Moral Certainty

[tjohnson]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Edited February 18, 2010 by general semanticist

[9thdoctor]

Here’s 2 ½ minutes of some of the greatest television in history. Note the key qualification he makes: “With no test in reality”.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

For those not familiar, it's from The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski

[tjohnson]

Another 'ski' would agree heartily - Korzybski. I forgot to mention that Russell said the actions done with moral certainty invariably are based on belief of something that is false to facts. An example might be believing some ethnic group or religion is a scourge on society and the members are sub-humans or even no better than animals.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's 2 ½ minutes of some of the greatest television in history. Note the key qualification he makes: "With no test in reality".

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

For those not familiar, it's from The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski

He uttered a Popperian theme when he said that the conclusions of science are at the edge of error. That is a statement of the concept of falsifiability. No matter how certain the conclusions of a science they must withstand the test of experiment and they are potentially falsifiable, thereby.

Ba'al ChatzAf

[Darrell Hougen]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Is the problem with certainty or with hubris?

Darrell

[tjohnson]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Is the problem with certainty or with hubris?

Darrell

I suppose they are related.

[tjohnson]

In all fairness to objectivism there is a very important principle, namely NIOF, that would preclude committing atrocities on other humans despite the feeling of moral certainty. However, what happens when someone else initiates force? Is there anything in the system to stop the response from becoming excessive?

[anthony]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

GS, Thanks for a timeous post. I've been on the point of bringing up this topic in "Quotes" with that well-known W.B.Yeats quote

"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

I've never liked this quote as I think it proposes a false alternative, but it has resonated in me for years.

(There's little doubt that the majority of people need to feel 'right.' A large aspect of this is fed by the need to feel 'righter' than everyone else, I think.)

It was probably the times that Yeats lived in that prompted this observation - excesses of fascism, marxism and religion, and the noisy intensity of their practitioners. Trouble is, it may have influenced the start of our sickening Post-Modern era.

Needless to say, this affected me in my learning of Objectivism; and I have found myself switching easily between the 'accelerator' of passionate intensity, and the 'brake' of self-doubt. Believe it or not, this process seems to work - at least for me!

My question: Isn't life too short to NOT enjoy a high degree of passion, conviction and moral certainty?

Especially with a philosophy that espouses rationality, independence, and non-initiation of force, as basic principles?

Tony

[9thdoctor]

well-known W.B.Yeats quote

"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Someone's got to roll out the classic:

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

Voltaire

[Xray]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Indeed, incredible atrocities have been (and are) being committed on humans, with the horrific acts justified on the grounds of an alleged "moral certainty".

The feeling of moral "certainty" can only grow on a mental ground 'fertilized' with the illusion of "objective" morality.

GS: In all fairness to objectivism there is a very important principle, namely NIOF, that would preclude committing atrocities on other humans despite the feeling of moral certainty. However, what happens when someone else initiates force? Is there anything in the system to stop the response from becoming excessive?

On the other another thread, George H. Smith quoted from Rand:

"There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement." [AR]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8235&st=260&p=91209entry91209

GHS also wrote that Especially troubling is what she means by "must".

So what happens in case someone decides he/she wants no part of it, and refuses? Is force then initiated by "the government" against this person?

Where is there room left for individual choice when one is confronted with the mandatory "must"?

WhyNot: Especially with a philosophy that espouses rationality, independence, and non-initiation of force, as basic principles?

Rand's fictional hero Roark commits rape and dynamites the Cortland building, with the author clearly condoning both acts, which are inition of force. To play them down as "only" fiction contradicts Rand's position: she clearly stated that she had created Roark "as man should be".

Frankly I'm glad that many philosophers did not get into actual positions of political power enabling them to put their ideas into practice.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, that Roark committed a rape is your subjective value judgment.

That the Nazis were generally scumbags is an objective value judgment.

--Brant

subjective/objective

subjective/objective

on Xray is does not dawn

yawn

[Brant Gaede]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Nope. It's that one subordinates oneself to an authority's supposed moral certainty.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Here's 2 ½ minutes of some of the greatest television in history. Note the key qualification he makes: "With no test in reality".

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

For those not familiar, it's from The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski

Well, one can take issue with some of this, especially with oversimplification, lack of nuance and lack of knowledge. The worst is lecturing everyone as being responsible for the crimes of totalitarians and religious fanatics WITHOUT MENTIONING THESE BASTARDS!--with the exception of Oliver Cromwell.

--Brant

Edited February 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

Well, one can take issue with some of this, especially with oversimplification, lack of nuance and lack of knowledge. The worst is lecturing everyone as being responsible for the crimes of totalitarians and religious fanatics WITHOUT MENTIONING THESE BASTARDS!--with the exception of Oliver Cromwell.

--Brant

It comes at the end of an hour long program, so maybe more context is needed. It is ironic that he quotes Cromwell, who committed genocide himself, but reportedly he was speaking extemporaneously, there was no script. I have to say I don't understand your second sentence, who is "everyone"?

[Xray]

Xray, that Roark committed a rape is your subjective value judgment.

The term for an enforced sexual act is rape.

