Easily Rattled

Morality and ethics remain even when you have different religious beliefs. Even if you don’t have a higher power. They are the agreements we have with each other that allow us to cooperate and exist in the same physical space. None of us opted in. We were born without our consent. We were born with different lottery tickets. Our effort, skills and knowledge (merit?) determine much of our success, but most of that is determined by the lottery of geography, genetics, prejudice, and social networks. I am no longer religious, but I still have deeply held beliefs about right and wrong. I try hold them loosely where they don’t impact others. But fury still bubbles at injustice. I am easily rattled. Fury isn’t that helpful, but there are lots of big shared problems (Climate Change, War, Poverty, Pandemic, Financial Meltdown) where we have to have the horrible conversations we would rather not. We have to figure out how to have a shared conversation despite different world views.

Noise or Music

Conscious Eating

I am not a vegetarian. I don't eat particularly badly, but I am not even close to a role model. The ethical arguments (Factory Farming) and existential arguments (Climate Change) for reduced meat consumption are slam dunks, but every time I make a concerted effort, it changes the relationship I have with food. I am not an excessive eater, and do enough exercise, so food simply becomes a big source of enjoyment. Comfort food. Cultural food. Food that keeps us connected. Like I believe investing is a team sport, I think the same is true of diet. It's much easier if we eat better together, and it isn't that relevant if any particular individual is reducing their meat consumption, if they get swamped by others eating up the left-overs. 

Missing Middle

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11). In a world of scarcity, there is a lot of value in massive social pressure to work beyond enough. Drilled into my bubble growing up were ideas like delayed gratification, hard work, self-reliance, and being a provider. No one owes you anything, but people will rely on you. I have friends who were told not to do subjects like Art, Music, or even Biology because they wouldn't put food on the table. In a gendered society, it was normally guys given these constraints (there were definitely many constraints put on woman too). Be a Man. 'Missing Middle' or 'Idle Rich' is a term used for people who have enough themselves, and so choose other pursuits as they are free from financial constraints, and can be motivated by nice issues like fulfilment. I love 'childish things', but I also understand the why of putting them aside while there isn't enough food on the table for everyone.

Ignoring Everything Else

A lot of problems can be quite easily solved if you ignore everything else. This morning I was handed a Rubik's cube to solve. I don't know how. I know it took the Professor of Architecture who invented it a month to figure it out. Nowadays, you can sneakily look on YouTube to get tutorials. I don't plan on doing the month long version but the short version could be fun. 

Without an algorithm, and just turning and twisting, you can fairly easily solve specific bits. You can get one row. Or one face. Or a diagonal line. This made me think of some comments Daniel Dennett made about ethics. With just one goal, it becomes fairly easy to solve problems. If all you care about is one of poverty, racism, freedom of speech, conserving a way of life, your community, minorities, sexism, meritocracy, or creativity etc. then the big questions in the world have very clear answers. Where it gets tricky is the co-ordination. Sometimes you need to solve things in a specific order and it takes a long time to figure it out. 

The advantage of language and culture is that we are able to learn together. I can benefit from your mental heavy lifting. Erno Rubik spent a month figuring out the cube. I will be able to go away and look at a youtube clip.

Even though we like our individual things that need solving, we know that when we get too protective over them, it means other problems can't be solved. Building the trust to know that letting go for a while is not destroying our goal in the long term is hard. 

The other advantage of language and culture is it creates a shared memory. A memory that can extend beyond short term goals. We can think about the next step. We can also step back and think about how to think about the next step. We can think about how the various steps may connect together. We can think about steps we and others have taken together. Then we can write it down and just think about now. Till just now. 

When Newton, and others, said 'If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants', it was not false modesty. Quite often progress is made 'independently' around about the same time by different individuals. By making errors in public, we can all chip in to solve them. We are learning not just from our own experiences because our words and deeds connect us all.

Focus is good, but we can't solve our issues by ignoring everything else.

Gossip & Consumers

Seth Godin talks about the responsibility of consumers to spread the word about both products, services and companies they like, and those they don't.

I found this interesting in relation to a discussion I was having with some family about the merits and demerits of Gossip. I am not sure whether it was Haidt in `The Happiness Hypothesis' or Gilbert in `Stumbling on Happiness' (both highly recommended) who was talking about the necessity of Gossip in a functioning society. Basically the argument is along the lines of, in a world where we don't know everyone and have personal relationships with everyone, we rely on Reciprocity (Reward and Revenge)and Reputation to make sure society functions.

