the argument in support of his instincts.
Leaded gas wasn’t hard to get rid of. Social media will be a different animal.
someone once told me that libertarians have a lower standard of morality, because we tend to value liberty above all else. after pondering on this for a while, i feel like the statist had a point, but i don't think all libertarians are quite as idealistic as me when it comes to personal freedom.
for instance, this bit on the brother sister incest, while i am not fond of it, especially if they are biological siblings, i believe i and no one else has a right to tell them no. the core principle of Voluntaryism, which is the type of Libertarian i identify as, dictates the Non-Aggression Principle, thus, only self-defense is acceptable.
now, i could choose to boycott this such person who is having incest, i could convince others that they should be shunned or ignored, even fired from their jobs, if i and the local community had that big of problem with it. but i would call for no force or harm to such people.
i try to analyze things rationally, and while i am from a safe place right now, in my room, being able to easily disconnect and compartmentalize my thinking, this exact situation logically to me doesn't seem to be a big deal. my reasoning is that the brother and sister at least took extra precaution to not get pregnant, and i respect that at least.
the main reason i believe most people don't support incest anymore is because over the many years we saw a connection to corruption in the geneline, recessive genes were showing up more often, and various risks for mental issues in the offspring.
the thing about incest is though, the actual risks on average are not that extremely high, or not as high as people may think due to sensationalized media promoting the idea that "cousin fucking" creates these monstrous demons and retarded giants as seen in horror movies.
there hasn't even been a scientific study on brother sister offspring issues because the topic is so taboo to begin with, we can't even take a step back to analyze. but according to the very limited research for mating with cousins, the risk for a mental disorder is about 5.5%-6.5%~ and the normal average rate for non-incest offspring is about 2.5-3%~
but there are always other factors, of course, like the recessive gene stuff and whatnot. so while i wouldn't say incest should be readily acceptable, i think it should be tolerated by law, and then let local communities handle it, so long as they are transparent about it.
another thing, i simply don't believe intuition should be the main arbitrary factor, reason should. i believe intuition serves reason, but if you go purely on intuition, it can lead to sloppy results, or at least, from what i understand of intuition.
intuition can definitely be a guide and a tie-breaker in your mind, but i honestly don't trust intuition, at least not my own intuition. i've had a gut feeling for years, since i was 16, i was going to die of cancer, i was going to get diabetes, i was going to be killed when passing through the ghetto, but it never happened (yet).
i think my intuition might be faulty or broken, and since i'm a fairly extreme libertarian now, you could even be one of those statists who claim i lack moral compass. and i would say "fair enough, maybe you're right" but this is just who i am and how i think.
XerDav . From my empirical observations, it seems too much or absolute freedom leads to hedonism and individual radicalism, and more. On the contrary, too much control leads to totalitarianism and cruelty, and more. Clearly both are harmful to functioning societies. Both lead to the separation and fall of nations. I believe societies are dependent on a consensus of societal standards, clearly. And none can be too radical because radicalism is most always problematic. And the liberty you are inferring seems too radical. What you propose seems to be too radical left and will disregard and undermine the right. It’d lead to too much diversity and would eventually only separate us. (Over time, one couple committing incest leads to a neighborhood accustomed to incest and later to a whole state accustomed to incest, which will either taint the rest of the nation or secede as a state. Much like how many radical liberals had threatened to leave the country if Trump should win.) So I think we need to be grounded. Some will say we need “balance.” I’d prefer to use the word harmony, when two opposite forces merge to create something more powerful and beautiful, and prove to actually be quite complimentary to one another (much like musical notes form chords or symphonies). For societies to function properly and progressively, there needs to be an equal appreciation (not application) of both sides; be it, liberalism and conservatism, man and woman, or logic and emotion (with intuition being an unconscious application of both. So, it can be argued, intuition is the quick unconscious process of considering both logic and emotion and applying the consensus, which won’t always be proportionally equal but will be, I think, an accurate and true reflection of the character.) And what Haidt proposes is merely that we as humans, and therefore a society, are intuitive beings. We can’t completely eliminate our emotion or beliefs from choice, nor can we completely eliminate logic from our choices. So this rationallist belief that we can operate as completely rational beings is absurd, Haidt displays. We are bilateral beings, containing of two sides that compliment each other and form a more reliable, complete being. So in that way, our intuition trumps our logic. Well, that was my interpretation of it all. There’s still so much we don’t understand or know. So the idea is to not be so adamant about a single ideology.
I find that many of the things he's saying don't apply to me... but then again I suspect I'm pretty low on several emotions. I've constantly found myself finding conclusions that went against my interests, having to lie, etc. Love my dogs to the core but cannot find it objectionable to eat dog, etc, etc. Intuition, yeah I certainly resort to it sometimes but I'm aware that I'm doing it on the lack of a better algo. My tendency for a long time has been to avoid judging morality. I don't hate for instance pedophiles, they are mentally ill people. I abhor the idea of zero tolerance for crimes. I understand killing for instance jihadi terrorists not because of willingness or hatred but because it looks to me like the best possible strategy. I support Israel because it seems like the most stable arrangement and de-occupation seems unworkable, despite thinking they are absolutely in the wrong morally. My country only exists and has its global status because of systematic imperialism, genocide, WMD on civilians, but I still have to support it. Etc etc. I'm perfectly capable of compartmentalising all of this. At the same time I'm very strict with the morals I live by. Maybe there's something wrong with me and I'm psychopathic.
I think human being can't get rid of ideology and dogna and it is impossible, dogma is part of life a human being is dead without dogma, because dogma means rules and discipline specially your dogmatic belief serving you ,giving you a sense of self esteem,power and these things actually is very important for human being.I think for human these are things which society celebrates,which we have habit of .So many religious people don't believe our ancestors are monkey because obviously it is threat to our sense of superiority
The first questioner/commenter is 100% right about dogmatic priests of reductionist materialist “science” behaving like fundamentalist religious types...
We have a guy using appeal to emotions arguments to claim that Harris and Dawkins are to emotional... wow. How ironic.
Well, I have watched and heard the debates of Dawkins and found him emotionally invested in what he was defending.
no he pointed out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the position of Dawkins
you left out "facts" ....the role of facts is kinda important
The Eagle on a pole was worshiped by the ancients in the Roman Empire. They believed it was a god.
Book: Miracles - Craig Keener. Is an enquiry into the historicity of miracles.
Jesus never existed? I would certainly test that claim. It's erroneous. A good scholar to start with is Gary Habermas.
