

The end of Philosophy - knieveltech
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html

======
parenthesis
The article talks as if the idea that moral judgements are based on feeling or
perception rather than on reason is a recent one. As one (important) example,
Hume explicitly advocated such a position in the 1700s.

It also seems to confuse moral philosophy and moral psychology. The former can
use reason and arguments to attempt to justify practical principles and
actions (at least somewhat) independently of how, psychologically, human
agents, in fact, make moral judgements in real-life situations.

"The End of Philosophy" is a silly title because, for a start, what is
discussed is only relevant to _moral_ philosophy; and secondly, whatever firm
scientific results may be produced regarding moral psychology, there are still
endless issues that moral philosophers can continue to sensibly discuss, for
example, the semantics of (what appear to be) deductive moral arguments.

~~~
ionfish
It's like The End of History; a silly title for a silly piece of writing.

~~~
mechanical_fish
"The Singularity is an end-of-history notion. And it is showing its age, as
most end-of-history notions do."

\-- Bruce Sterling

(video link: <http://fora.tv/2004/06/11/Bruce_Sterling#chapter_01> )

~~~
davidmathers
When Francis Fukuyama said "the end of history" he meant that liberal
democracy is the evolutionary end point of nation states. Meaning:

1\. any nation state that is now a liberal democracy will remain so because
there is nothing more advanced for it to evolve into

2\. any nation state that is not a liberal democracy is merely not yet a
liberal democracy and will eventually evolve into one

The singularity is the point at which rate of technological evolution becomes
so rapid that it is essentially incomprehensible. That doesn't sound like an
end of history notion to me.

------
astine
To paraphrase the article:

 _Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is
outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I
provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be
challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences._

If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become
purely a matter of taste. One person has taste for self-determination and
thinks that gays should marry and another thinks gay sex is gross and that it
should be banned. They are both right and totally justified doing whatever
they feel is aesthetically pleasing (ie murder) to accomplish their ends.

This is a problem to say the least.

Effectively this means that there is no such thing as right and wrong and what
we are left with is shallow consensus (as opposed to a reasoned consensus) at
best, and application of force at worst. Slavery becomes right, because I'm a
sociopath with a gun.

Let's just say that I subjectively think that it is morally obligatory for
people to accept an objective moral norm.

~~~
trominos
> Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is
> outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I
> provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be
> challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences.

If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the
universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to
disprove it. (But if you need a disproof, here's as close as I can get: I am
100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes
with what's expected of the term _and_ that implies the existence of some
fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong.
Just think about it for a while.

Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just
particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of
an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck
they want.)

As you discuss, lack of objective morality is _horrible_. It still makes me
feel weird when I think about it, and I decided that "ethics" was bullshit
when I was thirteen. My brain is hard-wired to believe that certain actions
are "right" and certain actions are "wrong" in a sense that encompasses more
than just my brain's response to those actions, so thinking about (what I see
as) the truth about morality causes a dissonance between my conscious and my
subconscious.

In the same way, my brain believes very deeply that everything has a cause, so
it believes that there's a meaningful answer to the question, "Why does the
universe exist?"

But that question doesn't have an answer. And objective morality doesn't
exist. Sorry.

~~~
astine
Why are you apologizing? Did you make reality this way? Are you God?! Or are
you just condescending me?

 _If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the
universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to
disprove it._

I'm going to disagree with you on this point, because not only the existence
of objective morality, but the existence of object truth of any kind depends
on its falsity.

As you say, my brain makes certain a priori assumptions about reality. Among
these, are the existence of object morality, the utility of the senses, and
fundamental correctness of human reason. My belief in these are the default.
If I am to doubt any of these things you must provide me with a concrete
reason to do so.

All reasoning proceeds from assumptions and unless we make allowance for
assumption, we must assent to solipsism (or something equally silly.) For, if
we are to assume that all premises are false, unless proved otherwise, then
what premises are true? People who hold the stance tend to make all sorts of
assumptions that they don't realize are assumptions. Thus, I will maintain
that rather than arguing from a 'nothing is true until proven' stance, that it
is better to argue from a 'default brain state is true' until disproved
stance.' Which, would then place the burden of proof on you.

* I am 100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes with what's expected of the term and that implies the existence of some fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong. Just think about it for a while.*

As you state, expectations can be wrong. However, for the sake of sanity, it
is better to presuppose that they are less wrong than more wrong. The people
nearly universally agree that both theft and murder are wrong, that they
disagree on whether lethal force is justified in defense of property can be
attributed to bias of experience.

 _Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just
particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of
an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck
they want._

Except that I'm not a physicalist. If I were,I would already agree with you.

