Thesis #1: Diversity is the primary good.
by Jason GodeskyHumans are social animals, and also capable of abstract, independent thought. The combination requires some form of social standards. Bees think with a single hive mind, and solitary animals do not encounter one another often enough to require a rigid system of morality and ethics. Without social norms, however, human society would break down. We have evolved in such societies, and require other humans to live. A single human, on his own, has little chance of survival.
Some rules are nearly universal, such as the injunction against murder. Society cannot long endure if everyone is murdering one another. Other taboos are less common; theft, for example, is generally found only in those societies where resources are limited in some regard. Rules of morality and ethics vary widely from culture to culture, adapted to given circumstances. Our ethics and morality are another means we have of adapting to new and different environments.
Basic rules of behavior are required for our survival, and conscience is an adaptation we have evolved to continue our existence. Such a conscience must at once be deeply felt, and culturally constructed. It must be adapted to those rules, taboos, and guidelines a given society requires in a given place and time, but be too deeply felt to be ignored. The human brain is incredibly malleable, made to be adapted to the cultural context it finds itself in. Enculturation is a powerful process which should never be underestimated. What you learn as a child can never be completely shaken; it becomes an inextricable part of who you are, as intrinsic to your being as your DNA.
As necessary as ethics may be, that does not make them correct. Nor does the depth of our conviction. I, like most Westerners, feel a very strong revulsion at the thought of pedophilia, for example. Yet, in the cultural context of the Etoro, the Marind-ani, and 10-20% of all Melanesian tribes, it is the only acceptable form of sex. While I cringe at the thought, I have no argument that it is “wrong” beyond my gut feeling of disgust–a result of my enculturation. As much as I prefer monogamous, heterosexual relationships, it was monogamous heterosexuals who committed the Holocaust. There is no similar act in Melanesian history.
The arbitrary nature of such ethical rules led many of our early ancestors to posit the final authority for such decrees with divine will. This is good and that is not because the gods said so, end of story. This made things nice, neat and easy. In the early days of polytheism, this worked nicely. Worshippers of Apollo and Ra alike could live in peace with one another. Most polytheists were willing to accept the gods of another as equally real as their own pantheon. Religious wars and intolerance were quite uncommon; after all, what’s one more god? Early religion was inextricably bound to politics, and so ancient states would enforce worship of the state gods–often including the emperor or king–alongside one’s own gods. Usually, this was not a problem; again, what’s one more god? Even monolatry–the worship of a single god, amidst the acknowledgement of many–was not much of a problem. Ra is my god and Apollo is yours, but we’re both worshipping the sun. I worship the ocean, and you worship the harvest, but both are equally real.
It was the emergence of monotheism that first posed a serious challenge. If only one god exists, then all other gods are false. If this is also combined with a charitable disposition towards the rest of mankind, crusades, missionaries, and other attempts to save the heathens from their error ensue. In a world where morality is determined by the will of the gods, such a conflict comes to a head.
If morality follows from divine will, are there no ethics for atheists? And what of the heathens? Yet, these individuals still have pangs of conscience as acute–and sometimes more–than their monotheistic cousins. This led to many philosophers trying to find some other basis for ethics, besides divine will. Such philosophies generally come in one of three types.
The first harks back to the old days of the divine will; deontological ethics focuses on duties we are required to either fulfill or refrain from. The seminal figure of this school is Immanuel Kant, who formulated the categorical imperative. Kant argued that an act is ethical if it could be done by everyone without breaking down society. This was later refined by Sir David Ross with his prima facie values–things that simply are good without question. Individual acts can then be judged by how well they comply to those values. The past fifty years have seen the re-emergence of “virtues,” as found in ancient philosophy. The four Stoic virtues of temperence, fortitude, justice and prudence work in a manner similar to Ross’s values–acts may be judged by how well they cling to these virtues.
Both of these systems share the same flaw as the ancient systems of ethics; they cannot exist apart from divine revelation. Even if there is such a god handing down such ethical systems, how can we ever be sure which of us has the “true” revelation? Every culture has different values, virtues, morals and ethics. Each believes that its way is the right way. Simply reiterating that position is not sufficient, and all claims to the superiority of one’s own scripture require one to first accept the superiority of one’s own scripture.
Unlike the foregoing systems, however, consequentialist ethics like John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism do the best job of creating an ethical system independent of divine powers. Utilitarianism tries to maximize the utility–roughly, the “happiness”–of all parties involved. An action is “right” insofar as it makes everyone more satisfied, more happy, than they were before. This is not simple hedonism, as the welfare of all must be considered–your family, your friends, your society. Sitting at home tripping on acid is not an ethical action in Utilitarianism, for as much as it may raise your own utility, it carries with it a slight negative impact on everyone in the form of your support for a global network of drug dealers and smugglers connected to various forms of crime, oppression and terrorism.
Utilitarianism is often disparaged in philosophical circles, with counter-examples as the following. Take a thousand people, and some magical means of measuring utility numerically. One of them is extremely annoying. Killing him would drop his own utility from its current “100″ to zero, while raising everyone else’s from “100″ to “101.” That means that the overall effect of utility would be 999-100=899. Ergo, killing annoying people is a very good thing!
Obviously, Utilitarianism needs some other goal that mere “happiness,” but what? Once again, we run up against the wall of needing to decipher the divine will. Everyone has their own ideas, beliefs, dogmas and scriptures. How can we possibly know what the gods desire of us?