It is counter-intuitive to say that Gossip is good. We gossip about people who gossip, and tell others how they are trust worthy. Trust is also good. Keeping Promises too. But... at what point is sharing information (which is always just a perception and never 100% confirmed truth) more important that just keeping your mouth shut.

Godin's argument in a commercial way is compelling. Obviously we can't all try every provider of goods and services. So obviously we should all participate in spreading the word about things we don't enjoy AND things we do enjoy.

It seems less obvious when it comes to personal relationships. After all, each interaction is unique... and everyone should be given a fresh start in every new interaction with every new person.

Really?

No Sugar

My office canteen serves a great meal, and each day there is a choice between a meat option and a vegetarian option.

Like cutting down on drinking coke (thanks to the sister-in-law), I am trying to cut down on the amount of meat I eat (thanks to my arch-enemy/sole blogging commenter).

So today I looked longingly at the Lamb Tikka Masala, I cried a little inside as I heard the words... `ratatouille please'... escape from my mouth. It's not that I don't like vegetables, because I do. It is just so hard when I know how much I like meat.

Then I get home to my brothers place, and ask him if he wants a cup of tea. Yes please... no sugar!

My other oldest brother drinks diet coke. My middle brother has no sugar in his tea. And I am trying to drink water instead of other drinks, and choose vegetables over meat more often.

What is the world coming to! Yup... the long term benefits will be there. But the little boy in me is sulking a little.

Haidt talks about reading Peter Singer's `Animal Ethics' and being intellectually convinced that he should become a vegetarian. But he didn't, instead he just felt a little guilty every time he ordered a hamburger. Then he saw a video of a slaughter house that disgusted him into not eating meat... briefly. As the memory of the video faded, so did the lure of meat become more convincing.

Hmmm, there are so many things where the long term goals of one approach far outweigh the short term benefits of the easy option...

But... we live in the short term.

And it is easy.

But... baby steps. I did eat the ratatouille... and not the curry, so that is a small victory. hmmmm.

The Nature Of Evil

Philip Zambardo looks at the nature of evil in this TED talk, and has done a book on the subject entitled `The Lucifer Effect'.

I must admit as an aside that whenever I hear stories of the fall of Lucifer as `God's favourite angel', and then the arch-angel Gabriele being sent to throw him out of heaven to descend to the newly created hell, I struggle to see the distinction between the main Monotheistic religions and the religions of Greece and Rome.

Anyway...

This talk is not about religion, it is about good people becoming evil... and how we stop it.

I think the concept of good people and bad people is a very very fuzzy one. It is really very difficult to know how we would act in extreme situations. Some of the experiments Zambardo refers to reflect just that.

As another aside... Sorry, it is late and my mind is wandering...

I recently tried to restrain myself as someone mentioned how much they hated Cape Town because of the explicit contrasts between wealthy and poor (especially as you leave the airport), and the fact that most of the people serving this person were black. The wealth was clearly extracted from these poor people, and the evil is self evident.

That there is truth in what he said can not be disputed. What lead to the anger is the fact that that racism and exploitation is not unique to South Africa. In the time I have been in Vancouver (a city which is very easy to fall in love with and very easy to live in), I have seen but a handful of `First Nation' (read Native Americans) people. Disease ravaged over 90% of the population of this continent when Europeans arrived, and to a large degree the rest were subjugated.

Later `generosity' to a minority should not EVER be compared to the opposite degraded majority in Africa. I think to pat yourself on the back that you are not as evil as others is a very very dangerous thing to do.

Evil is prevalent in the world. We are not in control of where we are born, but I don't think that absolves us of all responsibility... I think in fact it increases our responsibility where we are all responsible for all evil in some way.

Maybe that seems like an overstatement, and maybe it is... but I think it is hard to say that given similar circumstances and environments (random birth aside), we would have acted any differently to other `evil' people.

The only thing we can do is, learn and look forward... I think.

Moral Paradoxes

In this bloggingheads vlog Will Wilkinson talks to Saul Smilansky about moral paradoxes.

Basically, what happens when you take assumptions that seem indisputable. You use those assumptions to build a logical and correct argument...

