Book Club: #1 Abolition of Man Discussion

[Patroclus]

Let us begin the first TWeb Book Club discussion.

Here are few basic ground rules:

1) Have fun
2) If you wish to quote the book that we are discussing, please, for the sake of others, give page number, chapter and year of publication (for your specific edition).
3) Discussion and debate is encouraged. So, let's try our best play nice with each other.
4) Remember, it is okay to disagree with the author

_________________________________________________

This week, we will begin with The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. I'll start us off.

1) What do you consider to be the merit of the Pathetic Fallacy?

2) Do you tend to agree or disagree with the sentiment about the waterfall and the sublime in "The Green Book?" Why?

3) At this point, why do you think that Lewis is trying to dismantle a common literary convention?

[GrayPilgrim]

Pat as to your 3rd question. I don't see that he is trying to dismantle but rather restore to an older convetion. The Green Book and Orbilius it seems rather have attemtped to dismantle the convention.

They have argued that subjective is necissarily valueless. That is the say and I quote from the Green Book as cited (Collier Books 1955, p. 14)They add 'This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying somethoing about our own feelings'

They are dismanteling the idea that the subjective has merit, IMO. Now this does not meant the the subjective necessarily containts merit, but to write it off is the problem. For sometimes such as to say that a waterfall is sublime does convey an objective thing that a great waterfall does give a sense of awe to all who view it.

GP

[Patroclus]

Good points GP.

Does everybody know what the pathetic fallacy is?

[GrayPilgrim]

No

[dizzle]

Me either but I have not started reading yet. I will start tomorrow morning.

[John Reece]

Pathetic Fallacy:

The mistake of attributing human aspirations, emotions, feelings, thoughts, or traits to events or inanimate objects which do not possess the capacity for such qualities. See the discussion in any good encyclopaedia.

[Patroclus]

Thanks John.

New question:

To what extent do you think Lewis' claim that the material in The Green Book will permanently damage people's soul is valid?

Comment:

I like how Lewis wrapped-up the first lecture by generalizing the problem. The target of the last paragraph shifted from "Gaius and Titius" to "we." He did it in such a way that it is hardly noticeable. However, is it valid for him to make general statements like that?

[nomad]

i think the 'we' is rhetorical, implying that he really does see these things happening around him. it's important to remember the time period (1944); i don't think lewis was alone in bemoaning that ethics had not kept pace with science.

incidentally, i almost had 'deja vu' when i read the first chapter; i don't think i've read it before, but i had flashbacks to mere christianity. but i think in MC, it is justifying God from an ethical perspective, whereas here, it is defending ethics itself.

i'm still mulling over it. i agreed with his conclusions, but about gaius and titius, i ran into a wall... when i and another person both look at the waterfall, i may be impressed, and another person may not. therefore 'sublime' may be something i say about the waterfall, whereas the other person may say 'this is boring'. if we do have different responses, then somehow we are part of the equation.

lewis addresses this later indirectly by saying that it is not that the truth about the waterfall changes, but that the different men may be more or less aligned with the tao, and so their responses may be closer or farther from 'the proper response'. and i wish he had dealt with this more directly (or maybe i'm just being daft :)

i do wholeheartily agree with his endpoint, and believe he proves it well, that when you abandon all subjectiveness, you are not left with any basis for imperatives.

how many times are we supposed to read this? :)

[dizzle]

Okay, philosophy is tough for me so I do not know how productive I am going to be. To address Pat's question:


To what extent do you think Lewis' claim that the material in The Green Book will permanently damage people's soul is valid?


I think it is valid, though not for every single person exposed to the ideas. I know that just certain ideas and philopshies introduced me at a young age had profound long reaching effects, even minor things. They ingrain themselves into your psyche and work themselves out.

But I agree that it all comes down to that a form of absolutism is inevitable. There is no such thing as total subjectivity.

With the waterfall, yes it is potentially true that someone may not think it sublime at all, but the statement that it is sublime is not merely a statement about one's feelings as Lewis has demonstrated but about the waterfall, even if we take a subjective approach and say it is an expression of one feelings about the nature of the waterfall. The nature of the waterfall, an observation of it is still in view. It is not the feelings that are sublime.

I think I will reread the chapter. I thought I "got" it prety well until I was forced here to articulate it.

[Patroclus]

but the statement that it is sublime is not merely a statement about one's feelings as Lewis has demonstrated but about the waterfall,

I think Lewis would say the verbal reflection represents the opposite of our personal feelings. If we feel teh waterfall is sublime, that must mean we, ourselves, feel as though we are in some way beneath it.

[Woman]

Just checking in here so you'll know I'm in the game. I just finished the book and am soooo glad I read it. I doubt it's something I'd ever have selected without being exposed to TW. I'll read his other works for sure.

More tomorrow!

W.

[Patroclus]

I am curious what you all think about the second lecture.

What do you think of Lewis' treatment of Tao?