Gary Habermas has been challenged by several scholars who do not have an a priori Evangelical faith they are trying to prop up.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 So what are Habermas's opponents trying to prop-up? They have an agenda and are adamant about it as well.
No serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus. It's just silly to believe otherwise.
You have to set aside the Gospels (for which there is no good historical reason to), as well well as numerous extra-Biblical accounts (Roman, Jewish, hostile) to the man as well.
And too many of these sources are too early to be "legendary" accounts.
To be frank, if you doubt the historicity of Jesus, by that same measure of skepticism you must toss out virtually everything we know of the ancient world.
Except these hyper-skeptics don't do they. They retain the high wall of evidence for Jesus only, while letting every other details of the ancient world in through a moat door.
The guy in the video thought about it hard and then he went home. Today he and his sister are celebrating 5 years together.
Really funny that you posted this considering your name XD
It's rational not to be a rationalist :-)
No mention of natural law, a huge omission. (and leaded gas? Really? Nothing to do with how inner city kids are raised without fathers and, in the time period he was talking about, during the crack epidemic? Has he seen Chicago murder stats lately?)
Yes, leaded gas. Violence has a complex array of contributing factors, but the spike in violent crime in the 70s and 80s, and the subsequent decline, is very strongly correlated with the use and the banning of leaded gas (and paint, and contaminated water, etc).
If "fatherlessness" was the cause, then we would expect rates of violence to have continued climbing throughout the 90s, 2000s, and beyond.
Similarly, maybe you think crime decreased in NYC because of the Republican mayor and his no-nonsense approach, but that doesn't explain the decline in every other major city, and around the developed world.
Haidt in 2020/21: Oh, shit. I guess maybe violent crime wasn't caused by leaded gas after all.
46:45 to 46:55 That's a crackpot historical view. Even if Mohammed and Jesus didn't have supernatural events happen to them, historians agree that these men existed and that there's serious evidence that they existed.
This is what happens when scientists think they can analyze history.
Haidt gives an account of moral philosophy which is problematic because it's monist, then implies that that covers the whole of moral philosophy, until psychologists like him came along to the rescue. This is itself, ironically, too simplistic. Philosophers have had a wide range of views on the relation of reason and emotion and intuition to ethics, and on moral epistemology, and on pluralism or monism of values. Even the snide remark that philosophers aren't any better than the rest of us is based upon a view of moral knowledge which not all philosophers share.
Haidt should separate science as belief system from science as practice and approach to reality to avoid confusion.
No one has seen the big bang. At the center of the big bang is a singularity, which is where the rules of the whole argument materialism is based on collapse, and scientists admit they do not know what the hell it is.
Keep in mind this universe requires 10 high 14 singularities to even exist in the materialist paradigm, starts sounding like the “turtles all the way down” thing.
The material world is bound by immaterial mathematical codes... right... as a platonist would say. They believe before material existed, that these eternal abstract laws are what caused the big bang.
Yet no one can put their hands on these codes or explain where they came from... the left over ideology from those before who believed the world was created by a mathematical god, they just took out god (consciousness) and said there-rabbit our a hat.
Correct that Harris, Dawkins are dogmatic with some of their assertions not unlike the religious crowd. In their defense, Intuition IS reasoning at the subconcsious level - it is NOT an alternative to reason, but a means to harness reasoning that escapes our ability to articulate.
while I agree somewhat, his work with twins as well as the work of behaviorists and cognitive psychologists (like Pinker) show that a greater degree of our personalities are genetically driven . This suggests that many of our "intuitions" may be ancient knowledge at a genetic level. Salmon don't have a spawning meeting, birds don't agree to fly north, and we as primates may have much less free will than we'd like to believe.
Goosemeyer Good point. You're referring to instinct, which also comes into play when referring to that fuzzy word "intuition". We seldom consider what role instinct plays in humans, but genetics and neuroscience will likely define this for us in time.
torahislife I feel this is the blind spot for intellectual thinkers. Sure we giggle when some creationist denies we are merely another animal. We accept that we are just another species.. but we still hold on to free will as something that separates us. Similarly I can see many intelligent, liberal minded people refusing to accept that free will might be an illusion. The fact that every other animal is subject to forces beyond their control suggests we are as well. Even I can accept this premise, but I sure as hell don't like the idea that I'm "Along for the ride" consciously while my subconscious carries out ancient instructions beyond my control.
Goosemeyer Brain scans show we exist in sort of a state of retrocognition - we're conscious of thought a split second AFTER our brain has already fired. You might say we are slaves to our brain; following it's directives. As you've noted, thought is driven by instinct. It is also influenced by conditioning, education, hormonal levels, and even other body organs. All rather weird when considering the range of factors directing our thoughts. We have our perception and then there is the science of it all
You are kidding, right? That is total nonsense. Reason acts to CORRECT intuition. That is why it comes later in the evolutionary timeline. Intuition is pretty good (though far from perfect, nothing in evolution is) to address immediate environmental feedback. It is not adapted for longer-range planning and guiding action aimed at optimizing future results (we ALL know that too often, acting rashly based on immediate intuition results in bad outcomes later in life. That is part and parcel of the human condition). Reason is a means to see into the future, in a way (again, far from perfect, but still a huge evolutionary advantage). Even then, one must distinguish between individual reason (Vernon Smith calls it constructive rationality) and collective "reason" (Smith's ecological rationality) which is the result of long-term cultural trial-and error processes, Hayek's "results of human action but not of human design." This is all pretty elementary and I am quite surprised Haidt seems unaware of it all. Quite bizarre...
Daniel Dennett is conscious of linguistic operators. He discusses both things like the "surely" operator, as used by other philosophers, as well as his own use of "sorta", in his recent book, Intuition Pumps. It'd be interesting to hear his response to Haidt's statistical analysis of his previous works' use of anger and certainty words. My own thought is that just because two sets of individuals use similar amounts of certainty words obviously doesn't make them equally right or equally wrong. I'm not saying Haidt is claiming this, but he does like the fact that Dennett is right there with the other "New Atheists" in terms of certainty words. According to the charts, Dennett's written words are measured as containing less anger words and more certainty words than Haidt's. What I'd think should matter more is simply how Dennett's claims match the science, regardless of whether or not he speaks like a scientist.
Is it me, or does this have the distinct shitstink of post-modernist philosophy on reason and reality?
Can you explain further?
At 32:20 he attempts to show "New Atheist" as having just as much faith as religion and even more faith than he has; I think in general this is a non-telling argument. I have watched 4-5 talks now from Haidt and I think selective presenting is an issue because he only leans halfway into a topic and never finished out how the argument can be approached from both sides or why. In this specific instance I think he uses a confirmation bias approach without considering what the outcome really means. If he submitted the books to the algorithm and it had a lower outcome would he even present the data? It is almost like saying "I am never absolute on anything but those guys are absolutely absolute about everything." .