But then the conclusion you get turns out to be absurd.

hmmm. What then?

We somehow believe that even though we haven't thought it through, our moral beliefs that we think are very obvious will be coherent and consistent. Maybe this isn't possible.

There are some very interesting examples they give.

1) Is it wrong to steal from a thief?
2) Was McCain fortunate to be tortured, and Obama fortunate to be discriminated against for being black?
3) Should you retire/give up your position which you really want if someone else will be better than you at it?

amongst others....

Sounds like Smilansky's book "Ten Moral Paradoxes" will be quite interesting. Apparently it is very readable too.

Cultivating Moral Humility

Stuart mentioned Jonathan Haidt on his blog just a couple of days ago and lo and behold I come across him in my daily dose of TED in his talk on the real difference between liberals and conservatives or cultivating moral humility.

I strongly encourage you to watch it. The talk is one of those very appealing ones where you really don't feel like he is trying to convince you of anything... but rather that he is just giving you an insight into what he is thinking.

Most of the time in whatever we do, we are trying to convince others that we are right. I do it all the time, perfectly natural. My problem is I even start `steam-rolling' people when I get really excited about an idea. I cut in, speak louder or try and be more persuasive.

Really truely and honestly empathising and trying to understand someone Else's point of view is very very hard. Next time you are having an argument or discussion, catch yourself while the other person is speaking, and honestly answer the question of whether you are listening with the intention of understanding or waiting for an opportunity to make your next point. Yes, but...

There are tricks which normally feel very artificial where a facilitator gets one person to speak and the other to ask questions. Questions that are not Socratic leading questions where you already have an intended answer in mind and take someone down a path, but delving questions. Anyone who has participated in something like this knows how hard it is to NOT direct conversation in light of your current beliefs/opinions.

Haidt makes a good point, similar to the one made in the Wilkinson/Knobe Bloggingheads that often the people who are really interested in a particular field are naturally inclined to agree. The majority of TED members are liberal. The majority of scientists are atheists. The majority of philosophers & psychologists have a lot of common ground. So often, you fight and fight and fight your way to get agreement with people when the people who disagree with you most strongly aren't even involved in the discussion.

This doesn't make for great truth seeking.

I don't know what the answer is. And the platitudes like listen more, empathise more, examine dispassionately and more eagerly the sides of the arguments you disagree with... sound like the right answer, but I think they are so counter-intuitive and unnatural that without conscious active attempts to do it... it won't happen.

Unwilling Empathy

Grrrr

Although Stuart and I have both tired for now of the vegetarian debate, I was unwittingly forced to empathise today with the uncomfortable position that vegetarians are put in.

I have been safe till now from stopping eating veal cause it isn't that common in South Africa. But in Bermuda it is everywhere... basically half of most restaurants dishes are veal.

But, there are plenty of other options for Carntrevor so I am fine.

Today, I was having lunch with two colleagues who both ordered the most amazingly tasty looking veal chops. I got incredible order envy as I salivating looked at their dishes.

Nonetheless my meal was very tasty. The envy is not where the empathy comes in.

The veal chops were apparently amazing, and Grandpa Spanner (a colleague) offered me some.

TB: no thanks.
GS: why?
TB: I don't eat veal.
GS: Why? Don't you like it.
TB: No, I love it.
GS: So is it on principle that you don't eat it.
TB: I am not a vegetarian, veal is the only meat I don't eat.
GS: Why?
TB: Look, both of you are eating veal... I really don't want to talk about it now. Enjoy your meal.
XX: Is it because of the way the raise the animals.
TB: (uncomfortable) All I will say is that a friend of mine who is a vegetarian managed to convince me to stop eating veal after telling me how it was prepared. But I really don't want to spoil your meal, so let's rather just leave it.

hmmm....

On the comments of Stuart's latest response to our debate, Tracy continues the discussion of judgement.

Thinking more of why people get offended:

1) the conversation normally comes up WHILE people are eating meat. So it is (kind of but not exactly the same) like standing next to someone having sex and saying, I don't believe in sex before marriage. I think it is wrong.

2) It is a ethical judgment as opposed to a religious judgement, which is why people who are vegetarian for `religious reasons' don't seem to get judges. They don't eat meat, not because they object to animal cruelty practices of factory farming. Rather they don't eat meat because `God said so'. It seems easier to dismiss them and not feel judged because you can justify yourself by saying, oh, I don't believe in their God.