What do you think of thsi statement (ch. 2, pg. 29, 1947-first printing)

Does this mean, then, that no progress in our perceptions of value can ever take place? That we are bound down for ever to an unchanging code given once and for all? And is it, in any event, possible to talk of obeying what I call the Tao? If we lump together, as I have done, the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew, shall we not find many contradictions and some absurdities? I admit all this. Some criticism, some removal of contradictions, even some real development is required. But there are two very different kinds of criticism.

Does this statement seem reasonable? What do you think of his analysis of the two kinds of criticism that follow in the next two paragraphs?

[dizzle]

Woman, I sure hope you read Mere Christianity.

[Patroclus]

I think this is an impressive, but practically touchy statement;

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose. Outsaide the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else.
(ch. 2, pg. 31, 1947-first printing)

/me wonders when people are going to start discussing this book.

[nomad]

probably because most of us agree with it, or don't yet understand it well ;)

you get the more active debates among participants who don't agree...

maybe we need a 'devil's advocate', so to speak...

i agree with that statement as well... to say you don't want to obey the Tao, is not saying anything useful or progressive about it. and if you can accept its absoluteness, but don't at least understand it innately (even if you don't understand exactly what 'it' is) you have no point of reference for 'goodness', no basis for saying a change is 'good' or 'bad'.

[nomad]

ok, so i will disagree with someone, mild as it is :)


But I agree that it all comes down to that a form of absolutism is inevitable. There is no such thing as total subjectivity.


i don't think he's arguing that per se, at least not directly. what he is arguing is that if you consider 'total subjectivity' a valid model of ethics, then you have no basis for ethics at all... for me to expect you to act a certain way at all, implies that we are both constrained to the absolute.

you can have total subjectivity if you want, but then you lose any right to expect any particular action, good or bad, from me.

this is a contested assertion among atheists, but i have not seen any satisfactory defenses of ethics from a non-theist standpoint; the ones i have seen tend to degrade into a 'we must do good, because it is the right thing to do', not realizing the circle they have drawn. no amount of pontification will wave away the fact that, in a relative system, there is no zero, no reference, no 'dividing point' between positive and negative.


With the waterfall, yes it is potentially true that someone may not think it sublime at all, but the statement that it is sublime is not merely a statement about one's feelings as Lewis has demonstrated but about the waterfall, even if we take a subjective approach and say it is an expression of one feelings about the nature of the waterfall. The nature of the waterfall, an observation of it is still in view. It is not the feelings that are sublime.


i'm not sure what you are getting at. let me use some other examples that might be a little more clear. (i think i end up in the same camp though)

what if i say, 'this waterfall is really high! all the ones i've ever seen weren't even half as high as this one!' and the person next to me says 'oh, it's not that big... they have ones twice as big in south america, you should go see them'.

so, what if we didn't hear each other? i say it's 'really high', and he says it's 'medium sized'. these are less subjective than feelings like 'sublime', but still subjective.

neither of us is right of course... concepts like 'big' and 'little' have to have a reference, so both of us our right, in our points of reference.

but, going along with DD's post, the waterfall did not change; only our relative experiences did, our perceptions as a 'percentage of the whole'. which of us is right, depends on whether our 'points of reference' are closer to the true reference.

perhaps the other person is right... perhaps i have not seen many waterfalls, and they have; this is just an average size one, and there are many bigger ones. he has seen 'more of the total', and can make a better judgment; his 'frame of reference' is better aligned with the truth.

or, perhaps _i_ have seen many many waterfalls, except for a few really big ones; and it is the other person who has only seen a few really big ones who is wrong. in that case, i would be right, but only because my 'frame of reference' is closer to the real reference point.


just throwing out thoughts.

[Ethos]

Hi u guys!! How far along are u on the book?? Do I have time to check it out tommorow and join the discussion, or should I just wait until u start a new one?? By the way C.S. Lewis was my favorite when I was younger, the Narnia Series. I didn't realize he wrote for a more mature crowd as well. I guess you truly do learn something new every day!:teeth: :tongue: :teeth:

[Patroclus]

Sure thing, Trip. The book is short, and we have only begun to discuss two thirds of the book. There is a lot to say. So feel free,

[Patroclus]

Hey Folks,

I am going to be out of town for the weekend. My good friend is graduating, and I want to be there. So talk amongst yourselves.

-Rob

[dizzle]

I am doing a whole lot more listening than talking... but this is so way cool.

[Lizard]

:yipee: After looking through several boxes and giving up, I remembered where one more box of books was. AOM was in that box.

:yipee:

Just finished reading it again.

[dizzle]

Just some quotes from the book that I found strking and interesting:

"If nothing is self-evident, nothing is proved."

This is very interesting, and I can find a parallel in my field of law. There are some things in Court which simply do not need to be proven, otherwise a trial would never conclude. There are other things in which it is requested of a Court to take "judicial notice" of an item so that it requires no proof at trial.


Speaking of moral advancement in comparision to language innovation: "It is the difference between alteration from within and alteration from without: between the organic and the surgical."