Perhaps one good start is to stop pouring over the texts they supposedly inspired, and instead look to the only thing we know for certain came from them (if they exist at all): the world around us. It turns out the universe has been screaming a single, consistent value at us from the beginning of time.
From a single, undifferentiated point of energy, the universe unfolded into hundreds of elements, millions of compounds, swirling galaxies and complexity beyond human comprehension. The universe has not simply become more complex; that is simply a side-effect of its drive towards greater diversity.
So, too, with evolution. We often speak of evolution couched in terms of progress and increasing complexity. There is, however, a baseline of simplicity. From there, diversity moves in all directions. If evolution inspired complexity, then all life would be multi-celled organisms of far greater complexity than us. Instead, most organisms are one-celled, simple bacteria–yet, staggeringly diverse. As organisms become more complex, they become less common. The graph is not a line moving upwards–it is a point expanding in all directions save one, where it is confined to a baseline of simplicity. From our perspective, we can mistake it for “progress” towards some complex goal, but this is an illusion. Evolution is about diversity.
Physics and biology speak in unison on this point; if there are gods, then the one thing they have always, consistently created is diversity. No two galaxies quite alike; no two stars in those galaxies quite alike; no two worlds orbiting those stars quite alike; no two species on those worlds quite alike; no two individuals in those species quite alike; no two cells in those individuals quite alike; no two molecules in those cells quite alike; no two atoms in those molecules quite alike. That is the pre-eminent truth of our world. That is the one bit of divine will that cannot be argued, because it is not mediated by any human author. It is all around us, etched in every living thing, every atom of our universe. The primacy of diversity is undeniable.
With that, we can suppose another form of consequentialist ethics, like Mill’s Utilitarianism, but with a different measure of “good.” It is not happiness, but diversity that should be our measure. Diversity of life, of thought, of action.
So, killing the annoying person becomes “bad”; as annoying as he is, he adds diversity to the group. Nor does this give license to everything under the cause of increasing diversity. Our own civilization is a unique data point, but its existence requires the expansion of its markets and influence. It gobbles up other cultures to create new customers. Though it is itself another point of diversity, it requires many other points to be sacrificed. Its overall effect, like sitting at home on acid, is profoundly negative.
You may recognize this as a very slightly modified double of my previous post, “The Primacy of Diversity.” It needed to be slightly reformatted to fit in with my new series, The Thirty Theses, which will be revisiting some of the older content in the Canon, but hopefully in a more complete, well-researched manner.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 July 2005 @ 10:02 AM
Put me in a room and add a physicist. Diversity has increased, and I would like to think that both the physicist and I would agree that this was good. If you put me and the physicist into a room, then later add a pedophiliac sexual predator and a violent XYY chromosome crack fiend, you’ll agree that diversity has indeed increased. However, I doubt the physicist and I would find the increased diversity to be “good”.
While I think that you have some really excellent insights into the nature of utilitarianism, I don’t think that “happiness” as a measure can be done away with; it seems to me that this would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think that a happy medium between “happiness” and “diversity” would have to be struck. This new balance would make the previous reliance on vague utilitarian “happiness” obsolete.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 20 July 2005 @ 6:47 AM
I agree that diversity is a universal constant. It seems, though, that too much diversity *within* a group can be problematic. Diversity of species is key to a healthy ecosystem, but if you have too much diversity within a species itself, the animals can no longer mate and produce viable offspring. Likewise with cultural diversity: if you look at historical indigenous tribes, there was a huge diversity of tribes and cultures in any given area, but within the individual cultures themselves there was a lot more homogeneity. Of course each tribal member is a unique individual, but there is a certain amount of tribal customs which work to maintain good relations between members. It seems almost as though the rule is “Diversity without, happiness within.”
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 20 July 2005 @ 11:08 AM
Because neither increases diversity. Pedophiliac sexual predators abuse others, usually turning them into pedophiliac sexual predators, as well–or at least conforming them all into a single category of traumatized victims. Killers-llike your violent crack fiend–kill people. This diminishes diversity, as well. If the violent crack fiend kills you, the physicist, and the pedophiliac sexual predator, then diversity has decreased.
Roxy’s point is much more salient, I think. Is there a baseline of internal consistency that must be maintained, simply for creatures to interrelate to one another? How does this affect the overall principle?
It occurs to me now that sexual reprodution is merely one in a huge diversity of possible reproduction schemes; reproduction itself merely one in a huge diversity of options. To sexually reproduce, some amount of diversity must be sacrificed, but this is only one point in the utter diversity of the universe. So perhaps the principle remains, even so.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 July 2005 @ 12:16 PM
oh god….
Comment by Anonymous — 22 July 2005 @ 3:32 PM
“It occurs to me now that sexual reprodution is merely one in a huge diversity of possible reproduction schemes; reproduction itself merely one in a huge diversity of options. To sexually reproduce, some amount of diversity must be sacrificed, but this is only one point in the utter diversity of the universe. So perhaps the principle remains, even so.”