This could be seen as strange since ethics and religion are often viewed as tied. The thing is religious views are often not challenged to see if something is right or wrong on ethical grounds with a sound rational argument. It is what it is. So it is easier to dismiss.

Maybe I am not expressing myself well... but perhaps it is easier to have `religious tolerance' than it is to have `ethical tolerance'.

By not eating meat, you are not saying... I don't eat meat, but go ahead believe whatever you want. Effectively you are saying, I believe it is wrong to eat [farm-factory produced] meat and by eating it you are effectively endorsing cruelty to animals.

That doesn't sit easily.... hence the offence taken.

Liberatorr Comment Splat

Aware that people don't follow links, I am going to paste Stuart's whole recent post (in blue):

Fortunately for readers, I don’t really have the energy for another epic post with any attention paid to minimal coherence. Trevor’s recent posts did inspire some thoughts though. So here’s a rambling comment splat.

“The thing is people don't like feeling like they are being morally judged, which is probably a large reason why vegetarianism gets under the skin of others.”

I think it’s strange that vegetarianism seems to have a bigger effect on people than most of our ethical views. We have moral views on so many things! Judgment is always implicit when people act in ways that conflict with out moral views. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that this does upset people, but generally we expect our friends and family hold at least some different moral views from us and judge us accordingly. What does Trevor think of the people who think he’s immoral for not being a teetotaler? Check out the comments section of vegan posts on Megan McArdle’s blog; where the hell does that kind of stuff come from?

“Is it a problem making people feel uncomfortable about things that you believe to be true?”

I think I could easily misinterpret this, but my understanding is that Trevor wasn’t exactly shy about his views on apartheid (which was good!), so I find the question puzzling.

“As I said, this kind of thing gives me `impending doom' because I find the idea of being very accepting of different points of view very appealing.”

This combined with the comments about how I’m not a liberal and wanting to run naked through the fields makes me want to clear up how I understand liberalism and permissiveness. In terms of what I think it’s morally acceptable to do, I am incredibly permissive. Way beyond the average person. There is an important proviso however, which is that our carefree frolicking shouldn’t harm others!! If we don’t have this constraint, then being tolerant of other points of view quickly becomes tolerance of stuff we normally don’t much approve of.

“Do I think that if I had read enough and thought about it enough, I would still believe what I do. I would like to think not, but that is probably what I think.”

I guess I agree with the sentiment here and call me a quibbler, but I think if we think our beliefs would change if we studied up then either we should simply believe what we think our views would change to, or if we expect our views to change, but don’t know how, we should simply give up our belief without replacing it. If we think our views would change after study, I don’t even know if we can really be said to hold the views we think we do.

A few comments...

I do get upset/amused by people who think I am immoral for being a teetotaler. I guess there are some things I feel uncomfortable about people passing judgement on, and others I feel comfortable with.

1) I feel comfortable passing judgement on people who are racist.
2) I don't pass judgement but feel comfortable telling people that I am uncomfortable with people imposing their smoking habits on other people.
3) I think I should be more outspoken about my feelings on the danger of religious extremism.
4) I am sure there are other things I pass judgement on.
5) I would agree with the sentiment that people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I still feel unease about the level of responsibility we have or should have to people who are self-destructive, and what obligations there are for intervention in such cases.
6) Some beliefs aren't simply a case of giving up. If they are practical, you believe one way or the other.

Vegetorrian vs. Carntrevor

Stuarts response to `How to frustrate a Vegetorian' was `Many of us are not suicide bombers!'

Perhaps one or two people have been spectators to our debate, if true could someone comment on whether the accusation `Trevor gives the impression of wanting to argue for a conclusion he already holds' is valid? I thought I was trying pretty hard to find the weakness in my argument?

The next accusation is that I treat people who hold `anti-death' vegetarian views as weird. Again... I don't think this is true, I may disagree and not understand their point of view though.