I want to show here just a glimpse of critical thinking in his results could lead to vastly different conclusions. This is not telling of the truth but it implements something Heidt seems to think doesn't exist which is critical thinking of other possible reasons things could be.
1. If a book about a topic has a lot anger / contempt in it may be more reflective of the topic than the author. For example if I say "Christians seem to have a higher rate of hatred for homosexual actions than someone that is an atheist " then I would get pinged for using the word hatred there even though I am referencing their hatred and not my own.
2. Using absolute certainty does not make someone wrong. If the books he used argued against unicorns then the certainty would be justified. This sort of mindset is the one that leads to the thoughts that all peoples opinions are equal even if they are not. Person A is certain unicorns exists and person B is certain unicorns do not exist is not an equal claim. Keeping your mind open is good but saying that you should consider all claims equally is not.
No I think you misinterpreted the argument, he simply said that they are just as certain of their truth as the people they are arguing against. And unfortunately I have to agree with him there. But I do love seeing religious leaders get Hitchslapped.
filmosophy I'm still not convinced about how important the metric he's using is. Sure scientists don't tend to make strong assertions when they right, but the subject matter is relevant, and if they have an academically controversial thesis they will hedge their arguments more. If writing a book about many claims in the bible are absurd, of course one will use more confident language. Just as someone writing a book about the autism vaccines conspiracy will use strong confident language. Does that mean people who oppose the anti-vax movement are quasi-religious dogmatists?
" filmolosophy ".... you're kidding me...
Haidt's premise is that religion probably is an adaptation that helped our ancestors' groups bind together and overcome environmental challenges. If that is true, then religious thinking is part of our evolutionary inherited behaviours like fear of snakes or disgust towards rats and cockroaches. Therefore there is no reason for the new atheists to use such absolutist jargon against an aspect of our behaviour that has an evolutionary background.
Also, with your 2 you miss the point of Haidt's procedure. In this case, he making a psychological analysis of the texts; therefore he is not interested in the content of the arguments but in the motivations and mindsets behind the text. This is what he does when he compares the values that left and right cherish: he is not discussing the content of those values, he only claims that both sides have similar mindsets about different values. His point is that, as much as the new atheists claim to reject religion as part of their worldview, their texts and their actions show a lot more irrational dogmatist behavior than their religious counterpart.
xocoyotl4 agree until the last sentence. He argues that they new atheists (with whom i tend to agree on most subjects except sam harris on free will, for example), show similar faith in their OWN reasoning processes. I disagree with him here. I would argue that they hold biases like every human being but are slightly better at circumventing them.
A lot of assumptions maybe wishful thinking.
Lloyd Elling is that your scientific opinion?
This is a very smart guy but it is not rational or reasonable to think we should not TRY to be reasonable and rational, even though we are all hopelessly biased in ways that I must concede prevent us from being able to be sure we are rational all the time, or even that we are capable of perceiving, much less accounting for or adjusting for our biases and blind spots. In other words, we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There was a rather popular pseudo-intellectual movie called "What the Bleep do we know?" which (when you boil it down) suggests that we cannot know anything because we cannot know everything. They try to make the case alluding to the highly inaccessible concepts of quantum theory and string theory etc. as if we should just throw up our hands and be ready to follow a religion. This is just another echo of Kant's critique of pure reason. It is precisely BECAUSE we are flawed in our reasoning, have biases some of which we are not aware of, have some bad data, and do not remember things perfectly that we MUST but logic and reason as the first arbiters of truth, and allow ourselves to listen as objectively as we can to those who come to different conclusions. We must quite rarely be 100% sure of things, and assign a relative likelihood that a given proposition is true, based upon what we think we know. We should stand ready to eliminate, edit or amend our ideas when logic shows them to be likely not to stand scrutiny and critical inquiry (like religions!). Morality is intractably subjective. The only objective aspect is public policy. We know that the interests and perceived interests of various subsets of a society (or group, or country, or club, or professional organization) have slightly, or even vastly different interests or concerns. professor Haidt is right on the mark in his assessment of the types of personality that tend to fall into various categories. His analysis of why people are "Liberal", "Conservative", or "Libertarian" is excellent (and here on youtube)
Atheists worship the intellect. Everyone worships a God, it's just that atheists don't worship the big guy in the sky. Yet they use the same metaphorical language when referring to reason;
"Reason will save the day"
"Reason can solve everything"
"Reason can show us the way to the truth"
"Reason can give us proper guidance"
"Reason has all the answers"
France's Reign of Terror was all about "Reason", as were Stalin's purges.
OK, Mr. Haidt, why don't you come up with a reasoned argument against the proposition: "Humans must act." Shouldn't be hard, according to your own theory. Of course since the mere act of trying to deny the proposition is a human act, you will be refuting yourself on the spot. Rationalism wins. Period. It is an undeniable, rational fact that humans must act, regardless of how one feels about it. All due credit: this is Ludwig Von Mises' argument, and it is decisive. Hume was wrong about the second part of his famous statement: reason OUGHT NOT to be the slave of the passions (even if it turns out it is in practice).
He could refuse to answer your question
That is correct. But that still means there is no possible argument against rationalism. Refusing to answer is itself an act.
+Karl Gruner Right, I still fail to see how the action axiom is an argument for the superiority or irrefutability of rationalism. Mises also didn't account for non rational genetic interest in praxeology.
Wow, unable to see the point, eh? The point is NOT about the substance of the proposition, it is about the FACT that some rational propositions are irrefutable yet do describe reality. The synthetic a priori (Kant). Haidt seems to be denying the possibility of any such thing. He is wrong. Beyond that, the fact (undeniable) that humans must act has a vast and important number of consequences, as laid out in Mises' praxeology. I guess what these responses here show is that indeed, Haidt (and Hume) can be said to be correct in the limited sense that most humans are fundamentally irrational and use "reason" to "justify" their beliefs as best they can. But "most" is very different than "all."
It seems to me that Haidt's point is more that while scientists try to be rational, they all run on personal biases and sometimes intuition (Kahneman has done more work on this), so it likely is more healthy have biases from all sides than just one. There have been studies how peer review process is biased to propositions the board alread likes-agrees with - this is very bad.
Sibling incest on any scale would result in a high rate of children with recessive genetic disease. You also see this small closed group like the Amish. Could humans have observed this in the distant past? Could this result in believers of the concept leave more offspring?