But if you had utter diversity, wouldn’t that be equally destructive? If no two individuals had any similarities at all, wouldn’t it make it extremely difficult and time-consuming to interact? There would be no species, no social organizations, only a world of unrelated individuals. I’m being extremist for effect, but I think the balance of diversity and similarity is an important consideration. Diversity is extremely important, but so is the establishment of some kind of common ground. Otherwise everyone’s just butting heads all the time. On a cultural level, the US is a great example of people sacrificing the good of the group for their individuality. Pedophilia works great for the Etoro, but if one Etoro decided to practice it, another one decided not to, a third did at certain times but not others, a fourth established his own elaborate rules for it… the social norms of the tribe would start to break down, and you’d have chaos.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 22 July 2005 @ 4:58 PM
We can discuss the margins all we like, but the basic thesis still semms to hold up: Our world, and its survival, stems from diversity. To put my own spin on it, hierarchy destroys diversity–it may breed specialization, but this is simulacra because it is under the shadow of control of a singular hierarchy. Massive, integrated hierarchy as we’re seing intensify in a human-observable (vs. geological) time frame is an unproven evolutionary mutation, and is coming to the end of its rope.
Jason, any plans or a methodology to incorporate comments into your eventual 30 theses, or to let them continue to evolve?
Comment by Jeff — 22 July 2005 @ 7:40 PM
One of the primary stumbling blocks of utilitarianism has always been the narrow view people take of “utility.” Hey, shooting up on heroin is fun, so it must be good, right? Except that utilitarianism is supposed to take the wide view–in which, the deleterious consequences of you shooting up far outweigh your high, making it “bad.”
Likewise, I see this objection as one easily solved by the wide view.
Consider this set of 100 diverse individual entities, with no two sharing any traits in common. This set is, in fact, quite homogenous. Consider if, in addition to this set, we had another set, in which individuals had some traits in common, and other traits which were diverse. We have increased our diversity.
This nests recursively, as well. The superset of these two sets can be another point in an even larger superset. And this is, in fact, what we see in our own universe. The diversity of hydrogen atomic structures seems to resemble the infinite diversity you mention, which gives way to the homogeneity of the set of hydrogen atoms. No two atoms are exactly alike, but they are all alike in that regard, giving rise to a greater lack of diversity. But we can then introduce other sets–of atoms of other elements, and of molecules made up of those elements–which create still more diversity.
Going up a few levels, we see a huge diversity of single-celled organisms, as well as a small number of multi-cellular organisms with significantly less diversity. The process continues to recurse until practical limits of scale begin to kick in. I can count at least 11 levels of such nesting diversity: sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, chemical, structural, regional, planetary, solar, galactic, intergalactic, and universal.
So, I think the diversity scale in fact deals with your quandary rather nicely. Some amount of common ground allows for even more diversity; rather like sometimes, taking a step back can allow you to go forward a great deal more.
Jeff … no formalized process. The final, polished book should have a good deal more than is available free online, at least at first. So what I intend to do is write the theses first like this, then see what holes people bring up. When I go back to compile these into a book, I’ll likely add many of my comments back into the original article to address the concerns people raise. For example, I’ll probably add something here about diversity between individuals and groups, and how some common ground between individuals can yield greater overall diversity. And I’ll probably throw in some references to that mind-blowing first chapter of yours while I’m at it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 July 2005 @ 11:11 PM
Jason -
Thought about your response to my response for an hour or so… I had thought of replying with, “Yeah, well the diversity wouldn’t immediately decrease, so there!” but realized that it would be facile and not really add anything to what was being discussed… however, I pursued the thought a while and came up with something I think you’ll really appreciate.
Roxy has a major aspect pinned down solid: diversity without, homogeneity within. Diversity is necessary to keep the universe healthy, and a certain level of homegeneity is necessary to keep a group healthy (and happy!). But is diversity the greatest good? No. Diversity is static. Diversity is a by-product. The greatest good needs a more specific definition, a more explicit one.
The greatest good is that which actively encourages diversity to increase. The greatest good is that which ensures that diversity remains dynamic. The antithesis of the greatest good is that which decreases diversity, the effects of which we all see.
If this was your original point, perhaps it was just not explicit enough for me. If not, well, ideas are refined in turmoil, as is survival capability. Let me know what you think.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 24 July 2005 @ 6:49 AM
Yes, that was what I was getting at. I suppose that needs to be made more explicit in the article.
“Diversity without, homogeneity within” is a bit too far-reaching, and seems rooted primarily in the myopia of our peculiar scale. Multi-cellular life needs some measure of homogeneity, but we find many populations of single celled organisms–as well as inert manner–in which there is truly infinite diversity. A new group with some homogeneity adds greater diversity, though. That innovation–like “breathing air”–ended up having far-reaching implications, and giving rise to a wide diversity of other options. However, as many and diverse as we multi-cellular organisms are, with our binding traits in common, are vastly outnumbered by the smaller, infinitely diverse, single-celled organisms in the universe, to say nothing of inert matter. As I’ll be getting to in thesis #2 (which I’ll be finishing up once I post this comment), this rise of complexity–which introduces the need for some amount of homogeneity, as you mention–is a result of increasing diversity.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 July 2005 @ 12:49 PM
Hey guys –
Some good stuff! On the ‘diversity without — homogeniety within’ issue…. might the missing key be social behavior? Jason, you talk about the massive diversity of single celled organisms, and the same may be true for, I dunno, clams for example. But when you introduce a species with social behaviors… mating rituals being the most basic, then a certain amount of homogeniety is required. When you compound that with species that actual live in social groups, then you need a little more. At the same time, it is something of a moot point in social group living animals, because from the materialist point of view, the FACT that they live socially will CAUSE them to have a shared understanding of the world….