And I really enjoyed how he came to the conclusion that the only viable rebellion is the rejection of value altogether, that it is chimerical to rebel against traditional value for the rebellion itself has to presuppose the value of what it is rejecting.

And wow, this is great:

"You cannot go on 'explaining away' forever: you will find that you have explained away explanation itself. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see somethikng through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."

Sublime.

[Patroclus]

Is the idea of The Abolition of Man--nature's conquest of man by way of man's conquest of nature--a legitimate theory? Can you see any problems in Lewis' logic?

[Patroclus]

C'mon people! Keep talking.

[djnoz]

I've been all around town looking for this book but nobody had it ...:cry:

I've got one on order for Friday

[dizzle]

I do think Lewis theory is valid, again, I just struggle with putting philosophical thoughts into words, I think the quotes I reproduced above encapsulate the legitimicacy of his theory.... I did see one problem or possible inconsistency... I have to go get the book in a bit and find where I noted that when I get a few more minutes.

[Vorkosigan]

Attention! I was hunting up some reviews of this book, and I believe I found the whole thing on line here:

The Abolition of Man (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm#1)

I have never seen the book. Is it only three chapters and the appendix?

Vorkosigan

[nomad]

yep, that's the whole thing.

[Lizard]

05-05-2003 @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87823#post87823)
Patroclus:

Is the idea of The Abolition of Man--nature's conquest of man by way of man's conquest of nature--a legitimate theory? Can you see any problems in Lewis' logic?

I am going from memory as I do not have the book with me, but here goes.

It seems to me that Lewis is equivocating here; comparing concrete conquest of nature (the airplane, vacincations etc) to "Human nature". He does do a very good job of showing the the Tao is widespread, but I think for it to be a valid comparison with other aspects of "nature" that it needs to be universal (ie an airplane, when working properly, always flies)

Now on a viseral level, I like the theory, I am just not sure that it is logically valid, at least not deductively valid.

Of course Lewis does do a good job of showing the universality of moral law in Mere Christianity, if we were to equte that argument with the argument for the Tao, then it might be valid.

Note: Until Saturday, I had not read the book in many years. When I read it Saturday I was very tired, so I may have totally misunderstood what I read. If so feel free to :poke: me

[nomad]

yeah, read it again. that's not really lewis' point.

also, MC and AOM's treatment of the issue is complementary, but not the same.

only one small objection; for some people, 'nature vs. man' is a false dichotomy - if the universe is perfectly materialistic, there is no 'man' separate from nature. and how can nature fight against itself?

[Patroclus]

Actually, I do think that Lewis does a bit of equivocation. I don't have the book anymore. I had to return it to the library to get my cap and gown.

That is a very good point Nomad.

[nomad]

there may be some equivocation, but he is only speaking in the same language that most of his opponents will. i imagine most of the people who are like gaius, titius and orphimus hold the paradoxical view that while man is just the result of materialistic processes, he is somehow greater than the rest of the nature and separate from it. so lewis starts from these same assumptions and uses the same language.

his argument doesn't necessarily rest on it anyway; what he is arguing for is the logical ends of the position, the desires of people like gaius and titius, when taken to the fullness of its implications. for this, all that is required is an assumption that social engineering will be sufficient to the task, and as people can be manipulated, even though christians do not believe people are materialistic, perhaps materialism is not required. i think evidence in the modern day world does not support that social engineering works (cf. religion in modern day china and previously in communist russia), but there's no guarantee that we won't find a way in the future....

[Patroclus]

That is a good point Nomad. I think the problem is that as the lectures go on, he removes his argument farther and farther from Gaius and Titius. So, it is difficult, at times, to remember what he is working with.

[Vorkosigan]

i think evidence in the modern day world does not support that social engineering works (cf. religion in modern day china and previously in communist russia), but there's no guarantee that we won't find a way in the future....

Social engineering DOES work....what do you think education is, or missionary work, for that matter? You can make social change through education and effort. I've seen it happen over time in many places, and history has proven it again and again.

You just can't do social engineering at swordpoint. I think perhaps that is the point you are really trying to make.

In any case, in AOM Lewis does not so much make his case as assert it and then invite us, through his usual readable and accessible prose, to join him in believing it. There is no real argument in AOM. He never really inventories moral systems -- just a quick run through some big ones -- to find out whether the TAO exists as such or what its components might be -- doing so would immediately show the audience that in fact the TAO does not exist. Like most Christians, Lewis considers ethics to be a matter of interpersonal interaction and he and the TAO both miss important levels of ethical behavior -- the TAO, for example, contains nothing on key questions of social ethics like river basin management, incinerator, garbage dump or nuclear power plant siting, monetary policy, democracy, human rights, etc. Where universal, the TAO is incomplete and hence useless; where useful, it is not universal. Additionally, where it is universal, it is often at odds with modern universal morals. For example, consider the ancients' attitudes toward polygamy, rape, wife-beating and slavery.