Another accusation is that I am retreating to pointing out the holes in "most vegetarians" arguments. While I have read Stuart's posts on his vegetarianism, I have not read a lot on the subject other than on his blog. I am not trying to understand other vegetarians and do believe that many of them have not thought through their motivation to even a fraction of the extent that Stuart has. I would think this is true of most voters, most religious devotees, sports fans... and pretty much any other view people hold. Most people don't think things through and then asked for a logical explanation will struggle. So... no I am not retreating to the "most" argument since I think Stuart agrees that "most" arguments are riddled with holes and illogical... I am more interested in compelling arguments.

Here are some points I think have come from our discussion. (I am not reviewing all the hundreds of post, I write quickly and what comes in to my head... so if I forget a point, it hasn't sunk in...)

1) Most meat eaters eat too much meat in their diet.
2) Including meat in your diet likely to allow for a healthier diet. Vegetarians are not de facto healthier than people who include meat in their diet.
3) I accept that adopting a general rule of not eating meat because of animal suffering is an acceptable one. I have to work out my own justification for the opposite view that I currently subscribe to of not getting sufficiently upset about it to stop eating meat.
4) I also accept that the "I am a vegetarian" approach is more tactful than demanding "cruelty-free" meat.
5) The anti-death view that does not depend on animal suffering is the one I understand less. I have not read or heard an argument for this view yet that convinces me as a strong argument. I accept however that death may upset some people and so they prefer it not to be in their diet. I do not find it compelling enough to upset me or make me uneasy. I find the suffering view stronger.
6) I don't have a problem with raising animals for the sole goal of eating them if the conditions in which they live are fine.

The thing is people don't like feeling like they are being morally judged, which is probably a large reason why vegetarianism gets under the skin of others. I would imagine most people would be upset with the degree of animal suffering if it was conspicuous. It isn't. We don't see the animals in the farm factories.

Is it a problem making people feel uncomfortable about things that you believe to be true?

Well... for the most part I get upset with religious people who do this because I see little justification in judgement.

As I said, this kind of thing gives me `impending doom' because I find the idea of being very accepting of different points of view very appealing. Hard-core truth seeking is not in that game. It actually pushes you to feel uncomfortable in a far more real way when logic and reason are involved.

In most places this easier because this more intellectual than practical... but here you are being as practical as it gets. What am I going to eat.

Yes, I eat more meat than I should. I like vegetables but don't eat as much of them as I should... because I prefer meat. I eat negligible amounts of fruit.

How to frustrate a Vegetorrian

Carrying on from Stu and my epic vegetarian debate.

Stu's primary concern was my regular comment that I just don't understand the logic behind vegetarianism... or `why people don't eat meat'.

It seems his answer is (and he will correct me if I am wrong)

I don't eat want to eat meat that is produced as a result of excessive (in my opinion) cruelty. Since I can not be certain of how commercially produced meat was obtained, and the conditions under which the animal lived, I feel more comfortable not eating any commercially produced meat.

I accept this as a reasonable stance. I do not think it is the generally accepted view of vegetarians, but it is a view I can understand better. Now that I know his true stance, I will seek out a suitable vendor of such cruelty free meat and supply Stu with a juicy burger, some tasty chicken or some lekker biltong.

It probably requires a better understanding of farming practices and cruelty in general to achieve this aim.

A couple more points though.

1. Stu, I read your blog and your comments but I can not claim to have a photographic memory and remember your position on every point. I have often been accused of having a memory like a sieve and offer my sincere apology.

2.

'vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters'

is not the same as 'Being a vegetarian will make you healthier', in the same way as

Men are wealthier than women.
More Black-Africans are in prison in South Africa than White-Africans.

I would guess that vegetarians (by choice) are more a smaller group, and spend more time becoming aware of dietary requirements to ensure a balance. You will have to provide better evidence that meat is in fact not good for you before I accept that excluding something from your `universe of acceptable foods' can actually make you healthier.

3. You would have noticed in my points that I didn't argue they were strong... `That is a cop out I know'

Will the Prinzian

This discussion between Will Wilkinson and Jesse Prinz, author of `The emotional construction of morals' probably gets closer to the way I think about morals. (I haven't read the book yet though)

The key point he makes is that morals stem from emotional reactions. This allows you to be mistaken about your moral convictions. For example, lots of people say they are not racist and yet their behaviour exhibits otherwise, or they are not bothered by other people's racist behaviour. This implies that they are.

Another example is someone who says they care about Global Warming and then hops into an SUV. This seems to hold a lot more water for me, where morals are not so much what you claim to subscribe to... but rather the way you act.