Yes? No? Maybe?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 24 July 2005 @ 1:02 PM
More distinct groups = a healthier, more stable whole. Those groups that lose so much homogeneity that they can no longer reproduce themselves will simply cease to exist. Any argument about this is moot, as the ‘empty space’ they leave behind will simply be filled by other diversifying species/groups.
A constant increase in diversity (and action that encourages the same) is the greatest good, contributing the health and stability of the whole. Or something like that.
Comment by Chuck — 24 July 2005 @ 1:38 PM
Hey, Jason, you might want to check this out… It’s an article about how certain species of butterfly are being seen to diversify as a matter of existence.
“These wing colours apparently evolved as a sort of “team strip”, allowing butterflies to easily identify the species of a potential mate. This process, called “reinforcement”, prevents closely related species from interbreeding thus driving them further apart genetically and promoting speciation.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4708459.stm
It related pretty closely to the topic, so I figured you may be interested.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 24 July 2005 @ 2:56 PM
Having mating behavior at all is one point in the spectrum of diversity at all; having mating at all is one point on the spectrum of diversity. Having societies at all is another point in the spectrum; not everything does. There are other means of reproduction, which require no homogeneity at all. Another point–sexual reproduction, rather than asexual–requires some homogeneity. Just another case of my previous point, that infinite diversity creates a group that is, in fact, homogenous. I think we’re getting caught up in the myopia of our scale; sexual reproduction and social interaction is so important to being human, we sometimes forget that neither is universal. In fact, it’s a tiny percentage of life that reproduces sexually; it’s an even tinier percentage that has any kind of society.
Consider a graph with points evenly scattered throughout. The graph as a whole is actually quite homogenous. Now imagine all the possible different graphs where points are clustered together; these are very different graphs. That’s another level of diversity. We’re on one graph that requires a lot of clumping, because that’s inherent to our complexity. But such homogeneity is no more crucial to this than complexity is the goal of evolution. We began with a baseline of simplicity; to diversify required some to become more complex, and complexity requires some degree of homogeneity.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 July 2005 @ 3:22 PM
Very true. To put it another way, consider if nothing in the world had anything in common with anything else. There is only one set, “Things.” This is actually a very homogenous set. There is only one level of diversity. If we have a yellow cushion, then we can never have a red cushion, or a blue cushion, or a polka-dot cushion.
If we add some degree of sameness, then we actually increase diversity. We have two sets: cushions, and not-cushions. Cushions can come in any variety of shapes, sizes and colors. We have a number of levels of diversity now.
Or finally, to put it mathematically, some infinities are bigger than others. Infinity minus one is still infinite, but it’s one smaller than just good ol’, regular infinity. A universe of perfect diversity could conceivably be infinite, but it would be a discrete infinite. A universe that allowed some amount of homogeneity could also be infinite, but every point within it would have within itself an infinite set of possible permutations as well, making it an analog infinite, with an infinity tucked between every two values. It’s a much bigger infinity.
Thus, the principle of “that which allows greater diversity is good,” holds, because allowing some things to resemble each other in some regard still increases diversity.
Nailed it. Exactly. That’s exactly what I was trying to drive at. I’ll be sure to make that more explicit in the re-write for the book.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 July 2005 @ 8:06 PM
“As much as I prefer monogamous, heterosexual relationships, it was monogamous heterosexuals who committed the Holocaust. There is no similar act in Melanesian history.”
What are you talking about? Did you actually read the article? They consistently commit “Holocausts”, they’re head-hunters… Even if this was not so, that line suggests heterosexual monogamy was somehow involved in the Holocaust which is ridiculous besides. This sounds like more “white guilt”. Why is it that people espousing egaltiarianism are so quick to immediately jump upon any incident any instance of institutionalized domination in western society but where this occurrs in “primitive” or foreign cultures we must “respect their diversity”? It’s hypocritical and mawkish at that, because you can be sure these groups would not be respecting our diversity. Placing an abstraction like “diversity” as an ethical good, let alone the highest good, outside the context of any specific system is absurd. Explain to me how ritualized pedophilia furthers man’s evolution in accords with the natural ecology. It doesn’t, it’s just a random cultural phenomena, and hardly an admirable one at that especially considering it’s purpose is to turn young men into killers, and I don’t see why I should be respect it. Some things are instinctively repulsive because they’re INSTINCTIVELY repulsive on a species level, not everything can be attributed to cultural relativism. If this group has managed to get young boys to “adjust” to this it’s not different than our civilization “adjusting” its members to all sorts of other unnatural and unhealthy behaviors.
Comment by ugh — 15 August 2005 @ 10:10 PM
I’d just like to add that it also seems to me, not only will people attempt to justify the practices of other cultures because they are foreign or primitive, but if there is a sexual component involved then it immediately becomes absovled of criticism. If it was just read an article about head-hunting tribes most likely there would be no quick defense of the group but because some kind of “sexuality” is involved we must stop and consider it. Why? Not all sexuality is “valid”, otherwise I’m going to post a link to sociobological articles claiming rape as an evolutionary adaptation and insist this is a valid practice for attaining cultural diversity.