Mere Christianity is probably better than AOM, but it is still a poorly argued book full of logical fallacies. I found it online once here (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/cslewis/merechri/merech01.htm).

Lewis is not a particularly deep thinker, but he does write extremely well in a pompous, fluent, and judgmental style that is irresistable. Personas are always so different from the real person; I have heard that the real Lewis was anything but pompous and judgmental in person.

Vorkosigan

[Patroclus]

Lewis is not a particularly deep thinker, but he does write extremely well in a pompous, fluent, and judgmental style that is irresistable. Personas are always so different from the real person; I have heard that the real Lewis was anything but pompous and judgmental in person.

Perhaps you are missing the real Lewis then.

Like most Christians, Lewis considers ethics to be a matter of interpersonal interaction and he and the TAO both miss important levels of ethical behavior -- the TAO, for example, contains nothing on key questions of social ethics like river basin management, incinerator, garbage dump or nuclear power plant siting, monetary policy, democracy, human rights, etc. Where universal, the TAO is incomplete and hence useless; where useful, it is not universal.

I think you are missing the point that all goodness springs from the TAO. I wish I had not needed to return the book to get my cap and gown. :rant:

[dizzle]

I think you are missing the point that all goodness springs from the TAO. I wish I had not needed to return the book to get my cap and gown.

Exactly!! That would be in ancient Jewish hermeneutics what would be called the remez, the directly applied principle.

[dizzle]

Okay some more comments. The observation on the fact that the Green Book was teaching philosophy under the auspices of teaching literature was interesting. Though not exactly on point, I see in it the shift I see in modern education wherein now morality and issues previously left more to the purview of the parents is being taken over by the school under the auspices of the more elementary skills.

Now though here is where I see a contradiction in Lewis thesis and thoughts. He talks about philosophy of education and how Aristotle said it was to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. Now if the Tao is somehow inherent and just is, a self-existent and verifying truth, why does it need to be taught so?

[Patroclus]

Now if the Tao is somehow inherent and just is, a self-existent and verifying truth, why does it need to be taught so?

Wow! I had not thought of that. That seems to break down most of what he says, if he is going to stick to Aristotle's philosophy.

[Vorkosigan]

Yesterday @ 09:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90791#post90791)
Dee Dee Warren:



Exactly!! That would be in ancient Jewish hermeneutics what would be called the remez, the directly applied principle.

Not exactly. If all goodness springs from the Tao, how is it that vast areas of ethical behavior remain unmentioned in the TAO? The TAO seems unaware, except at the most primitive level, that humans are complex animals living in a complex society.

[Luci]

From my reading of Lewis, I didn't take him to mean that the Tao is a separate thing outside of human existence. He states:

"This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments....

From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao...."

The Toa must be taught, just as the bird must teach its offspring to fly. On the other hand, we cannot appeal to instinct or reason when making statements about value.

Perhaps he means that the Toa is expressed through our traditional values, but that doesn't make sense to me when he says that the Toa can be modified. Also, if it is the sole source of all value judgments, how is it possible to be outside of the Toa ?

Vorkosigan, I've been thinking about this statement of yours in light of the above:

the TAO, for example, contains nothing on key questions of social ethics like river basin management, incinerator, garbage dump or nuclear power plant sitting, monetary policy, democracy, human rights, etc

For me, one of the key passages in Lewis' book has to do with the notion that the values found within the Toa balance each other. I suppose we could debate whether or not a particular value, e.g. the right to self determination, is a traditional value. If it is a traditional value, it might be in conflict with the value of preserving the earth, or a fair distribution of resources. We see this conflict between the need for water to grow our food, with the value of preserving species of fish for future generations.

I wonder if it would help to think of the Toa not as a collection of value statements but as a dynamic based on certain principles.

Luci

[dizzle]

The Toa must be taught, just as the bird must teach its offspring to fly.

No, I do not agree with that analogy. Birds do not actually teach their offspring to fly, they push it to do what the bird knows by instinct how to do. You do not see a mother bird ever actually teaching its young how to fly.

But I am beginning to see the answer to my own dilemna that I raised in which Pat concurred that there was a tension, and the answer, is simply, the Fall. It has to be taught because it has been marred by the Fall. It is not taught to be known, it is taught to be obeyed.

[Luci]

No, I do not agree with that analogy. Birds do not actually teach their offspring to fly, they push it to do what the bird knows by instinct how to do. You do not see a mother bird ever actually teaching its young how to fly.

But I am beginning to see the answer to my own dilemna that I raised in which Pat concurred that there was a tension, and the answer, is simply, the Fall. It has to be taught because it has been marred by the Fall. It is not taught to be known, it is taught to be obeyed.

For what it's worth, I was using Lewis' analogy, but probably not in the context that he was using it. It's in the first chapter, not the second.

Does Lewis talk about the Fall in Mere Christianity?

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92417#post92417)
Luci:



For what it's worth, I was using Lewis' analogy, but probably not in the context that he was using it. It's in the first chapter, not the second.

