John C. Wright's Blog, page 66

Prayer Request

I have a friend whose father has cancer. Please pray for his father, and for him.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Mars Need Women

A continuation of a recent column:

When asked if there was an independent and objective ground for moral judgments, such as, for example, a condemnation of abducting another man’s wife, comments returned three types of replies, of which these below are typical.

The first:

There are many [objective grounds] aren’t there? The need for order. Help me overcome my despair for them. I might reward them. The reasoning I might roll out is endlessly diverse.

This and answers like it assumes the value of moral behavior without saying whence that value comes. It is merely not answering the question.

The second:

Morality is just our introspection of the goal-seeking behavior of the brain. We label paths toward a goal as “good” and paths away from a goal as “bad”. The state space for life is much, much greater than that of chess or Go, so we have to use heuristics to guide our choices. Evolutionary biology shows that nature has used the problem of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma in game theory to shape our brains. We have a “common objective morality” because our brains are similar.

Or, more verbosely:

Morality is an inherent and emergent property of the universe in the same way that gravity is; theoretically equally mathematically modelable and predictable, based on long-term benefit relationships of the sort analyzed (on a very basic level) in the Prisoner’s Dilemma – relationships whose nature and outcomes are as inextricable from the overall structure of this universe as any merely physical interaction. When you feel something is “just wrong”, it’s because it’s written into your DNA to react that way because timeless experience has shown that whatever-it-is should be reacted to in that manner because if you don’t have that reaction it will be the worse for you and those like you over time, in the same way that fear of heights is not really irrational.

This and answers like it assumes that identifying an instinct or genetic compulsion to perform a behavior is the same as saying the behavior is valuable, without saying whence that value comes. It is speaking on an irrelevant topic, the historical cause of the desire for morality, without addressing the question of the formal or final cause of morality, that is, without saying why morality is objective, or what morality is for. It ignores the question while pretending to answer it.

It is also scientific gibberish. When some scientists isolates the ‘evil’ gene, then is the time to assert that moral judgments and legal reasoning principles are somehow ‘written’ into our DNA.

Until then, one might as well say your moral judgments are due to the influence of Jupiter ascending in Libra at the hour of your birth. If you are going to believe in magic, at least have the dignity to bow to stars and shining planets rather than bow to sperm.

And, far less reasonable, the third:

“My aversion to kidnapping women is simply a brute fact about who and how I am. I don’t like people who kidnap women; I would enjoy doing violence to them.”

This and answers like it takes morality as a given, and ignores the question with a show of grand disdain, as if a lack of curiosity about these paramount issues was praiseworthy rather than shameful.

Now, my argument, for those who care to understand what is actually being said, is that atheists can give no coherent reason to support a belief in an objective moral order to the universe, a law binding on all rational beings.

Let us use a simple example. A Martian from the movie MARS NEEDS WOMEN kidnaps the lovely Yvonne Craig.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Prayer Request

From my dearest friend:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I have a simple and odd request. A friend of mine e-mailed me with an

insight to pray for the Church which is, as always, under attack. Let us

all take time to pray for the Church and remember how much we love God.

Holy Spirit, abide with us.

 

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

The Guenevere Ratio

Concerning my column at EveryJoe, which holds that atheists, while being personally moral or not as their nature and consciences direct, are unable to account for the universality of the moral code, a reader with counterfeit name of False Keraptis asked the following:

I’m both an atheist and a believer in objective morality. How is this possible? Well, I’d say objective mortality comes from two sources: reason and instinct.

First, reason: by thinking logically and rigorously, we can determine the optimal way for rational agents to interact with each other. Game theory, and especially the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, are the best and most promising efforts I’ve seen in this area, and while they’re valuable and inspiring, I admit, they’re woefully incomplete. However, it’s not unreasonable to think that there exists a larger body of objective morality that we haven’t yet discovered or described, but which we intuitively grasp, just as someone ignorant of Euclid’s methods might still have good spatial intuition.

Secondly, even though we have not fully described or discovered objective morality, the laboratory of evolution has given us instinctual insight into it through millennia of trial and error. If there does exist an optimal way for humans to interact with each other, and there seems to, then generation upon generation of life in social groups will have equipped us with a sense of morality that at least approximates it.