Comment by ugh — 15 August 2005 @ 10:14 PM
This is hyperbole of such an absurd degree that I honestly can’t tell if it’s simply meaningless, over-the-top rhetoric, or if you actually believe that. Going with the (frightening) possibility that you actually meant that in earnest, the term “head hunter” is certainly a loaded one. It’s one of those myths we Europeans invented to justify the brutality of colonialism by demonizing our victims, as Giuli discusses in her review of Gustav Jahoda’s Images of Savages. They didn’t actually go out hunting for people’s heads. Being horticulturalists, they do have warfare. These “wars” can result in up to one or two fatalities. Those war dead have their heads taken off and shrunken. This helps instill fear in the enemy, which helps reduce the amount of conflict. Besides the fact that the Holocaust served no such beneficient purpose, there are two other enormous differences. Firstly, head hunters do not produce any additional dead; they simply take advantage of those already dead to prevent any further fatalities. Secondly, one or two is significantly less than six billion.
I ask that before you respond again, you please take a moment to understand the enormous differences in scale here and try to get a grip on some semblance of perspective.
If it does, it’s only what you bring to the table. What it highlights is that we are members of the single most evil culture to ever exist. Ours is the only culture to ever butcher people on such an unprecedented scale. There have been only eight mass extinctions in the history of the world, and one of them is being driven by our culture alone. Both in terms of its sheer scale, and in terms of how short its lifespan has been, our culture is the single most monumental failure in the history of the known universe. Nothing has ever failed more quickly or more absolutely. No culture has ever committed any act that can even remotely compare to the atrocities we have wrought.
What I am suggesting is that we are in no position to judge anyone, and not even for some mystical, moral reason. Simply that our culture is so permeated with this sick, twisted worldview, that it is impossible for us to even see clearly. As Jesus put it, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3)
What I am suggesting is that monogamous homosexual cultures have committed far more evil acts than pedophiliac heterosexual cultures, so how can we say that these, our moral superiors (by virtue only of being average compared to our abominable history) are wrong?
I don’t feel guilty in the least. I wasn’t involved in colonialism, imperialism, the conquest of the New World, slavery, apartheid, the Holocaust, or any of the other atrocities my culture has committed. I do understand what my culture is, what’s it’s done, and where it’s come from, though, so I know to never trust it, its values, or anything it holds dear. My ancestors were involved in such things, and while I’m ashamed of that, I certainly don’t feel guilty for it. Because I wasn’t involved. My entire adult life has been dedicated to fighting that horrific culture, the closest thing to absolute evil the world has ever seen. That’s not something to feel guilty about, that’s something to be proud of. And I am.
I don’t know, I’ve never felt any such urge. I routinely get myself into hot water with other, like-minded souls when I say things like, “The Iroquois weren’t all that nice.” I routinely point out that primitive cultures have failings of their own, most recently in the rather blatantly titled, “The Ugly Side of Tribalism.” So, I don’t know–it’s certainly not something I do.
No, they wouldn’t. My argument for a very long time has been that there is no ideological differences between us (see “The Ugly Side of Tribalism,” above). We all want to conquer the world. The difference is a geographical fluke that actually gave us the means to do it. The results have been nothing short of catastrophic.
Mmmm, how so? Anyway, I did set it into a specific system. My proposal is essential Utilitarianism, with a different center piece. That places it squarely in the realm of consequentialist ethics, a very well-developed realm of philosophy. Saying it’s “outside the context of any specific system” is like saying that Kant’s categorical imperative is underdeveloped.
Homosexuality occurs in most animals with an incidence of 10-15%. This amounts to a random culling in each generation, which keeps the overall population strong. In the case of the New Guinea highlands, we see one of the most densely populated areas in the primitive world. We know that in all animal populations, the incidence of homosexuality rises as a function of population. Pedophiliac homosexuality was glorified by the Greeks for similar reasons, to keep a good stock of virgins available for marriage. Plato’s Symposium is a long glorification of such man-boy love.
Habitual homosexuality thus keeps breeding to a minimum in an already overpopulated area. Breeding is restricted to a specific time of year which, like Abelam beliefs about yam spirits, help ensure that young are born in the season of maximal peace and prosperity, giving them several months to mature before the war season where there’s less food to go around.
OK, I need to break this up into parts, because the nonsense in the whole is too thick to tackle all at once. “It doesn’t, it’s just a random cultural phenomena,” well, it does, as I just explained. It’s not simply random, and what’s more, our own civilization began with similar cultural adaptations.
“[A]nd hardly an admirable one at that especially considering it’s purpose is to turn young men into killers…” You’re contradicting yourself. Is it random, or intended to turn young men into killers? Take your pick; if it turns young men into killers, then it has an ecological advantage and is not merely random. Or is it random, and has nothing to do with turning young men into killers? Also, by what mechanism does homosexual pedophilia turn a young man into a killer? My own thinking is that the warfare caused by competition over scarce resources would play a greater role, and that the warfare and the homosexual pedophilia are both seperate adaptations to the same pressure.
“I don’t see why I should be respect it.” No one’s asking you to. I don’t; the whole idea turns my stomach. But it certainly seems to work for them, whereas we haven’t found anything that works yet. You don’t need to respect them, but it does force us to drop a lot of our cultural preconceptions about the way the world is. A lot of the things we think are disgusting and wrong are not universal at all; they’re acculturation, and nothing more. Acculturation into the single most evil culture to ever exist, so everything it values should be heavily questioned.