Does Lewis talk about the Fall in Mere Christianity?


I thought that you were Luci... I cannot remember the context he used it in, but I think I remember disagreeing there. As you can tell by my avatar, I have a thing for birds. Also, I hope I did not appear argumentative, I get in debating mode some days, and discussion mode is a switch of gears.

You know, it has been a long time since reading Mere Christianity, so I cannot remember. But I think once we factor in the Fall, it all makes sense, and once again Christianity is coherent with reality.

[Luci]

I thought that you were Luci... I cannot remember the context he used it in, but I think I remember disagreeing there. As you can tell by my avatar, I have a thing for birds. Also, I hope I did not appear argumentative, I get in debating mode some days, and discussion mode is a switch of gears.

Ah! That makes sense. And I just wanted to be clear. I had to look back over his text to make sure that I wasn't dreaming.

You know, it has been a long time since reading Mere Christianity, so I cannot remember. But I think once we factor in the Fall, it all makes sense, and once again Christianity is coherent with reality.

I had a copy of Mere Christianity a long time ago but never read it. I just got back from the library where I found both it and Brave New World.

:read:

[Patroclus]

I want to thank everybody who has, so far, participated in this discussion. We are beginning the discussion on A Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, a week from tomorrow (Monday, 5/19). However, I would like to keep discussion open for this book for as long as people want to discuss it.

Do any of you ever find the language difficult? Personally, I am not sure if it as difficult as it is complex. I found myself re-reading statements several times. Did any passages strike you as ambiguous?

[Vorkosigan]

For me, one of the key passages in Lewis' book has to do with the notion that the values found within the Toa balance each other.

I see that as more of an outstanding piece of rhetoric. What does it mean to say that values "balance each other?" I see you have a run at the question below....

I suppose we could debate whether or not a particular value, e.g. the right to self determination, is a traditional value. If it is a traditional value, it might be in conflict with the value of preserving the earth, or a fair distribution of resources. We see this conflict between the need for water to grow our food, with the value of preserving species of fish for future generations.

The problem is not the conflict, but the resolution. Where do you turn to resolve a conflict between values? Some other value, call it CONFLICTVALUE. Where does CONFLICTVALUE come from?

I wonder if it would help to think of the Toa not as a collection of value statements but as a dynamic based on certain principles.

I understand what you are saying, but it won't work. There's no dynamic basis for understanding a set of values on how to manage a river basin in the TAO, or how much risk is permissable.
The ancients did not think about how governments worked, really, except in the most general way, because they lived in fuedal societies (there's no democracy in the Tao, Luci) where rank and power determined all and where great questions of public policy were not up to the people. We who live in societies which pit democracy and legal equality against large corporate and bureaucratic institutions must work all this out for ourselves. The TAo is no help. Even if you and I never told a lie, didn't cheat on our spouses, kept our word, never assaulted others, helped those in need, and so on, we'd be no closer to understanding how to manage a river basin. The Tao not only does not address these issues, it is not even aware that they exist.

Vorkosigan

[Patroclus]

There's no dynamic basis for understanding a set of values on how to manage a river basin in the TAO, or how much risk is permissable.
The ancients did not think about how governments worked, really, except in the most general way, because they lived in fuedal societies (there's no democracy in the Tao, Luci) where rank and power determined all and where great questions of public policy were not up to the people. We who live in societies which pit democracy and legal equality against large corporate and bureaucratic institutions must work all this out for ourselves. The TAo is no help. Even if you and I never told a lie, didn't cheat on our spouses, kept our word, never assaulted others, helped those in need, and so on, we'd be no closer to understanding how to manage a river basin. The Tao not only does not address these issues, it is not even aware that they exist.

I understand what you are saying, and I think you have some good points. However, you are stuck in the particulars. The Tao doesn't do our algebra, but it may be good to do so anyway. You cannot plug the taoist formula into the dam situation, give it to the contractors and build yourself a good dam. That isn't what it is about. Like you said, the taod does not even know that it exists, it probably does not even care. And, I think, the point lies therein. This is my personal opinion, but I think there is room for movement. When I was looking for colleges, I had three to choose from. Did it require a value judgement? Probably not. Do you need a dam? Build a dam. I think the value is important for the contractors, developers, etc. to conisder in the actual process of the work--how do we deal with people, with nature? The same can be said for democracy. It is not the system of government fighting against the system of corporations. It is a value against a valued--CONFLICTVALUE. Thought Lewis did not spell this out, I think it is implied that, if CONFLICTVALUE is a value, it is also inherently of the TAO.

[nomad]

i have a cold, and have been avoiding posting until i get over it, but i think i should pipe in here...