BG: That the Nazis were generally scumbags is an objective value judgment.

There is no such thing as objective value. It always depends on the standard form which you judge.

There are enough (Neo)Nazis still around who worship Hitler. You and I and countless others will find this horrific, but since value is always subjectively attributed by individuals, it can't be objective.

GS: One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

BG: Nope. It's that one subordinates oneself to an authority's supposed moral certainty.

Which means that one accepts the authority's supposed moral certainty without questioning it.

If you don't think this is the case, then what other motive can you think of?

In other words, what do people hope to gain if they subordinate themselves to an authority without sharing the values of the authority? Are they afraid of conflict and want to go the way of least resistance?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Xray, that Roark committed a rape is your subjective value judgment.

The term for anenforced sexual act is 'rape'.

That the Nazis were generally scumbags is an objective value judgment.

There is no such thing as objective value. It always depends on the standard form which you judge.

There are enough (Neo)Nazis still around who worship Hitler. He is also worshipped in certain parts of the Arab world wherthe hatred of jews. You and I and countless others may find this horrific, but since value is always subjectively attributed by individuals, it can't be objective.

What may be considered objective is that Nazis and Neo-Nazis are morally certain about their beliefs and so should be considered dangerous to mankind.

[Xray]

What may be considered objective is that Nazis and Neo-Nazis are morally certain about their beliefs and so should be considered dangerous to mankind.

This IS an objective statement of fact: that they are morally certain about their beliefs. And their propensity for using force does make them an objective danger to the lives of others.

[Brant Gaede]

An "enforced sexual act" is not rape if it's play acting. However, even if it really wasn't rape Roark subsequently behaved like a rapist until he left the area and Dominique like a rape victim dragging herself into the bathroom and staying there until morning.

In any case there has been a huge cultural shift since the novel was written. Women in this country are no longer generally regarded as being there for men to do what they will with them sexually even if too many men still haven't gotten the message.

"The Fountainhead" is a fascinating surreal world of half-baked and over-baked psychologies. As a remade movie I can see reworking the "rape" scene so no one thinks it's rape being depicted, but not blowing up a housing project--not after 9/11. There is one possibility apropos that: if Roark were a real victim whose contract was violated by the government instead of Keating. I'd rather no one try to do it, though.

--Brant

[Christopher]

GS, A very powerful thread you've started.

Certainty offers a wonderful, almost intoxicating, sense of self and motivation towards action. I have never felt more powerful in my actions than when I feel certain of my actions. Personally, the effects have been both positive and negative. On the positive side, I feel like I have accomplished amazing feats in this state of mind, overcome huge amounts of fear or concern or doubt to do something that I would otherwise lack the strength to overcome. Yes, certainty and conviction are wonderful and truly a blessing in some circumstances.

On the flip side, generally it makes me a little less aware of incoming information. Within my convictions is a sense of compassion and respect for human life, and I would never act in horrific manners against man... but that doesn't mean that I haven't acted callous or without awareness to other aspects of interpersonal experience that represents important knowledge but threatened my convictions. And I also struggled a lot with the question of whether my conviction was a good thing, since I occasionally semi-identified with people who also had conviction but lacked my values and performed actions I despised.

Perhaps then conviction is an energy, and we cannot judge the energy outside the context of the values that such energy empowers. It can be the greatest good or it can be the most terrible evil -- depending in whose hands that conviction rests. But I don't think I would argue against conviction across all people (a form of disempowerment), for I am sure Mother Teresa, Ayn Rand, and other immense benefactors of human life have had such conviction.

Chris

- As for the embedded video, that was partially my point in arguing against Capital Punishment, that men cannot be made numbers but are represented by a different experience in human consciousness that forbids the death of life. (although this was not explicitly stated in the video, it was certainly implied.)

- As for Xray, I suggest you guys do your best to withold from responding to her. This is a great thread, and I would hate for it to be lost in a futile cognitive cloud of Xray-debate.

[9thdoctor]

I am sure Mother Teresa, Ayn Rand, and other immense benefactors of human life have had such conviction.

I must differ on your characterization of Mother Teresa. Qua benefactor, that is, though there is some question about the firmness of her convictions. Rather than rehash Christopher Hitchens, I’ll let him speak for himself.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

- As for the embedded video, that was partially my point in arguing against Capital Punishment, that men cannot be made numbers but are represented by a different experience in human consciousness that forbids the death of life. (although this was not explicitly stated in the video, it was certainly implied.)

If you haven’t seen The Ascent of Man, you can rent it from Netflix, I can’t recommend it enough. The clip above is on the 4th DVD, but you may as well start the series from the beginning, trust me it’s that good.

[BaalChatzaf]

If you haven't seen The Ascent of Man, you can rent it from Netflix, I can't recommend it enough. The clip above is on the 4th DVD, but you may as well start the series from the beginning, trust me it's that good.

I thought -Ascent of Man- was a better series than Carl Sagan's -Cosmos-. It was cast a somewhat more philosophical/abstract level and had further advantages: Brownsowki never once said Billyuns and Billyun and he never tried to sing like a whale.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

If you haven’t seen The Ascent of Man, you can rent it from Netflix, I can’t recommend it enough. The clip above is on the 4th DVD, but you may as well start the series from the beginning, trust me it’s that good.