Now, one might object that I haven’t explained morality, but rather some vague idea of optimal behavior to maximize an equally vague combination self-interest and the group’s interest. I would say that’s exactly what morality is. All humans feel and respect the same moral rules because we have the same instincts, honed to make us follow a standard of behavior that gave our ancestors success. Further, because natural selection is patient and powerful, I would argue that these instincts come ever closer to the objectively optimal way for us to interact with one another.

My comment: I was also an atheist and a believer in objective morality when I was an atheist. My argument was very similar to yours. I would raise three questions:

First, is morality universal? By ‘universal’ I mean that there is a moral code whose imperatives, maxims, or commands have authority over all rational beings, everywhere and at all times (leaving aside for the moment whether there are times when one imperative overrules another). Because my argument is not that there are not moral atheists; nor do I argue that atheists are not prudent nor law abiding. My argument is that if there is a universal morality, atheists cannot account for it.

I would argue that a moral rule is not a moral rule if it is not universal, for the same reason that a rule of logic (such as ‘A is A’) is not a rule of logic if it is not universal. If we can find a time or a place where ‘A is A’ is not true and not valid, then it is not a rule properly so called: it is nothing more than a convenient convention, a custom, or a habit of thought that is sometimes true and sometimes not. It is a rule of grammar.

Second, if one source of morality is the game theory of optimizing behavior, then what authority does optimal behavior have over my conscience? If moral rules are merely my selfish desires seeking an optimally efficient method of satisfaction, then what motive, aside from a selfish one, prompts me to be concerned with the good of the group? If moral rules are merely my selfish desires seeking an optimally efficient method of satisfaction, then under what circumstances would I commit an act of self sacrifice for preserving my wife, children, city, nation, cause or church? Are we defining ‘morality’ such that self sacrifice is never permitted, never compelled?

Third, if the other source of morality is instinct brought about by trial and error, then what authority can possibility forbid me from making the error? Making the error is a beneficial part of the process of discovery. If our moral code is an approximation based on generally successful strategies, how do I know whether my particular tactical decision here and now falls within the approximation?

Let me use an example of a particular tactical decision: If I am in a war, generally one should not outrun one’s own supply lines; and yet if I am in the position to outflank the Maginot Line, rushing forward beyond my supply lines may be the wise course in this one instance even if it is not generally prudent. And even if it does not fall within this approximation, what authority does this blindly evolved approximation have over me?

What, if any, reason aside from a prudential regard for my own self interest imposes a duty that should I conform my behavior to this standard? You seem to be describing the mere opposite of duty.

You seem to be making the claim that this particular moral lapse is not likely to conduce to my long term pleasure and happiness. But what authority does long term pleasure and happiness have over me? Why is the authority of short term happiness not as great or, because the future is uncertain and man is mortal, greater?

Allow me to explain why I am asking about authority. Let us take a real-make believe case to make this point clear:

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

The Wright Perspective: Why Christianity is More Logical Than Atheism

My latest is up at Every Joe:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/28/politics/why-christianity-is-more-logical-than-atheism/

I was taught my whole life that the Christian Church was a bastion of unreason, not just a nursery where men believed in superstitions as rank as a belief in Santa Claus, but also a lunatic asylum where men believed three equaled one and dead men could live again. Hence, no surprise was greater to me than to discover that not only was the Church not illogical, but that atheism had a weaker claim to logic and reason than she did.

I am not here claiming the atheist model is illogical. Rather, I claim that the Christian story of the universe is a better story than any atheist story. More to the point, I claim it is also a better model than any atheist model, in that it explains more with more parsimony of assumption.

There are many brands of atheism, but they all have some points in common. First, one common point is that none have a rational explanation of the objectivity of moral rules.

Not all cultures agree on what priority to place on various moral rules, but one thing that is so obvious about moral rules is that they are objective. When guilt pricks us, it does not say we betray a matter of taste or opinion; the feeling of guilt is the feeling of having offended a law. When injustice rankles, we do not accuse those who trespass against us of having breached a matter of taste or opinion; we refer to a standard we expect the other to know and acknowledge. We cannot help it.