Yes, we call them cultural universals. It’s a very small set. Incest is one of them. Homosexual pedophilia is not. So you are correct here–it’s just irrelevant to the current conversation. Far more common is culturally constructed disgust. We find things disgusting because our culture tells us they’re disgusting. Homosexual pedophilia is something we find disgusting because of the peculiarities of our own culture. It has nothing to do with objective morality, and nothing to do with instinctive repulsion on the species level. Actually, it’s relatively common…
Possibly, save in two regards: (1) they have been doing this for thousands of years, while our current lifestyle dates back all of a century, and (2) their adjustment hasn’t led them to wipe out all other cultures on earth, drive a planetary mass extinction, and change the global climate to the point where some are tempted to refer to the “Anthropocene.”
That’s because the only reason what offered up for “sexual immorality” boils down to “because I said so.” Usually by citing said argument from some kind of deity to lend it the semblance of reason, but even gods are capable of logical fallacy.
No, I think the same way about head-hunting. As I pointed out above, it’s largely mythological, at least in the way you seem to be talking about it.
Of course rape is an evolutionary adaptation. Just as it is an evolutionary adaptation to try to stop it. That’s why these things exist. But it’s not the sexual aspect of rape that’s so objectionable: it’s the violence. So this hardly speaks to any idea of what is or isn’t “valid” sexuality.
Let’s say you’re right, just for the sake of argument. Who decides what’s “valid” and what’s not? In the Middle Ages, canon law cited “natural law” to point out that all animals copulated only for reproduction, and each species had a specific position. So, they said that the only valid form of sexuality was missionary position with the man on top, and then only in the context of marriage, for the purpose of reproduction.
This was done from a European frame; they had not yet discovered the bonobo chimpanzee. Bonobos are the only species besides humans which do not have an estrus cycle. Neither human nor bonobo females are ever “in heat.” Bonobos–like humans–have recreational sex. Bonobos–like humans–have multiple sexual positions. Suddenly all the inferences of “natural law” that continue to underlay our ideas of “sexual morality” were tossed out the window. In fact, if we are to take from that example of “natural law” that most closely mirrors our own sexuality, then we should resolve all conflicts by mutual masturbation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 August 2005 @ 11:15 AM
Er… um… eh… schmeh… quah…
I am confuzzled.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 16 August 2005 @ 12:39 PM
That, there … is a typo. It should read:
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 August 2005 @ 12:45 PM
That should also be “six million,” for the Holocaust death count, not “six billion.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 August 2005 @ 12:47 PM
I thought that was the case.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 16 August 2005 @ 12:47 PM
I should hope so. LOL
-_^
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 16 August 2005 @ 12:48 PM
“Take a thousand people, and some magical means of measuring utility numerically. One of them is extremely annoying. Killing him would drop his own utility from its current “100″ to zero, while raising everyone else’s from “100″ to “101.” That means that the overall effect of utility would be 999-100=899. Ergo, killing annoying people is a very good thing!”
Take a thousand people, and some magical means of measuring diversity numerically. One of them is extremely middle-of-the-road average of everyone else in the group. Killing him would raise the groups’ diversity (and in fact make the group even more diverse because my killing him would presumably make me slightly more different from the rest of the group - who, of course, haven’t killed him). That means that the overall effect of killing normal people is a good thing!
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see the appeal of saying that diversity is the only important good: Surely we want (for example) everyone to be more happy, not for them to all have different amounts in order to increase diversity? Generalising, there are certain things that we simply want more of, not more diversity in.
(Oh, and I’m also not sure that Kant’s ethics relies on an appeal to God - wouldn’t the Kantian simply say that good acts are those which can be consistantly universalised - there’s no appeal to either intuition or God here)
Alex
Comment by Alex Gregory — 29 October 2005 @ 12:58 PM
How would you have more diversity by taking away a relatively “normal” person? You’ll actually have less diversity because now you no longer have a really really normal, middle-of-the-road type person.
“Diversity” doesn’t mean “people who are unusual.”
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 29 October 2005 @ 1:29 PM
Kant’s ethics rely on an appeal to G-d because of the unspoken assumption inherent in it, that everyone should act the same way. Otherwise, why should the categorical imperative matter? That implies that there is some One Right Way for people to act. Maybe not a god per se, but certainly something in that ballpark.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 29 October 2005 @ 4:39 PM
Ok - I’ll rephrase. Imagine there’s a group with 3 very average middle of the road people (one of whom is me). If I murder one we lose no diversity, and gain some by gaining a murderer. To take another example, compare two groups of people, one where they’re all incredibly free, and another where they’re all identical to the first group except one is a slave. More diversity, but surely not morally better?
And Jason, I’m no Kant scholar but I think thats incorrect. Kant wants moral truths to be requirements of reason. Imagine you meet someone who asserts that 1+1=3 - most of us would say that he’s wrong, since reason dictates otherwise. Kant wants the same sort of thing to apply to how people act, so that they should act in agreement with certain logical truths. God is totally out of this picture - he grounds ethics in certain truths that he thinks people need to accept if they are to be logical at all.
Comment by Alex Gregory — 30 October 2005 @ 11:33 AM
A “murderer” doesn’t really add to a population’s diversity; it’s an artificial construct that turns a single act into defining characteristic. But at the same time, “average” is also a construct. It’s a point defined by a distribution; an infinitely small point. No one is average. Therefore, by killing someone–even someone who is very close to “average”–you are eliminating a point of diversity. At the same time, you haven’t changed, you’ve just committed an act. Therefore, you haven’t added any kind of diversity–you’ve only detracted from it.