This is somewhat of a straw man argument. It seems to bundle faith in humans ability to act “rationally” with whether there can be objective morality. One is conception and one is implementation. You’re saying that it’s difficult to implement but not arguing against whether a rational argument can be made.
Intuition is an emotional response. The fellow speaking about incest based his view on Biblical teaching (false) and personal disgust, which is completely an emotional response.
Without God, there is no such thing as objective morality or morality at all actually. Harm is no basis to structure morality upon.
Lead reduction did not cause the reduction in crime. Totally bogus assumption (correlation is not causation).
Babe
The rationalist illusion of Nitzche :)
critics love strawmen.
Are students paying to hear this elaborate Facebook rant?
I hope the irony of your comment isn't lost on you.
Empathy is all that is needed for morality.
That explains why so many sociopaths are drawn to religion.
But empathy isn't rational. Empathy is a derived value. WHY should we consider others into our decision making? There is nothing irrational about a sociopath, they simply act in their own self interest. You are kinda taking on faith the proposition that we should treat others with empathy.
Whats irrational about it is assuming that your back gets scratched in return. That is the leap of faith. You act a way because you have faith people will reciprocate it. I imagine if every person you interacted with used your empathy to better themselves at your expense, then you would not value empathy as much.
Fortunately, I am not the only person in the world with empathy, And as a society we reject and shun those who demonstrate a lack of it... Basically, You don't scratch my back... I STOP scratching yours... This is how civilization works.
Everything you just said I agree with, which is why civilizations have always formed around religion. People come together around shared values and value structures are fundamentally religious (even if it has Secular in the title). What happens to society when too many people lose faith in the idea that treating others with empathy is what is best for them.
29:30 You strawman rationality and Atheists. What "New Atheists" have claimed that religion is not an adaptation. Not all adaptations are optimal.
The term religion is loaded with emotional attachments. If you discuss "superstition" as well as our brain's innate nature as a pattern seeking engine, the argument seems more like a given than some radical proposition. Yes, I agree some atheists can be dogmatic. Those who cannot solve complicated equations are indeed putting faith in Einstein's ability to do so. However, the way we vet and fact check those we look to for our answers is the real difference. The term "dogma" also breaks down, because many of us delight in new evidence contradicting old science. While atheists aren't dogmatic about the results, they are inflexibly dogmatic on the methods that derive them. It's a near-optimal adaptation to the changing world of a mentally limited, carbon based, hairless primate, and the only way that we can advance Highest order thinking in a group were only a handful of members are capable. Super athletes don't make us all run a bit faster, but cutting edge thought drags us all toward increased intelligence. As an adaptation, science is proof that social memes are evolutionary in nature and must survive selection for results.
+Goosemeyer The YT phone app won't let me edit for grammar. The confusing sentence I wrote above needed a question mark.
I agree with much of what you said here. Was that the point, to add to my criticism of this guy? It doesn't seem like you're defending him.
It would be great to find these critics of rationality pointing out that rationalism is dogmatic about a fundamental algorithm of whatever gets objective results is the most ideal method to go with and then challenge that. If there is a better method than rationality, I would like to know the better method. To be sure that it is better, I would need a way to know it's better. If objective means are not the most ideal way of knowing and there is no available means of verifying this to be the case, then my rationalist "dogma" might never allow me to change my mind. I observe rationality working and I don't yet observe another means that works as much or more efficiently. That is the axiom I carry. I am open to considering alternatives if someone has any.
But what this idiot argues is not that. He instead takes individuals, even by name, and strawman's their positions and then tells everyone that they are irrational for holding irrational positions that they don't even have. It's disappointing to see these headlines encouraging people to be content with delusional and irrational beliefs just because the people who would correct them can be stupid too. Even if these weren't strawman examples, two stupids don't make you right.
The data surrounding the explanation about dogmatism is absurd and highly detrimental to the esteem of someone as high as Haidt on the credibility Hierarchy.
I propose an alternative hypothesis as to why they sound "angry" and "dogmatic" in their books.
The counter claim to a hypothesis as arrogant and simultaneously baloney as "Religion" would sound frustrating, angry and sure of itself just the way..
If someone in the audience stood up and said that there was a rod up Haidt's arse, which was pentagonal, silver-colored and made of Aluminum.
Haidt would've countered, with dogged certainty, that he could feel nothing up his bottom, let alone pentagonal, silver and Metal-made and that things up his back are "certainly" better known by him than by someone else.
See the parallel?
His Argument was Baloney, and a cheap attempt.
From the comments, I get the impression that a great many people disagree with Haidt skepticism towards the adequacy of Reason to solve practical moral problems. So... I ask you to read the following and please leave your comments upon the subject of what *must* free people do.
Politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. While there are many things free people *should* do,... what *must* free people do,... as in literally do this or you will be forced to do so with the proviso that if you resist you may be killed.
Consider the following as a starting social contract between free people that is a work in progress.
*The Anarchist's Constitution*
1. *_There is no Sovereign Immunity._* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *_The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule._* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.
Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.
Is the only positive duty that of _if you break it, you must fix it_ sufficient,... or might there need to be more such positive duties. I am basically asking what unchosen, positive duties would all free people *have to observe* always,... even in an anarcho-capitalist libertopia. Rather than considering a contract between the government and a free people,... I am considering a contract between all free peoples with each other and regardless of individual consent. How can it be a contract,... regardless of individual consent,... you may ask? I think of it as the political equivalent of the necessity of all mathematics having to rely upon the use of axioms,... statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. Anarcho-capitalists talk of rules without rulers. Okay,... so I am asking, what are these rules,.. how do we arrive at a consensus of what these rules are,... and what happens to those who dissent from these rules?
I am trying to start projects where anyone participating can submit a peer to peer social contract,.. similar to the way the internet itself works so well. Forget governments for a moment. Think specifically in terms of what positive, affirmative duties do we have towards each other. While there are many things free people *_should_* do, what *_must_* free people do,... literally,... or risk being killed for not doing it.
I understand Anarcho-Capitalists as believing there should be no unchosen, positive, affirmative duty,... other than everyone has to fix what they break, ie., restitution. That unless it's consensual, it ain't moral. Minarchists aren't so sure that that is enough.
Do people consent to having to make restitution for the damages they cause others?
What is to be done with those people who refuse to make restitution for their injurious actions to others?
What is to be done with a serial killer, and how is this paid for?
Is it okay not to help an abandoned infant who will otherwise die?
Would it be okay for a mother to just leave a newborn infant?
What do you think should be done about international trafficking in children as sex toys.