In all human experience, everything is open to doubt but this. No man with a working conscience can escape the knowledge. It is the one thing we cannot not know. And yet atheists are at a loss to explain it.

I do not call atheists immoral, but I note they cannot give a rational reason to account for morality.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Not a Penny for Tribute

Part of an ongoing conversation. A reader with the draconian name of Takashi Kurita has some comments in the form of questions about the call to prayer and fasting I wrote here: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/05/wiscon-38-guest-of-honor-speech/

Hmm. So, how is this an example of why you quit the SWFA, again? Everything shown here is about Mr. Beale and how he was (rightly) ejected from the organization for using it’s official publication channels improperly.

Nothing you talked about in this post has anything to do with you. I also recall no “apoplectic rage” from any Sci-Fi authors that I follow, regarding your leaving the organization. I’m venture to say that hardly anyone even noticed that you quit.

Are you saying that the entire reason for your leaving was on behalf of him? You left in protest, in other words? Since you didn’t even participate in the organization anyway, it’s not much of a protest at all.

 

Just on the slim chance that your questions are honestly meant rather than rhetorical, allow me to answer them:

1. This speech is a prime example of unprofessional public demeanor, because it subordinates the craft of writing to the political crusade of political correctness; and under Mr Scalzi’s leadership such unprofessionalism was encouraged rather than discouraged.

The undisguised bigotry and hatred in this speech is shocking; the vulgarity is merely icing on the cowpaddy.

I am not claiming SFWA wrote this speech or endorsed it. I am claiming this is an example of the philosophy of political correctness, which is a philosophy of breathtakingly shameless antichristian antimale anticaucasian zealotry, which now animates enough of the science fiction community to have infected SFWA, which has both unofficially and officially endorsed it.

At that point, they are no longer an organization which serves the purposes, primarily professional, for which I joined and for whose sake I paid dues.

2. Your comment that this speech somehow serves as evidence that the expulsion of Mr. Beale is gratuitous. In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied. It is also irrelevant.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

WisCon 38 Guest of Honor Speech

No one has expressed any confusion over the reasons for my resigning my membership in SFWA. One or two writers who place political correctness above writing (or, for that matter, above honesty and humanity and reality) expressed apoplectic rage, for reasons which are clear enough to need no close inquiry, and shameful enough to make such an inquiry distasteful, but no one expressed confusion.

Just in case confusion exists, albeit unexpressed, here follows one more exhibit in the case. I have edited some swearwords, despite the author’s thoughtful yet absurd trigger warning.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Amazing What You Can Find on the Internet

Here is a 1982 radio play version of Robert Heinlein’s 1941 yarn ‘By His Bootstraps’ which may be the definitive time paradox story of all time:

http://www.radiodramarevival.com/episode-177-robert-heinleins-by-his-bootstraps/

In case you don’t recognize the voice, the belligerent drunk time-traveler snarled in his own paradox is Richard Dreyfuss.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

On Imperfect Knowledge

This is a column published in this space two years ago, reprinted at the request of a reader who wanted to see it again.

————————————————————-

Sean M. Brooks writes and asks:

In debates or discussions with other online friends, I’ve been told that “opinions” cannot be wrong, false, mistaken, erroneous, etc. My reaction was to argue this did not make sense. It could be my opinion that 2 + 2 = 5 or that Hitler was a noble, wise, saintly, and holy man. Are these “opinions” truly not wrong or false?

One person did concede an opinion can be factually wrong while still arguing opinions cannot be wrong. This did not make sense to me–and I rejected it as self contradictory.

If this interests you, do you have any comments to make? Am I wrong to say opinions can be erroneous or false? Am I missing something?

The short answer is that you are right and they are wrong, because if no opinions can be false or mistaken, then my opinion that some or all opinions can be false and mistaken cannot be false nor mistaken.

The long answer is more subtle: it depends on the meaning of the word “opinion”.

The longest and best answer requires a few paragraphs on the nature of human knowledge, and requires we draw some distinctions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Last Chance to Punch Mental Illness in the FACE!

The Indiegogo campaign to help out Rob Wells ends tomorrow. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/altered-perceptions#home

So this is it. $10 will get you the eBook.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.