If everyone in the first society is free, then there’s going to be a great deal of diversity in that group, because there’s nothing to keep their individual self-expression from flourishing. In the second society, if they’re all “identical,” then there’s only two points of diversity: the slave, and everyone else. The first group would make another point of diversity out of each individual.
In both cases, we essentially have a false dilemna created by creating a catch-all (in these two cases, creating a catch-all by a trick of language) to try to ignore the great diversity of one group, compared to the exaggerated diversity of a second group (where diversity is presented as more than it really is, again by a trick of language).
Sure, that’s the goal, but there’s no real reason for the categorical imperative. It is, itself, axiomatic. The categorical imperative cannot be proven as the arbiter of morality; it must be asserted. Maybe it’s not divine will; maybe we’re just supposed to take Kant’s word for it unquestioningly. But it still comes down to the same logical fallacy: bald assertion.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 October 2005 @ 7:49 PM
I think you need to give some definition of diversity that demonstrates why murder isn’t a form of expression and other acts are. Without such a definition you’re just going to say that any act which looks ‘bad’ isn’t ‘real’ expression and any act that looks ‘good’ is.
I think you also need to clarify /where/ diversity is valuable - in everything (trees, people, actions, etc.), just in people, just in actions, some combination of the above, or what?
Also, re:Kant, I’m sure he would argue that its no more bald assertion than the mathematician can only baldy assert that 1+1=2. That doesn’t necessarily vindicate it, but I think your objection needs work if its to be conclusive.
Thanks,
Alex
Comment by Alex Gregory — 31 October 2005 @ 4:05 AM
Murder most definitely is an expression; as is farting, eating breakfast, or buying a coat. But if a person commits a murder, that means she had the potential for murder beforehand; she hasn’t really changed. Just as she hasn’t changed much if she farts, eats breakfast, or buys a coat.
So, after a murder, we have less diversity among the population–we’ve lost one point in it–and the murderer hasn’t significantly changed, so she doesn’t add much to the diversity to replace what she’s taken. The overall impact on diversity is negative.
Everything.
What, it’s not bald assertion ’cause I say so?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 October 2005 @ 8:46 AM
Ok, so the actual act of murder doesn’t change much, because the potential was already there. Does the same argument apply elsewhere, so that, for example, people (e.g. scientists etc.) needn’t /actually/ intellectually explore the universe (by studying, reading, researching etc.), since the potential is already there, its a (morally) pointless exercise?
If diversity in everything is good, does that mean that (for example), me parking my car in a different space each day of the week is somehow morally praiseworthy? My car is adding to the diversity in the universe by varying its location.
On Kant again, I don’t quite understand your point. Kant is arguing something like (at least as far as I understand him) the following:
There are certain requirements of reason that we all accept, that 1+1=2, that ‘P and Q’ implies P, that we shouldn’t hold contradictory beliefs, and so on. One of these, he thinks we accept, is that any standard of behaviour we impose, we should be consistent and impose on everyone.
He’s trying to show that if you are to be rational at all, then you’ve got to be consistent in your actions as well as your beliefs.
Comment by Alex Gregory — 31 October 2005 @ 10:03 AM
A scientist who explores the universe does not add to the diversity of people, since the scientist herself is not very much changed by pursuing her own inclinations. I would say that science and knowledge are morally neutral–neither good nor evil necessarily. They neither necessarily add nor detract from diversity. Their application may be good or bad, but in and of themselves, both are neutral.
It’s still the same car, still in the same universe, and your parking spaces are not so far apart. So the diversity you’re adding is negligible, particularly in comparison to the diversity you’re detracting–creating more pollution that kills plants and wildlife, providing an economic impetus to pave over (i.e., homogenize) the landscape, etc.
Which implies a belief that any standard of behavior at all should be imposed across the entire human population. According to Quinn, even civilization would be OK if it weren’t for the fact that everyone was doing it. Really, there’s nothing that doesn’t become wrong under the categorical imperative. If everyone flushes their toilet at 9:26 AM, we’re all in for a world of shit. But that could never happen, and there’s nothing wrong with you flushing your toilet at 9:26 AM.
Yes, reason and logic have certain unprovable assumptions, like “P and Q implies P,” on which the whole system depends. Axioms. The categorical imperative is not immediately obvious as one of these. Kant asserts it as an axiom, but reason works perfectly well without it. But, by asserting it as an axiom, he must speak ex cathedra. He has no evidence for it; it’s an axiom, so it cannot be proven. In other words, bald assertion.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 October 2005 @ 10:21 AM
I think Alex has a couple of good points in there.
Just a couple of questions. Alex, how can humans be rational?
And Jason, I really disagree with your formulation of “action”. Are you somehow trying to mix free will with determinism? Because logically, free will doesn’t exist… by the very definition of logic. The whole thing gets really messy, however, when you debate how logical logic is. Using logic, of course.
So I’ve kinda given up on this, because it’s silly. One thing I read recently put it into perspective: “The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, it is a reality to be experienced.” — from The Wisdom of Insecurity, by Alan Watts. (Highly recommended book, by the way.)
Comment by Devin — 31 October 2005 @ 10:31 AM
Okay… about murder and murderers… remember that scene in Batman Begins where Katie Holmes says, “It’s not who you are, but what you do that defines you”? And you’re all impressed by her profound wisdom until you remember that she’s carrying the unholy demon-spawn of a couch-dancing Scientologist?