What do you want done with adults who do this? Is restitution really enough? Is it satisfying?
What is to be done with someone who is very wealthy and regards paying restitution as merely an inconvenience with no qualms about the injuries he does to others?
Can no violent response be made to those who gratuitously mistreat and harm animals?
Can someone who owns the last breeding pair of an endangered species destroy them at will?
Would it be okay for entrepreneurs to create limited liability corporations in which costs from debts and pollution are socialized and profits are held privately?
Is it just that such shareholders are liable only for the money they have invested, with no liability for any costs that corporation may have involuntarily imposed on innocent third parties?
A very practical question is what duty would citizens have in libertopia to cooperate with those trying to enforce what rules are to exist upon everyone,... even without everyone's individual consent?
How would court orders be issued opening up private information/property to criminal investigators?
Is justice always satisfied simply by paying restitution,... even when someone has violently violated your daughters?
This list is in no sense exhaustive. I consider all of this to comprise various works in progress. What are the minimum set of rules (these rules without rulers ) that even anarcho-capitalists seem to recognize as necessary? How do we arrive at such a consensus? What happens to those who dissent?
Again, politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. This is unavoidable, even in libertopia.
And please remember, I would be just as happy to learn more from this debate, but where Libertarians only see violence as a means to protect value and not as a means to create value, I am now asking, in all good will,... is this really necessarily so? *Because certainly we are alone in believing this to the extent that we do.*
Does the truth derive from authority or
Does authority derive from the truth?
Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?
Is it easier to effectively organize people using voluntary association or threats of violence?
If it is wrong for the strong to exploit the weak,... how is it not wrong for the weak to exploit the strong also?
*_I wish men to be free, as much from mobs as kings, from you as me._*
~ Lord Byron, 1788-1824
I recently submitted the above to Walter Block, author of *_Defending the Undefendable,_* and he responded with...
*Dear David:*
*In my humble opinion, there are NO positive duties, only negative ones.*
*You ask: Is the only positive duty that of if you break it, you must fix it sufficient.*
*I think that’s a NEGATIVE duty. It’s part and parcel of the negative duty not to violate the non aggression principle.*
*Once we let the cloven hoof of positive duties into the tent, there’s no stopping them. Soon, we’ll have a positive duty to feed other people, not discriminate against them, who knows what else.*
*Best regards,*
*Walter*
Before I tell you how I responded, I would appreciate your thoughts and comments. I am worried that I may have been guilty of falling into the following error.
*_[W]hen a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds._*
~ Jonathan Haidt, _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_
By my love of Liberty, I don't want to be either binded nor blinded by that love. But I want to know if it is possible to come up with a fairly universal set of rules for how socially sanctioned initiatory violence is to be used and restrained. I hope I will eventually succeed. I fear I may instead be painfully missing my objective. Consider also,...
*_If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself._*
~ James Madison
*_I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it._*
~ Judge Learned Hand
*_In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written._*
~ Ron Paul
Consider the life & death (literally) importance of having these questions answered, whatever those answers may be. This reminds me somewhat of how mixed the reception was when Kurt Gödel delivered his _Essential Incompleteness Theorem_ to the somewhat bewildered and bemused mathematical community in 1931. I hope (but know I must not insist) that answers can be found to such questions,.. or else I fear the worse for the world at large. Perhaps that fear is where I make my greatest error.
To anyone who is interested,.. leave your thoughts and comments, *please.*
*_While liberty is never utopian, it is always melioristic._*
I don't see how this can work in a limited resource system. Or even more importantly, a system where goods are created by collectives (not individuals), and access to goods can only be gained by membership in a collective. Essentially, this is the problem with liberalism, and almost all libertarian ideologies. Property is mostly what we fight over in the first place and how it is distributed is what I would call the "hard problem" of political theory. A system like this would ensure you aren't killed in the street by violence, but you can certainly be starved, have no home, and otherwise be completely materially impoverished. This is not liberty in any way shape or form, and I don't see anyone aware of this fact who would agree to this social contract unless they already had material abundance and simply want to protect it.
If you want to talk about the social contract I am all ears, but I would start with Rawls. I think it is axiomatic in human system that we will create collectives and that those collectives will dictate how we all live. I find it naive to assume individuals are the starting point of any political system. We might have to agree individually to a social contract in the ideal world, but we certainly don't live in an individually created material world. We really don't live in the "frontier" anymore.
@@martinzarathustra8604 We may soon be coming to the point where we will have to part, agreeing to disagree. And yet, as I would hope it is clear from my previous comment, I have great sympathy with your reservations. I personally find John Rawls emphasis upon the welfare of the _worse_ off in society to be admirable,.. but not when it results in a system where the most entrepreneurial must become mere fodder for those with less demonstrated ability and merit. It's the individual who has agency,.. not any collective. Legitimate collectives only exist to the extent that they are voluntary.
To be very specific, I regard government/involuntary charity to be to private/voluntary charity as a prison yard gangrape is to consensual sex. The distinction may not seem very important to others, but it is critical to libertarians. The worse aspect of coercive charity or rape even, is that there is no more opportunity to ask anyone for their voluntary consent. For instance, I think voluntary charity would give aid to unwed mothers,.. at the cost that they give up the liberty to continue to make bad decisions. Unrestricted and unlimited aid to everyone in need isn't real compassion,.. it's using other people's money to announce one's own virtue.
It would be very helpful to me to see specific examples of unchosen, positive, affirmative duties that you would add to my *Anarchist's Constitution,..* or, even better, give me an example of your own universal social contract. Such a contract should preferably be intelligible to those of the past, present and future. And hopefully it is explicit enough that even lawyers will not be able to find ways to change it's clear meaning. I would be very excited if you could come up with something that doesn't result eventually in mass death for those whose principle allegiance is to truth as they understand truth, rather than social solidarity.