It is also online and free.

http://tvshack.net/tv/The_Ascent_of_Man/

[Christopher]

I am sure Mother Teresa, Ayn Rand, and other immense benefactors of human life have had such conviction.

I must differ on your characterization of Mother Teresa. Qua benefactor, that is, though there is some question about the firmness of her convictions. Rather than rehash Christopher Hitchens, I’ll let him speak for himself.

ND, don't get too caught up in this - the message (and not the examples) was my intention for posting. I didn't really write that post to emphasize the virtue of Mother Teresa, and I am sure Ayn Rand would not be considered a benefactor to human life by many people as well. More to the point: conviction = energy, and conviction itself should not be judged outside context.

Christopher

[Xray]

[All quotes: Christopher]

Christopher:Certainty offers a wonderful, almost intoxicating, sense of self and motivation towards action. I have never felt more powerful in my actions than when I feel certain of my actions.

This describes the power of feeling certain about something.

Since humans are fallible, the possibility exists that felt certainty is based on error. If error is realized and corrected, this can have dramatic effects on the conviction to the point of its complete collapse because the premise has been exposed as false.

Classic example is when people begin to question a belief.

Suppose John Doe has been brought up with the doctrine "God's will is ...". As long as John accepts this statement as fact, he will feel certain about it and be convinced of it as truth.

If Johnn starts checking the root premise, he will discover the thinking error:

Claiming "Something is the will of X" is stating this as fact.

A fact which in turn implies that the being exists that has the will.

The impossibility of proving the existence reveals the false premise: presenting a mere belief as fact.

Since the claim of will is based on this false premise, it collapses, thereby becoming null and void.

The beauty of checking premises: it can be done sine ira et studio, without getting embroiled in any believers' turf wars.

But since checking premises is always a radical act, going to the roots, problems can arise when the believers realize the dynamite contained for their belief if the premise is exposed as false.

For a second element factors in: (bolding mine)

Christopher but that doesn't mean that I haven't acted callous or without awareness to other aspects of interpersonal experience that represents important knowledge but threatened my convictions.

The first thing I ask myself in such cases is "WHY do I feel threatened? WHAT precisely is it which I perceive as threat?"

I have studied several criminal cases, and quite often, when someone becomes suspect of having committed a crime, the family members, friends and colleagues will reject the idea because it threatens their conviction that this person is innocent of the crime.

Even in the face of evidence laid out before them, this evidence is often claimed to be "ridiculously insufficient", or even to be a "fabrication" to frame this person.

So facts can be mentally pushed aside people's minds to protect the belief held.

In case the person turns out to be in fact guilty, it would expose the premise "I know this person enough to conclude he/she is incapable of doing this" as false, and as a result, the conviction of innocence would collapse.

This is why one e. g. can confront Creationists a hundred times with evidence of Evolution, they will mentally push it aside because it threatens their conviction.

As for Xray, I suggest you guys do your best to withold from responding to her.

Classic example of an "ought to" presuming to make choices for others.

I personally have come to eliminate from my thinking any "ought to" and suggestions to others about what is "best" for them and can't say I have missed the "ought to" and its linguistic relatives ("should", etc.) ever since.

Which why I won't tell you that you "ought to" read Hitchens' book "God is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything", where he debunks the rosecolored picture many have of mother Theresa by confronting the reader with some facts about her. I just wanted to tell you that the info is in there but saw ND has already posted a YouTube link to Hitchens in # 20.

But I don't think I would argue against conviction across all people (a form of disempowerment), for I am sure Mother Teresa, Ayn Rand, and other immense benefactors of human life have had such conviction.

The point is not arguing against convictions as such because they are part of our human nature.

The issue is checking the premises on which the convictions are based.

So when someone bases his/her conviction on "moral certainty", trying to find out the underlying premise will get at the root.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

- As for Xray, I suggest you guys do your best to withold from responding to her. This is a great thread, and I would hate for it to be lost in a futile cognitive cloud of Xray-debate.

I see her first line, “illusion of objective morality”, and tune out. Not interested, I’ve already heard the mantra.

I thought -Ascent of Man- was a better series than Carl Sagan's -Cosmos-.

I think Sagan aimed for a hypnotic effect, and ended up with a cure for insomnia. Not all of it of course, but I know I’ve fallen asleep to Sagan’s soothing vocal tones and musical choices more than once. The two programs don’t overlap too much, and they’re both worth seeing.

Brownsowki never once said Billyuns and Billyun and he never tried to sing like a whale.

He always denied ever saying billyuns and billyuns, and as to the whale thing, come on, that’s one of the best parts!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I didn't really write that post to emphasize the virtue of Mother Teresa, and I am sure Ayn Rand would not be considered a benefactor to human life by many people as well. More to the point: conviction = energy, and conviction itself should not be judged outside context.

Fair enough, though you’re being quite relativistic; I was reacting to a very fair reading of what you wrote.