The problem is not the conflict, but the resolution. Where do you turn to resolve a conflict between values? Some other value, call it CONFLICTVALUE. Where does CONFLICTVALUE come from?


from inside the Tao of course. and i suspect you might be outside, which is why you don't understand it :) some people look at the Tao as a 'set of rules', a 'do this, do not do that'. sort of like the Law in the bible. but even that isn't anything like the Tao.

as an example, take the rule 'do not kill'. is it true? well, you say, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not... i would kill in defense of those I love, but not just out of anger or jealousy or something like that. 'and therefore,' you confidently pronounce, 'there is no way there could be an absolute morality, because there can be no absolutes.' but this is not the truth... WHY is it OK to kill in one case, and not in others? obviously, there is a _higher_ absolute - that of the value of a human life. and this value is INSIDE the Tao.

now, you might model it differently, but implicit in all value judgments is some 'balance' like this, but these balances are not 'relativity', but simply the acknowledgement of a higher ideal. this leads most people to talk of morality as a hierarchy.


I understand what you are saying, but it won't work. There's no dynamic basis for understanding a set of values on how to manage a river basin in the TAO, or how much risk is permissable.
... Even if you and I never told a lie, didn't cheat on our spouses, kept our word, never assaulted others, helped those in need, and so on, we'd be no closer to understanding how to manage a river basin. The Tao not only does not address these issues, it is not even aware that they exist.


should it? should the Tao also tell my how to change my oil, or pilot an F-15, though both of these may be means to greater ends?

the problem, i think, is that you are mistaking science for ethics. they are orthogonal, not competitors. science tells us if we do A as part of river management, we will get X outcome from it, and if we do B as part of river management, we will get Y outcome from it. but this doesn't tell us which of A or B we should choose... this has to come from ethics, which is what determines which of X or Y is the 'better' choice, it tells us why one set of ends is better than another set of ends. science gives us choices, ethics helps us pick the right one.

the Tao will not tell us how to drive an Abrams tank, or fly a B-2, but it may help us determine when the right time to actually use them in a war is. the Tao may not tell us how to clone a human, but it may tell us it is a bad idea.

science lets me do things, the Tao tells me whether i should or not.

[Vorkosigan]

from inside the Tao of course. and i suspect you might be outside, which is why you don't understand it :)

I understand it quite well, and there is no "inside" or "outside." The Tao is a fiction of Lewis'.

some people look at the Tao as a 'set of rules', a 'do this, do not do that'. sort of like the Law in the bible. but even that isn't anything like the Tao.

No, then it would be even more incomplete than it is.

as an example, take the rule 'do not kill'. is it true? well, you say, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not... i would kill in defense of those I love, but not just out of anger or jealousy or something like that. 'and therefore,' you confidently pronounce, 'there is no way there could be an absolute morality, because there can be no absolutes.' but this is not the truth... WHY is it OK to kill in one case, and not in others? obviously, there is a _higher_ absolute - that of the value of a human life. and this value is INSIDE the Tao.

Where? Point it out!

Is the Tao an "absolute" morality?

now, you might model it differently, but implicit in all value judgments is some 'balance' like this, but these balances are not 'relativity', but simply the acknowledgement of a higher ideal. this leads most people to talk of morality as a hierarchy.

yes, that's how they talk about it. Unfortunately, as Lewis himself points out, the basic values have no foundation. You accept them, or you don't.

should it? should the Tao also tell my how to change my oil, or pilot an F-15, though both of these may be means to greater ends?

You really blew it here. First, how to change you oil and pilot an F-15 are value-determined acts -- you want your car to hold its resale value and function properly. This is reasonable and everyone subscribes to it, but it is, like it or not, still a value. Ditto for piloting an F-15. You have a set of values like "safety" and "risk" and "mission goals" upon which you perform some kind of moral calculus that tells you how to drive your F-15.

Second, the means-ends issue is not resolved in this example you've put up here. Managing a river basin is a means-ends problem. What sort of values should be adopt? Do we build dams and trash the river and the environment? Do we move everyone off the flood plain and let the river go? Do we subsidize dam construction so we can sell subsidized water to farmers to permit agriculture in otherwise inhospitable regions? Do we let the river run free to collect the dollars, or dam it to collect the $$ from power generation.

Needless to say, no value in the Tao allows us to even think about this, much less make choices.

science gives us choices, ethics helps us pick the right one.

No kidding. The problem is that the ethics here are nowhere supported in the Tao. The Tao does not recognize this class of problems as even an existing one, let alone one that it considers and proposes moral guidance for. Can you show me where in the Tao it both recognizes this class of problems and proposes some kind of moral guidance for them?

And if you think science is not value-driven, think again....

the Tao will not tell us how to drive an Abrams tank, or fly a B-2, but it may help us determine when the right time to actually use them in a war is. the Tao may not tell us how to clone a human, but it may tell us it is a bad idea.

Where does the Tao recognize this problem?