Morality basically serves the function of regulating human behaviour. The question then becomes one of are there universal morals? Are there things that are right or wrong. If you see morality as a tool, you can criticize and improve it better than if you see it as a biological fact.

Saying whether an action is moral or immoral is less important than identifying goals, or what we want out of morality. The question

If I had no morals are there still things that I would want?

If we could then come to some consensus about common goals, there may be common rules that would be necessary to achieve those goals which happen to be universal. These would not be universal in a factual indisputable sense, but rather reflective of common goals.

More on Greens & Reds

I will need to print out and read through all of Stuart and my discussions about the vegetarianism question, Stu's last post was here and mine here.

But... here are some more thoughts for now.

1) I accept that factory farming has some excessive cruel practices. I would rather not associate with these, and given the easy choice wouldn't. I would even pay a premium over cruelty derived foods. Not given the choice, and not knowing how the meat was obtained... how strongly do I feel about this? Not sure. I also believe people shouldn't starve. Do I feed myself and clothe myself with the bare minimum and send the rest to charity? No. How much should I? I am not sure.

Does it leave me feeling uneasy... yes.

2) I do not accept that the logical conclusion to saying that cruel practices exist is to not eat any meat that's commercially available.

If there is demand for meat that is `cruelty free'... the invisible hand will provide.

3) Stu, do you believe it is wrong to eat meat irrespective of whether it was cruelly obtained or not?

On the `impending doom' post...

Say I were to accept that the majority of meat was cruelly obtained, I also know this is unlikely to change if I stop eating meat since most people won't. Especially since vegetarianism is also a pretty elite, top of maslow's hierarchy concern. If you are starving... you don't really care what you eat. We are a long long way from being able to feed the world on a meat free diet, let alone a diet at all.

That is a cop out I know... hence the impending doom.

What I do have a problem with is the inconsistency. If you believe that anything obtained through cruel means is unacceptable... how can you drink the cappuccino that you don't know where the milk comes from. How can you buy leather shoes?

Is it possible to live a consistent cruelty free life? Maybe not now, but maybe it is something we can work towards. Again a cop out.

Moral Realism

Don Loeb and Peter Railton take opposite sides on Bloggingheads for and against Moral Realism.

After being abused by a friends wife for being intense at a lunch we went to the other day for mentioning,TED talk where Arthur Benjamin does `Mathemagic' I being up `Moral Realism' with a certain amount of fear. Delving into the world of Philosophy and Ethics seems as far from layman's terms as you can get. I am of the school of thought that if you can't say it simply you don't really understand it.

The thing is maybe there are some things that you can't say simply because they aren't simple. But then, if you are talking about ethics that becomes problematic because morals are normally there as a set of rules for behaviour. Should people really follow rules they don't understand the reasoning for?

That aside... I still found the discussion interesting. My mind did wander at some stages when I got lost in the vocabulary that I didn't have a full grip on. This is not an unusual feeling for me.

I think the question boils down to a simple one...

1) Do you believe that there are a set of rules that everyone should obey irrespective of their cultural backgrounds or belief systems.

2) If the answer to (1) is Yes, should this be imposed on people even if they would rather act in a different way.

It is fairly new that morality and religion have been separated as concepts so that you can distinguish morality from divine will & divine punishment. If you believe that morality is simply God's will... then the discussion becomes more difficult. Since then the assumption is that God exists, and if she does, then you are right and there is no further discussion.

But if that is not your definition of morality, what is it? What is right and wrong?

In listening to this argument, I found myself agreeing more with the Anti-Realist that there is no factual morality. That believing this doesn't mean you can't have values that allow you to have ideas on how society can best co-operate, co-ordinate and how you can best allocate resources.

`best allocate' then becomes another question.

Yet there are certain things that I feel quite strongly I would like to believe are universal and moral facts. `Like to' because I feel like I would want certain beliefs imposed on others.

Probably my strongest feelings on this subject are around it being wrong to kill and rape.

I think it is incredibly difficult to actually pinpoint a basic idea of why something is wrong. Because it is? That is where the religious benefit comes in because you can just say, well... because God said so, argument done.

Maybe there is no answer but you can get nearer the truth?