*_If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose -- because it contains all the distinctions of the others -- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity -- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality._*
~ Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
*_Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom._*
~ Albert Einstein
*_Force always attracts men of low morality._*
~ Albert Einstein
*_It's no accident that capitalism has brought with it progress, not merely in production but also in knowledge. Egoism and competition are, alas, stronger forces than public spirit and sense of duty._*
~ Albert Einstein
*_Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free._*
~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn
*_Equality of opportunity is freedom, but equality of outcome is repression._*
~ Dick Feagler
*_Americans are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom._*
~ Alexis de Tocqueville
*_Freedom is essentially a condition of inequality, not equality. It recognizes as a fact of nature the structural differences inherent in man - in temperament, character, and capacity - and it respects those differences. We are not alike and no law can make us so._*
~ Frank Chodorov
*_Envy blinds men and makes it impossible for them to think clearly._*
~ Malcolm X
*_I have no respect for the passion for equality, which seems to me merely idealizing envy._*
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
*_Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal._*
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
*_A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both._*
~ Milton Friedman
*_The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way._*
~ Milton Friedman
*_To say that 'wealth in America is so unfairly distributed in America,' as Ronald Dworkin does, is grossly misleading when most wealth in the United States is not distributed: at all. People create it, earn it, save it, and spend it._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_Those who want to "spread the wealth" almost invariably seek to concentrate the power. It happens too often, and in too many different countries around the world, to be a coincidence. Which is more dangerous, inequalities of wealth or concentrations of power?_*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one's own behavior._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money - if a gun is held to his head._*
~ P.J. O'Rourke
*_A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:_*
. *_From Bondage to Spiritual Faith_*
. *_From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage_*
. *_From Courage to Liberty_*
. *_From Liberty to Abundance_*
. *_From Abundance to Selfishness_*
. *_From Selfishness to Complacency_*
. *_From Complacency to Apathy_*
. *_From Apathy to Dependency_*
. *_From Dependency back into Bondage_*
~ Alexander Fraser Tytler
18th century Historian and Jurist
*_To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it._*
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
*_When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic._*
~ Benjamin Franklin
*_I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer._*
~ Benjamin Franklin
*_Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations._*
~ James Madison
@David Hunt Agency is mostly an illusion. There may be some minimal agency on the edges of the human mind, perhaps a limited conception of “free will” within consciousness, but you don’t get to choose your preference any more than you get to choose your cognitive and physical abilities at birth. Both these ideas nullify the libertarian insistence on the absolute sovereignty of the free individual (mythology that is not based on evidence). Although I do believe in some measure of personal responsibility, it is incumbent on anyone interested in justice to view the rewards of society distributed in a just way since it cannot be deduced from evidence that humans all start in a meritocratic “equality”. Differences in outcomes cannot only be the result of a pure force of metaphysical “free will”. This is patently absurd, and the weakest link in almost all libertarian ideologies.
Your argument is also a classic example of the fallacy of a false dilemma.
www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#FalseDichotomy. Just because we consider material welfare of those who are worse off in a society does not equal that those that are “more entrepreneurial” “must become fodder for the with less demonstrated ability and merit”. It can, and has, been argued effectively from empirical evidence that, for this, it is the exact OPPOSITE. Why? Any curious study of human nature, through psychology, and even from historical conflict, will show you that societies that have well adjusted lower classes are more robust both in terms of stability, but also in terms of their ability to encourage the most gifted. The most gifted individuals typically want to see other humans prosper since often the aims they are trying to achieve are for the benefit of all. They are not typically the selfish bastards that are so idolized and revered by the American cultural corporatocracy, who are mostly just coercive sociopaths. In addition, psychological research has shown, in multiple studies, that people are not intrinsically motivated by purely material gain, they are more motivated by social gains in the form of recognition and group cohesion. Also, a large majority of gifted individuals know that most of their cognitive or physical gifts were only partially earned, and ultimately, they were lucky with the genetic lottery. This so happens to be also empirically true. We can see the role of genetics in outcomes as being highly correlative, up to, and perhaps exceeding 70%. In addition, all gifts are useless without a collective society that REWARDS those gifts. We do not live in the frontier anymore, where it is one cowboy against the land, you Americans really need to get this through your thick ideological heads.
So, If you truly (not just in rhetoric but in reality) wanted to create a pure meritocratic society, you do just some of the following:
1- Adjust for the 70% force of pure genetics (not even environment) on outcomes. How this would be done is debatable, but there could be a simple calculation that could account for this in purely monetary terms.
2- Create environments that are maximally designed to create fair access to opportunity (not necessarily ends). For example, a 100% death tax, equal education opportunities regardless of sex, race, or socioeconomic status, etc.…
This is just a starting point, but I assume this will send your libertarian intuition into full force tantrum mode, so I will not belabor the points.
Your example of how you regard the government is rather weak and honestly silly. Perhaps because I am not American, but I just do not understand the libertarian insistence that somehow government laws must be coercive by their very existence. We do not drive on the left side of the road for a reason: to allow the system to work efficiently for the benefit of all, so we all do not take our lives in our hands every time we go to the store. Most people obey laws because they make sense for everyone’s welfare, not because of the threat of violence. The threat of violence is mostly there for a small proportion of the population that is either genetically wired to be sociopathic, or people too stupid to understand why there are rules in the first place. Does the threat of violence from the State go too far sometimes? Absolutely, but you are getting the cart before the horse here.
Your Ayn Rand-like (an unserious "folk" philosopher) insistence on “charity” to account for helping the poor is another terrible argument. If our society were just, a meritocracy, no charity would be necessary, as charity is an imbalanced power dynamic that allows some to lord it over others. Charity is a snobbery and old-world aristocratic view of the world that I find morally repugnant. Does it not strike you as condescending in the gravest sense to doll out “charity” just because you won the genetic lottery and happen to be good at math, for example? One is dependent on the other in a way that does not occur if we created a fair system in the first place.
What is with the canned quotes at the end of your post? It makes you look like a used car salesman.
@@martinzarathustra8604 It took a while,.. but the ad hominem arguments have finally come out. And you do make some good and valid points. I never chose to be born in America, white, male, with loving and involved parents, in a household full of books, music, and laughter. I also didn't chose to be autistic, which I am. As for the _canned quotes_ I've included,.. I believe they explain better than I can that every human life is a moral end, each sufficient unto themselves individually. As my first comment illustrated, I don't believe this to the extent some of my Anarcho-Capitalist brethren do,.. that I do believe there are likely more positive duties than just not doing harm and making restitution for the injuries one personally is responsible for inflicting upon innocent third parties. But I certainly have not the confidence that you would seem to have that Philosopher Kings can run everyone lives better than everyone can run their own. We are only equal in death,.. and never in life. While I am all in favor of trying to provide everyone with the maximum opportunity to thrive and prosper in this world,.. I wouldn't kill anyone to achieve this,.. nor would I sanction anyone else killing to achieve this. Good people with differ in their honest opinion of which of us is the moral monster then.
What I do believe is that *_While liberty is never utopian, it is always melioristic._* and I would not give up the good in a vain attempt to achieve the imagined perfect.
*_I wish men to be free, as much from mobs as kings, from you as me._*
~ Lord Byron, 1788-1824
*_If you propose to speak, always ask yourself, is it true, is it necessary, is it kind._*
~ Buddha
The difference between Dawkins and the religiously deluded is that Dawkins is prepared to change his mind in the light of evidence. This is not the hallmark of a delusion.
