[MD] Morality or Prudence?

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Morality and Prudence


>
> Hi again, Joe --
>
>
> On Saturday, 8/27/11 7:50 PM, Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ham and all,
>>
>> I will ask a couple of questions.  Does the acceptance of a
>> principle of evolution create a free-will?
>
> No.  Evolution has nothing to do with free will, whether as an 
> intellectual "principle" or a
> process of nature.  The only relevance I can see is its association with 
> "causality", which has wrongly been used to support the idea that human 
> preferences and decisions are determined by previous causes, and that free 
> will is therefore a myth.  Daniel Dennett and other philosophers have 
> effectively argued that intent is a voluntary expression of the individual 
> self which is not controlled by natural causes.
>
> "On the contrary," says Dennett, " it's only when you understand life from 
> an evolutionary point of view that you understand what our freedom really 
> is.  You realize that it's real.  It's different and better than the 
> freedom of  other animals, but it's evolved.  What you_want_ is freedom, 
> and freedom and determinism are entirely compatible.  In fact, we have 
> more freedom if determinism is true than if it isn't.  Because if 
> determinism is true, then there's less randomness.  There's less 
> unpredictability.
>
> "To have freedom, you need the capacity to make reliable judgments about 
> what's going to happen next, so you can base your action on it.   If the 
> effect of our genes on our likely history of disease were chaotic, let 
> alone random, that would mean that there'd be nothing we could do about 
> it.  It would be like Russian roulette.  You would just sit and wait.  But 
> if there are reliable patterns -- if there's a degree of determinism --  
> then we can take steps to protect ourselves."  [The complete interview 
> from which these statements are extracted is accessible at
> http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/pulling-our-own-strings.]

I agree with this, while simultaneously feeling that he's arguing for our 
limitations.  We can only do that which is _apparently_ available to us. 
The fact remains that chaos exists, and those random bits have a tremedous 
impact on our choices.  He's speaking of a more linear existence that most 
experience.  An outragous example:  You're walking down the street when a 
man steps out from an alley and pulls a gun on you.  At that point, it would 
appear that your choices include a) giving him your valuables, or b) 
resisting.  Those choices don't take into account the possiblity of the cop 
stepping out of the coffee shop you just passed, seeing what's happening, 
and shooting the assailant. (Chaos)  The cop wasn't one of your choices, and 
is neither deterministic nor "free" from your perspective, but had a huge 
impact on the outcome of the situation.

>> Does the morality of good, bad, indifferent, adhering in the
>> manifestation of free will, highlight a reality of sentient behavior?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "highlight a reality".  Good, bad, or 
> indifferent are subjective judgments derived from Value which is a 
> uniquely human sensibility.

This I agree with completely.

> They also identify gradations of Morality as it applies to specific 
> cultural or social mores.  Apart from the fact that experience is 
> sequential in time, the process of evolution does not control or influence 
> our preferences.

This one, not so much.  The argument against here is the individual who is 
born with specific talents.  Could Mozart have become a surgeon?  His innate 
talent had a huge impact on his choice of career.  Granted, most aren't born 
with that kind of natural talent, or at least most never discover it, but I 
think you get my point.  Someone who is born with a high intelligence or a 
strong atheletic ability will have options in areas that aren't available to 
those who weren't born with higher abilities.

>  It's my belief that Value is man's affinity (or "love") for the essence 
> or source of his reality.  It is relative, rather than "universal", in 
> that it's proprietary to the individuated self.  How we differentiate 
> Value experientially varies for each person, so it's unlikely that any two 
> individuals will have identical preferences or desires.

Which brings me to the purpose of the subject line change.  The situation: 
A man is walking down the street and happens to notice that the house he is 
passing is on fire.  From his vantage point on the sidewalk, he sees a child 
trapped in the house.  Now, from a moral perspective, he should attempt to 
save the child.  From a prudent perspective, he should keep walking.  If he 
rushes into the house, there's a good chance he could die, which would be 
rather imprudent.  If he does keep walking, he will carry the burden of 
morality for not saving the child.  We seem to have come equipped with a 
species survival thing, similar to the analogy of the penguins who will 
build a penguin ladder when trapped in a crevise.  The penguins will build 
the ladder so that some of the trapped birds can climb the backs of the 
penguins who made the ladder and get out of the crevise, knowing full well 
that the constituents of the ladder will not be able to get out.  The moral 
thing to do would be to save the child.  The prudent thing to do would be to 
keep walking.  Either choice would have to be made from his own perspective. 
Which choice would have a "higher" value?  Should the subject line be 
"Morality -vs.- Prudence?

> Although my views do not necessarily reflect the MoQ, I'll be happy to 
> elaborate on them should you have any additional questions.

I enjoy reading your posts.  I think before you said that you had written a 
book.  Where is it available?

Carl