What I’m thinking is, she was wrong. It is who you are that defines you. What you do is an expression of who you are, and doesn’t change who you are. So just because you committed a murder doesn’t mean you’re a fundamentally different person now than before you killed that person. You’re still the same person - you were always capable of murder - only now you up and did it.
When I go make toast in a few minutes, and then eat the toast, that will not change who I am. I was always capable of eating toast. (Well… almost always. Before I grew teeth, I couldn’t, but that’s not the point.) I do not add another point of diversity to a group by becoming a toast-eater.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that murder isn’t an action, or that intellectual exploration isn’t an action, so both are pointless exercises that have no effect on anything. They have an effect - they just don’t change the inherent nature of the person doing them. Does that make sense?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 31 October 2005 @ 10:49 AM
Hey, Katie Holmes is hot! That makes up for all of her other shortcomings… and short husbands.
I don’t think you can separate someone from their actions… but then I don’t think you can separate that someone from the world around them either. Nor the world from the universe. And so on.
All-we-are is a manifestation of the universe as a whole. What is known as “identity” is a human construct, a concept that does not exist in reality. Our true nature is the nature of no self, and no non-self.
[/channel the-manifestation-that-is-called Thich Nhat Hanh]
Comment by Devin — 31 October 2005 @ 11:21 AM
That’s not at all what I’m suggesting. I’m just saying that a person who kills someone is not instantly a radically different person after the murder than he was before the murder. Therefore, the addition of “a murderer” in a group (i.e., the same person, only with a different label attached to them) isn’t a significant point of diversity.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 31 October 2005 @ 11:57 AM
Which of these things, doesn’t belong?
‘1+1=2′ is a definition, certainly you can argue with it, but to what end. If we defined 1+1=#, or 1$1=2 mathematics still works, it just looks different to us.
‘P and Q implies P’ (or Q, how come we never imply Q?), is a consequence of the definition of the Operator ‘and’. As such, the only way to argue with it is to argue with the definition of ‘and’ which gives us the same issue as above.
‘We shouldn’t hold contradictory beliefs’? Says who? I want to reformulate this as ‘If two statements contradict one must be incorrect.’ This seems to be one of the basic axioms of logic and rationalist thought.
The above are all Axiomatic assertions. They are used to form the basis of a particular thought structure. The axioms are only asserted to be ‘true’ within that structure. If you want to argue against ‘1+1=2′ then you are now arguing outside of mathematics.
Kant’s categorical imperative is what Kant is trying to prove and therefore cannot be axiomatic.
Comment by JimFive — 31 October 2005 @ 12:10 PM
Kant’s categorical imperative is what Kant is trying to prove and therefore cannot be axiomatic
Thats an interesting argument - Did Riemann have to argue for his new axioms of geometry?
Ok, another try at a counter-example (not that I don’t think the others don’t work, but they’re not clear-cut). Presumably being in pain is a neglible change to diversity in the universe (perhaps even positive if you keep it varied) - does that mean torturing my partner regularly is morally ok?
Comment by Alex Gregory — 1 November 2005 @ 1:50 PM
No, but he wasn’t trying to prove those axioms, either. Kant’s argument is, “Assume A. Therefore, A.” It’s begging the question–that’s a logical fallacy. As a tautology, it is meaningless.
No, because regular torture would reduce the diversity of her feeling–she feels pain far too regularly. Scarring will reduce the diversity of her body tissues. Psychological trauma from such regular torture will reduce the diversity of her personal expression, and so forth.
At the same time, it does mean that there’s nothing morally wrong with experiencing pain from time to time, and that pain should be accepted as a regular part of life. That said, no one part of life should predominate one’s entire life–neither pain, nor joy. Both decrease diversity by becoming the primary experience. Rather, life should be accepted for what it is, both good and bad.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 November 2005 @ 2:14 PM
I prefer: We are what we [i]repeatly[/i] do.
Comment by JCamasto — 1 November 2005 @ 2:17 PM
Last comment I’ll make.
“No, because regular torture would reduce the diversity of her feeling–she feels pain far too regularly. Scarring will reduce the diversity of her body tissues. Psychological trauma from such regular torture will reduce the diversity of her personal expression, and so forth.”
Basically, it looks to me like your thinking of the conclusions that you want, and then redescribing the circumstances so as to fit what you want to be true with your theory. Needless to say, if thats what you want to do its not clear why the theory is there at all.
To demonstrate that; couldn’t someone use exactly the same arguments to demonstrate the opposite conclusion:
Yes, because regular torture would increase the diversity of her feeling–she feels painless far too reguarly without the torture. Scarring will increase the diversity of her body tissues (which are otherwise pretty uniform). Psychological trauma from such regular torture usually turns people into very wild and interesting people with unusual lives, and so forth.
As I say, I’ll leave it at that.
Alex
Comment by Alex Gregory — 4 November 2005 @ 9:01 AM
That’s the problem with any consequentialist ethics system: practically calculating the balance is very difficult, because, how deep do you go? You get the same troubles with utilitarianism.
Yet, consequentialist ethics are the only ones that get around the need for arbitrary principles like “duties,” so just because they make applied ethics hard in no way does that suggest that they’re untrue. Calculus is hard, too; that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 November 2005 @ 9:13 AM
In my opinion the attempt to establish diversity as the primary good diminishes the very quality being advocated. The very advantage of an empirically determined primary good would be the lack of diversity in ethical views. This is a case where diversity is not a “good�.
When you say “It turns out the universe has been screaming a single, consis