"The difference between Dawkins and the religiously deluded is that Dawkins is prepared to change his mind in the light of evidence."
Haha, keep em coming.
This must be a joke...Dawkins said In a Q and A that if he looked into the night sky and there were a new pattern of stars( keep in mind suns) that aligned to right a message in English that said God is real...he would be convinced aliens were trolling us.
That fool is not open minded in anyway and fill of contradictions.
At 0:57:20 he discusses moral relativism. For the atheist's worldview to make sense, morality must emerge as a result of contingent aspects of the development of mankind. Unfortunately for the atheist, C.S. Lewis pointed out a simple fact: on the emergentist view, had we evolved from animals that had the social structure of bees, it would be morally acceptable (indeed, probably obligatory) for fertile women to slaughter one another (_reductio ad absurdum_).
The cartoon at about 0:23:00 is misleading. More appropriate would be the following: When government distributes boxes. only a few privileged elites get enough to rise above misery. In a free market (buttressed by voluntary charity, with government programmes only for extreme situations), boxes are available to all, so that those who do the most productive work get the most boxes.
About the comic, I would approach from another angle.
Why are they comparing life to watching a game? What I man by that is that this way of picturing it suggest a cut-off line below which participation is impossible, as well as the actual height above the cutoff being meaningless. It is also a rather uniform activity.
This isn´t an accurate representation of life IMO.
If we were to compare it to getting apples from a tree, we might argue that everyone should get a chance to get an apple, HOWEVER, not everyone has to be able to reach the same, much less all the apples.
So we would help everyone to get onto the lower branches, perhaps by putting ladder there but we wouldn´t concern ourselves with what goes on above that. Now, if we were to use the boxes again, this time it would be clear that a reduction in boxes actually affects those at the top.
Research shows that our morality is reasonably the product of evolution which also explains why our reasoning is often so compromised as your reference you claim of C.S. Lewis as presented supports, since, the linkage presented is false.
[For the atheist's worldview to make sense, morality must emerge as a result of contingent aspects of the development of mankind. Unfortunately for the atheist, C.S. Lewis pointed out a simple fact: on the emergentist view, had we evolved from animals that had the social structure of bees, it would be morally acceptable (indeed, probably obligatory) for fertile women to slaughter one another ]
Rationalism is to me natural and I find his arguments irrelevant to explaining how and why our minds actually work.
To me he is saying experience alone is all that matters which to me is not how the scientific forefathers like Leibniz or Descartes or Sir. Francis Bacon saw the world.
If I am deluisional then blame nature for giving me reason. I will stay a Ratioalist.
+Jeremy Reagan Nature gave you reason so you could win arguments, NOT so you could make better decisions and find truth.
Reason is, in fact, quite bad at helping us find truth. It is so chock full of cognitive biases and distortions that it's much more likely to lead us AWAY from the truth. Those biases are not flaws of reason. They're features. They do what natural selection "designed" it to do, which is win arguments. See this: www.edge.org/conversation/hugo_mercier-the-argumentative-theory: The belief that rationalism helps us make better decisions and find truth is a belief that has no basis in fact. It is a delusion. By saying you will stay a rationalist you're your choosing bias, distortion and delusion over insight, wisdom, and truth. Two biases associate with reason, or rationalism, are "Reason Based Choice," and "Naïve Realism." Reason based choice is our tendency to prefer that which we can come up with a "rational" explanation for over that which we cannot. This often has little relationship with what is actually true, or correct, or right. Reason based choice is described within this article: www.edge.org/conversation/hugo_mercier-the-argumentative-theory:Naïve Realism is described in Chapter 4 of Haidt's book "The Happiness Hypothesis. Here's an excerpt:"Each of us thinks we see the world directly, as it really is. We further believe that the facts as we see them are there for all to see, therefore others should agree with us. If they don’t agree, it follows either that they have not yet been exposed to the relevant facts or else that they are blinded by their interests and ideologies. People acknowledge that their own backgrounds have shaped their views, but such experiences are invariably seen as deepening one’s insights; for example, being a doctor gives a person special insight into the problems of the health-care industry. But the background of other people is used to explain their biases and covert motivations; for example, doctors think that lawyers disagree with them about tort reform not because they work with the victims of malpractice (and therefore have their own special insights) but because their self-interest biases their thinking. It just seems plain as day, to the naive realist, that everyone is influenced by ideology and self-interest. Except for me. I see things as they are. If I could nominate one candidate for “biggest obstacle to world peace and social harmony,” it would be naive realism because it is so easily ratcheted up from the individual to the group level: My group is right because we see things as they are. Those who disagree are obviously biased by their religion, their ideology, or their self-interest. Naive realism gives us a world full of good and evil, and this brings us to the most disturbing implication of the sages’ advice about hypocrisy: Good and evil do not exist outside of our beliefs about them."A better description of rationalism and it's pitfalls, is in Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind."Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines delusion as “a false conception and persistent belief unconquerable by reason in something that has no existence in fact.”45 As an intuitionist, I’d say that the worship of reason is itself an illustration of one of the most long-lived delusions in Western history: the rationalist delusion. It’s the idea that reasoning is our most noble attribute, one that makes us like the gods (for Plato) or that brings us beyond the “delusion” of believing in gods (for the New Atheists).46 The rationalist delusion is not just a claim about human nature. It’s also a claim that the rational caste (philosophers or scientists) should have more power, and it usually comes along with a utopian program for raising more rational children.47From Plato through Kant and Kohlberg, many rationalists have asserted that the ability to reason well about ethical issues causes good behavior. They believe that reasoning is the royal road to moral truth, and they believe that people who reason well are more likely to act morally.... Anyone who values truth should stop worshipping reason. We all need to take a cold hard look at the evidence and see reasoning for what it is. The French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber recently reviewed the vast research literature on motivated reasoning (in social psychology) and on the biases and errors of reasoning (in cognitive psychology). They concluded that most of the bizarre and depressing research findings make perfect sense once you see reasoning as having evolved not to help us find truth but to help us engage in arguments, persuasion, and manipulation in the context of discussions with other people. As they put it, “skilled arguers… are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.”so This explains why the confirmation bias is so powerful, and so ineradicable. How hard could it be to teach students to look on the other side, to look for evidence against their favored view? Yet, in fact, it’s very hard, and nobody has yet found a way to do itY It’s hard because the confirmation bias is a built-in feature (of an argumentative mind), not a bug that can be removed (from a platonic mind).I’m not saying we should all stop reasoning and go with our gut feelings. Gut feelings are sometimes better guides than reasoning for making consumer choices and interpersonal judgments, S’ but they are often disastrous as a basis for public policy, science, and law.53 Rather, what I’m saying is that we must be wary of any individual’s ability to reason. We should see each individual as being limited, like a neuron. A neuron is really good at one thing: summing up the stimulation coIning into its dendrites to “decide” whether to fire a pulse along its axon. A neuron by itself isn’t very smart. But if you put neurons together in the right way you get a brain; you get an emergent system that is much smarter and more flexible than a single neuron.In the same way, each individual reasoner is really good at one thing: finding evidence to support the position he or she already holds, usually for intuitive reasons. We should not expect individuals to produce good, open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play. But if you put individuals together in the right way, such that some individuals can use their reasoning powers to disconfirm the claims of others, and all individuals feel some common bond or shared fate that allows them to interact civilly, you can create a group that ends up producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system. This is why it’s so important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within any group or institution whose goal is to find truth (such as an intelligence agency or a community of scientists) or to produce good public policy (such as a legislature or advisory board).And if our goal is to produce good behavior, not just good thinking, then it’s even more important to reject rationalism and embrace intuitionism. Nobody is ever going to invent an ethics class that makes people behave ethically after they step out of the classroom.