The strongest argument I think is the one that there is in fact no `true' morality... but that by establishing rules that are consistent, we can work towards a better society. Perhaps not one society, but more than one with different sets of rules that you need to choose between. I do get the feeling that there may be different sets of consistent yet incompatible rules.

Already I fear I am falling into the trap that the clip I linked to did of wandering, rambling thought. so I am going to stop there.

Spreading Ideas

Will Wilkinson from the Cato Institute (and a blogger at The Fly Bottle) and Geoffrey Sayre-McCord from the University of North Carolina discuss various ideas around ethics culminating in a look at whether you can get to the point of saying something is morally wrong or just another societies preference based on a different set of ideals.

So is it a case of `I like vanilla, you should like vanilla too'

or is it...

`I don't like killing babies so you shouldn't like killing babies too.'

There are lots and lots of sites you can get into whatever topic you are interested about.

Here are some I just discovered:

Bloggingheads (thanks Stu)
Big Think (thanks Grandpa Spanner)

and my favourite:

TED.com

What don't I understand?

Following on from here.

Before I responded to our growing list of points... as I was driving on my scooter between beaches in paradise yesterday, I was trying to figure out what it is that I don't understand about vegetarianism.

1. I don't like the extremists. I think they do any cause harm.
2. I don't accept the fact that not eating meat at all is a logical conclusion to saying that cruel practices exist.
3. What I don't understand is why someone would believe it is wrong to eat meat irrespective of whether it was cruely obtained or not.

I do accept and would understand someone saying I will not eat meat from anywhere I can not be certain that their practices are not cruel. I accept that you can determine your own threshold for what is cruel, and if you feel strongly enough about it not eat meat from any of those places.

But then you are not a vegetarian, i.e. someone who does not eat meat at all. You just object to animal cruelty and act accordingly. This may lead you to hardly ever eating meat... or

given enough support could lead to a measure of transparency where a new term is coined and an organisation `accredits' certain farmers for subscribing to minimizing cruelty.

Overcoming Bias

I try read the Oxford Blog, Overcoming Bias. Some posts are a little more hectic than others and require regularly reading them, and working through the concepts. Some are a little more accessible.

I liked This post by Robin Hanson. My brother challenged me the other day about what `golden standard' I base my search for the truth on. How do I decide which `Feedback Loops' to use?

I guess my golden standard is that I am probably wrong. Like betting on the favourite in a horse race that has a 40% chance of winning, it is more likely that the horse will lose.

Obviously it is tough to go through life not acting because you think you are more than likely making a mistake. You have to act. I like to think that by honestly questioning all I have been taught and read, and rooting out any biases I have, I move generally in the right direction.

It is interesting how little time people actually spend discussing ethics. It is assumed that religion and ethics go hand in hand. I tend to disagree. I think it the past, religion tried to lead ethics, but often and mostly, ethics drags religion along kicking and screaming. Learning dogmatic rules without question doesn't tend to be conducive to honest ethical discussion. It is so because it is so.

It may seem like I have no golden standard in reality. It may seem that way because it is probably true, I think the concept of a golden standard is frail. This may also seem likely to cause a void, or uncertainty that could be crippling. A lot of people believe the church is necessary for the simple reason that without it, we would have no moral compass.

I disagree that the only reason we don't commit murder, rape, and molest children is because we believe it is a sin. I think we don't do that because we believe it is wrong, and by wrong, I mean society couldn't function or progress... and we have learnt (some more than others) over the years simply not to want to.

Business Ethics

I have just started the section of my CFA notes on Business Ethics. With the Actuarial Qualification, there was no actual `Ethics' component to the exam. You basically attended a 2 day professionalism course within 6 months of completing your exams.

The CFA Institute does it differently. The exams actually pose scenarios and you have to determine the right course of action.

Which method is better? Is Ethics something you can teach academically and expect to be applied or is it better dropping the pretence (if that is what it is) and just having an attendance course. Well, you could argue that that adds the pretence rather than dropping it.

The CFA Institute uses the marks in the Ethics sections to determine whether or not to push through borderline candidates. This presumes that people who score more highly in the Ethics sections are likely to be more ethical... I am not convinced.

I am also not convinced that there is such a thing as Business Ethics... there are just ethics.

Although, I suppose... if we are going to try and interact with others... perhaps a code is necessary. It is also a way of avoiding government regulation.