Vorkosigan

[nomad]

You really blew it here. First, how to change you oil and pilot an F-15 are value-determined acts -- you want your car to hold its resale value and function properly. This is reasonable and everyone subscribes to it, but it is, like it or not, still a value.


but it is not an _ethical_ value. would you consider me a 'bad' person if i didn't want to change the oil in my car? stupid perhaps, but certainly not a violation of any ethical rule. i mean, if i wanted to take my car out onto some remote piece of land i owned and crash it into a wall, that's certainly my right too, with my own stuff. you might call me _strange_, but unethical?

and then, perhaps, i am a researcher investigating what actually goes wrong with engines as the oil gets dirty, or perhaps i am testing a new sort of oil formulation to see how long it can last between changes. would you now consider this 'unethical'? or even stupid or strange like before? obviously there is more to it than that.

now, if i was borrowing _your_ car, and didn't take care of it, that is a different issue. but then here, it is not about changing oil, it's about my responsibility to you as a person, the implicit promise to bring it back 'in the same condition'. ethics always relates in the end to people.


Ditto for piloting an F-15. You have a set of values like "safety" and "risk" and "mission goals" upon which you perform some kind of moral calculus that tells you how to drive your F-15.


and how does this moral calculus resolve? you see, here, you exactly restated what i was originally saying, by taking what i said not as literally as i intended. i know that if i push the stick to the left, the plane will bank left. but why should i do that? obviously there is no fixed rule for what you should do at every instant. yet, something is guiding you, something more basic, perhaps things like 'loyalty', or avoiding friendly casualties. these are person to person beliefs.


Second, the means-ends issue is not resolved in this example you've put up here. Managing a river basin is a means-ends problem. What sort of values should be adopt? Do we build dams and trash the river and the environment? Do we move everyone off the flood plain and let the river go? Do we subsidize dam construction so we can sell subsidized water to farmers to permit agriculture in otherwise inhospitable regions? Do we let the river run free to collect the dollars, or dam it to collect the $$ from power generation.


and how exactly is this different? so we do a cost-benefit analysis of each scenario, weigh the benefits to people (and WHICH people) versus the costs to nature (which are in the end also costs to people) and other people, and make what is in the end a _value_ judgment. and we don't have or need a written rule about which choice to have, because we have a set of criteria, our morals, which determine which is best.

two things i'd address here: one is that criteria are sufficient. do i need a separate rule for every child in the world that i should not run over them with my car if they are in the street in front of me, and instead i should stop, 'do not hit sally', 'do not hit peter', etc? obviously not. and i don't even need a separate 'do not hit a child in the street', 'do not hit an adult in the street', etc. rules. and even these are directly derivative of a higher rule - 'do not kill'. this is sufficient to cover all the lower cases without a list of rules a mile long.

what if my only choice is to run over someone's mailbox or hit them? running over their mailbox is destruction of personal property, something i also deem 'a bad thing' and wouldn't want someone to do to me. it seems that you are saying the Tao doesn't address this specific case, since it doesn't have a specific rule saying 'when in situation X, choose A over B'. but there IS a rule that addresses this: 'human life is more valuable than property'. so between the two statements 'do not killl' and 'do not destroy property', this third statement tells us to hit the mailbox and not the child. without a specific rule, it can still address this issue.

anything more complicated is simply the result of applying 'moral calculus', as you called it.

second, the tao only lets us choose between choices, it does not say anything directly about the choices. suppose the child was only a hologram, but we did not know that. therefore, i might do less damage by running through the hologram, and neither child nor mailbox (nor my car!) would be hurt. but no one would call me immoral for choosing what i chose, hitting the mailbox instead, based on the knowledge i had, with even a mere suspicion that it might be a real child. sometimes incomplete or incorrect knowledge can lead you to choose the wrong end, or at least one that might not be the best when calculated with better data. the tao cannot help you with that, it cannot calculate raw figures or cost analyses, those are in the domain of science. it may affect assumptions about how the science itself is done as well. but in the end, you take what you know, and it directs you to the most moral choice.

most of really complicated moral issues (like your river basin issue) aren't that the Tao doesn't address the people issues of it, but that it is not clearly understood precisely how it will affect people. much of it is guesses. and there are difference of opinions about what will help who, and some of these opinions are breaking the Tao itself (let it not be said that people always obey it, after all), who may choose differently... statistics and science can sometimes be skewed towards a certain viewpoint, at least the presentation of them can.

perhaps i have not done a good job, if not, well maybe i just can't explain it, so after this try i give up :)

[Vorkosigan]

but it is not an _ethical_ value. would you consider me a 'bad' person if i didn't want to change the oil in my car?

It IS an ethical issue. A well-functioning car is a safe car. The things you think are "instrumental values" have an ethical dimension.

stupid perhaps, but certainly not a violation of any ethical rule. i mean, if i wanted to take my car out onto some remote piece of land i owned and crash it into a wall, that's certainly my right too, with my own stuff. you might call me _strange_, but unethical?

Yes. Who is going to pay for the cleanup?

and then, perhaps, i am a researcher investigating what actually goes wrong with engines as the oil gets dirty, or perhaps i am testing a new sort of oil formulation to see how long it can last between changes. would you now consider this 'unethical'?