+The Independent Whig
The Thesis of reason; developing for argumentation
alone appears to be a specious principle and irrelevant framework as it pertains
to both how and why we reason in the first place as a species. Rationality by itself is not required for argumentation
for if we consider the view our elites and their conception of the world they
argue irrational premises using lies by omission to bolster their positions to
a misinformed population. I share Rene Descartes or Leibniz’s perspective
we reason because of internal properties which natural science should attempt
to discover and explain. One property is our creative principle which science
is nowhere near able to even explain why we create at all.The worldview that Jonathan Haidt. Appears to express is Postmodernism, which
simply alternates jargon to seem to raise a framework when if you simply ask
basic questions shows it is incapable of even using reason itself to agrue its
viewpoint.It is all about theorizing which the ancient and medieval philosophers fell into without having a clear method for practical
results.
Also his assumption of human competition being a prime motive for human survival is
irrational if It were present than why is it than that some in the Anthropology field show that pre statist societies have far less of this supposed prime
drive?
Too bad the reasoner who can tell you what comes next in the series , 41, 28, 164, x , didn't invent the set to begin with. It doesn't take much to understand that argument against rationality/IQ, grounded in empirical philosophy. Rationalist have always wanted to trivialize associative power of the mind, but in notable problems which have been solved historically - these pre-analytical associations were critical in the invention of models, which reasoning rests on (Eg; Tusi's proof of the Pythagorean theorem reflects an abstract idea, from a freely created abstract model math.arizona.edu/~hermi/pythagoras.jpg , Einsteins relativity light-clock experiments). Rationalist want to flagrantly deny it is knowledge and our freedom to select information and form novel associations - in other words, to "GENerate" sets, which allows for a good fraction of our intelliGENce, and the ultimate path to true knowledge. It's not surprising that some of the greatest minds always had an empirical worldview, beginning with Aristotle (to Pascal, Einstein, Von Neumann, Feynman). Nowadays, cognitive science realizes the absurd rationalism in our society - and they are working towards better, hopefully, less biased models.
To invent is to discern, to choose. - Henri Poincare
Mindfulness meditation is very helpful in seeing and gaining some control over our "intuitive" moral judgments and patterns. Buddhists have a long history of understanding that emotion is at the heart of our decisions and reason offers little control, but have developed methods to gain rational control to the extent that we are willing to devote ourselves to it. For example there is a mind training chart that shows the mind at first as an unruly elephant (intuitions) leading around a monkey (rationality), but by the end the monkey is riding and controlling the elephant.
Unless you're the type of person that is willing to spend your life meditating in a cave you won't reach total mastery of the mind, but the research shows that a little meditation can help a lot in gaining some level of control. It isn't as hopeless as Haidt suggests.
Galileo, Pascal, Einstein, Von Neumann, Feynman all disagree with you.
Gotta love the Atheists who get offended he dared to bring up Harris and Dawkins.... Proving his point :)
Gotta love this "new" tactic of saying that anyone who disagrees or simple argues against a given position and argument is either:
1. Offended
or
2. Triggered
Crimson Behelit
Or
3). Tribal
4). Biased
jesus existed
Dawkins definitely suffers from the rationalist delusion. His understanding of psychology and philosophy is too poor for him to realise.
Is that an emotional conclusion or a rational one?
@@martinzarathustra8604 rational one. All studies show that we are actually emotional and from our perceptions we reach a brief which we then support by facts and are lead down the path of confirmation bias. The evidence is very strong that we are not rational despite believing we are and very few of us are truly aware of this. Science is meant to avoid this through the scientific method but unfortunately not so many scientists adhere to these teachings as is born out by 50% of all papers that are now published can not be replicated because they are wrong.
@@iain5615 Incorrect. Psychological studies are statistical in nature. Thus thier conclusions are based on statistical results, but this means nothing to rational morality. Reason has rules, emotions do not. Just because something is not replicated doesn't mean it is untrue, it means that is it is unreliable. We as an aggerate are not rational, this does not mean that reason is insufficient in moral philosophy. On the contrary, that most people are unable to do reasoning without emotional motivation shows that we have far more work in teaching people how to become critical thinkers, not that critical thinking is impossible.
@@martinzarathustra8604 I agree that with all psychological studies there can be individuals who do not fit the norm: however, empirical studies take these into account.
Science within certain areas should be replicable in each and every experiment and as the fields move from physics to chemistry and then biology those experiments create greater and greater variability. Where variability exists, the scientist then determine the statistical likelihood of certain results. The papers submitted that cannot be replicated fail because the papers report false science and not a one off result outside of the median, mean or range anticipated.
"The analytic philosophers had botched morality" - huh? Holy motte and bailey, Batman! All the evidence he presents in the talk is about moral *psychology*, not philosophy. Just because humans empirically have diverse values, say, doesn't mean that what we ought to do isn't based on a monist principle.
Edit: In his response to the question around 39:30, he strawmans normative ethics pretty hard. I don't doubt there are some professional philosophers who engage in this "game," especially due to bad incentives to publish or perish, but there's a third alternative to the game or to describing what people value, and that's prescribing what we ought to do. Which is the stated objective of normative ethics.
Are you joking? Your key word search is just taking quote mining to a whole new level. This is embarassing.