~~~
trominos
All right, I think I sort of screwed up my first post, because it failed to
convey my most fundamental feeling about "morality": I think that the word
"morality" (also "ethics") is, to a truly ridiculous extent, not well-defined.

That's why I asked you to define the word -- I can't argue about it otherwise.
I really don't think there's any good definition other than, "A system of
judging actions to be either 'right' or 'wrong,' such that actions that I am
uncomfortable with are designated 'wrong'."

Well, there are variants of the above (change "I'm uncomfortable" to "some
group of people, possibly directed by arbitrary external rules, is
uncomfortable"), but the point is that I think any definition that roughly
corresponds to the meaning we intuitively attribute to the word needs a lot of
subjectivity in it.

As long as "morality" stays undefined, I obviously can't refute your premise
that objective morality exists. I mean, it's your fucking premise.

~~~
astine
_I think that the word "morality" (also "ethics") is, to a truly ridiculous
extent, not well-defined._

Or rather, people are dreadfully inconsistent about what they call morality. I
can give you a definition of ethics, morality is trickier so I may be able to
only summarize a few points.

Ethics is a system of determining _right action_ for individuals and groups of
individuals from a set of commonly held values. For example: if equity is a
value, then preferential treatment becomes a wrong. Ethics works by finding
common values and working from them. The fact that value is subjective has no
bearing; ethical systems merely look for a common denominator and work from
there. Different ethical systems are the product of applying different
philosophical methodologies to different values sets.

Morality is very different. It is the object of the assumption that there is a
universal set of rules and values to which all human beings must, for some
reason or other, assent. What this universal code consists of, isn't
necessarily universally accepted, but what is universally accepted, or nearly
so, is the assumption that there is a universal code. That a physicalist, or
mechanistic account of the universe cannot account for this is evident. That
very few human beings actually accept a physicalist or mechanistic worldview,
even if they claim to do so, is also evident. It presupposes some kind of
telos, or universal purpose.

So what morality is, is this: an objective standard of behavior that is
(instinctualy) assumed by everybody, agreed (in total; the vast majority hold
a large number of principles in common and differ only on application, hence
the need for ethics) upon by few, and can only be fully accounted for by some
kind of metaphysics.

Edit: spelling and word usage

------
aaronasterling
Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"?

"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of
reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure
reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."

It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only
(known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capable of
answering. The contents of the article (though not scientific) have been
shaped by scientific insights. Doesn't it sort of back up the idea that we can
do morality without god? if anything, wouldn't that give the "new" atheists
some backing?

~~~
misuba
Sam Harris covered this stuff in The End of Faith. It's depressing how few
critics of "new atheists" have read the people they have beef with; then
again, it's even more depressing how few atheists make successful
communication a priority.

~~~
eru
They don't have to proselytize.

~~~
misuba
True, the income and security brought in by followers is a powerful incentive.
Whereas if you communicate clearly about atheism all you get is fewer people
hating you for no damn reason.

~~~
eru
I am glad that I live in a country more tolerant to atheism. Berlin has even
been described as the world capital of atheism in the Economist.

"[The former chancellor of Germany, Schroder,] did not add the optional phrase
So wahr mir Gott helfe ('so help me God') when sworn in as chancellor for his
first term in 1998." (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der>)

------
carbon8
_"Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t
have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if
a landscape is beautiful. You just know."_

Speak for yourself, Brooks. Apparently he was the kind of kid who put ketchup
on everything and never really grew out of it.

------
AndrewO
I was thinking this sounded familiar and then I realized the main source,
Jonathan Haidt, did a similar TEDTalk on the roots of liberal and conservative
morality. I thought it was pretty interesting:

[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mor...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

------
javert
I don't agree with his premise that people can't use reason to come to good
moral principles, and then act on them.

Figuring out morality his way--by emotion--would be abdicating your power to
make positive change and leaving everything to random influences upon your
life. A woman was mean to me as a kid? Well, I'll hate women. Everyone I know
goes to church, and I have come to love Jesus? Well, that must be the right
answer, then. That's what happens if you go by emotion.

~~~
jacoblyles
On the other hand, you're an evolved being with innate biases. There are solid
natural reasons that most people share similar moral intuitions (read:
emotions). If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from
which to deduce other moral actions.

Brooks' premise is naturalistic, that man is more complex than an avatar of
pure reason. I think he's right.

~~~
aaronasterling
He just messes up and shows his ignorance/stupidity when he tries to say that
"man is more complex then an avatar of pure reason" implies "the processes by
which man was created are more than is understandable by pure reason". believe
what you want but thats a shoddy piece of reasoning.

~~~
astine
Strictly speaking, everything is more than is understandable by pure reason.

~~~
koningrobot
How so? Isn't it just a matter of having enough "reasoning power" and
information? What do "everything" and "understandable" mean in this sentence?