Of course not. But you've proposed a different ethical framework for the act -- a "higher one." None of this refutes what I've been saying, BTW. I think we're starting to drift OT here.

ethics always relates in the end to people.

It does? I don't agree. Tell it to PETA and many environmentalists who see nature as an end in itself and not a means for human beings. That value, BTW, is not in the Tao, but it is rather widely subscribed to.

does this moral calculus resolve? you see, here, you exactly restated what i was originally saying, by taking what i said not as literally as i intended. i know that if i push the stick to the left, the plane will bank left. but why should i do that? obviously there is no fixed rule for what you should do at every instant. yet, something is guiding you, something more basic, perhaps things like 'loyalty', or avoiding friendly casualties. these are person to person beliefs.

Right. So flying a plane is in fact an ethical act. Or at least an act that demands an ethical framework.

So let's look at it from the point of view of the Tao. Here is a technology -- in this case a fighter, but in principle this applies to any technology -- are technologies ethically nuetral? The Tao is unaware that technology in and of itself is an ethical issue. In fact, the whole idea of "technology" as a separate sphere of human action is utterly lacking in the Tao; it emerged too early, long before anyone had conceived of this idea of artifacts+organizations+culture/customs that we refer to as technology. But numerous writers today confront ethical problems caused by technologies, where the Tao gives no guidance. For example, a number of scholars have argued that nuclear power is impossible without centralized political control. What is the Tao's position on the use of nuclear power and its political effects?

and how exactly is this different? so we do a cost-benefit analysis of each scenario, weigh the benefits to people (and WHICH people) versus the costs to nature (which are in the end also costs to people) and other people, and make what is in the end a _value_ judgment. and we don't have or need a written rule about which choice to have, because we have a set of criteria, our morals, which determine which is best.

Nomad, you haven't really thought about this. What values to we use to define our cost-benefit analysis? A cost-beneft analysis is a calculus of values! You haven't escaped the problem by redefining it as a cost-benefit analysis. Whether something is a cost or a benefit depends on some prior set of values one holds. For example, once the Army Corps of Engineers defined the destruction of an Indian community as a benefit, because they would be given a better town elsewhere in compensation. You can't do a cost-benefit analysis without agreement on what costs and benefits are. And that's precisely what's at issue here. A large lake behind a dam is a cost to some and a benefit to others. Who gets to choose which is which? And where in the Tao do we find guidance?

two things i'd address here: one is that criteria are sufficient. do i

anything more complicated is simply the result of applying 'moral calculus', as you called it.

No, more complicated things occur because we live in a complex social world full of technology and large institutions and organizations which the Tao never dreamed of.

second, the tao only lets us choose between choices, it does not say anything directly about the choices. suppose the child was only a hologram, but we did not know that. therefore, i might do less damage by running through the hologram, and neither child nor mailbox (nor my car!) would be hurt. but no one would call me immoral for choosing what i chose, hitting the mailbox instead, based on the knowledge i had, with even a mere suspicion that it might be a real child. sometimes incomplete or incorrect knowledge can lead you to choose the wrong end, or at least one that might not be the best when calculated with better data.

Sure, but you're avoiding the issue. The Tao nowhere gives guidance on the issues like dam construction, nuclear plant siting, democracy, government structures and organization (three branch? Five-branch? Semi-Presidential? Monarchial?), and so on. It is silent on almost all the urgent social questions of our time. Do we build small nukes or not? How is sovereignty to be determined? Is Taiwan part of China? Should Goa be part of India? Should the Kurds get their own country? Where does the Tao address these urgent ethical issues?

the tao cannot help you with that, it cannot calculate raw figures or cost analyses, those are in the domain of science.

No, actually, a cost analysis is a calculus of values. Try defining "cost" without reference to values.

it may affect assumptions about how the science itself is done as well. but in the end, you take what you know, and it directs you to the most moral choice.

No, it does not. Here's a moral question. Should Taiwan be part of China? Where in the Tao can we find some guidance?

most of really complicated moral issues (like your river basin issue) aren't that the Tao doesn't address the people issues of it, but that it is not clearly understood precisely how it will affect people.

No, in most cases the effects of dams are understood precisely. The situation is opposite of what you assert here. Effects are often quite clear; it's the choices that are not. We've been building dams for thousands of years, you know, but that does not bring us any closer to determining whether rivers should be managed by damming them, allowing them to flood, or by constructing levees, and so on. The issue is that "universal" moralities like the one Lewis invites us to join him in supporting typically do not allow us to choose between outcomes in situations that are quite clear.

much of it is guesses. and there are difference of opinions about what will help who, and some of these opinions are breaking the Tao itself (let it not be said that people always obey it, after all), who may choose differently... statistics and science can sometimes be skewed towards a certain viewpoint, at least the presentation of them can.

Quite true....

perhaps i have not done a good job, if not, well maybe i just can't explain it, so after this try i give up :)

No, I think you've done a good job. I just think you've never really realized the extent to which the choices you make demand ethical frameworks that the Tao never dreamed of.

Vorkosigan