From: Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 20:08:48 EDT
What I'm saying is that materialism cannot truly quantify 'justice' as
these experiments are alleging to do. You've never heard of pre-meditation?
That's when a creature (human or animal) intends to do something that will
bring about a favourable result. The pre-meditator would usually not care
about the moral consequences. Now this is self-evident in humans and can be
shown experimentally in animals.
In this specific experiment, we have pre-meditation in reverse. What you
have is a monkey that behaves the way it does because it has not received
what it perceives to be a favourable _ result_. An intention not to
co-operate then develops based on unfavourable _results_.
>>> On a purely observational basis, I can't prove that you have any sense
of
justice at all. All I can do is observe your behaviour. <<<
Distinctively, people generally speaking, seem to have an undefined
_knowledge_ which is post-meditative. A murderer may know that his
premeditative act of murder is wrong irrespective of his ultimate intent in
committing the murder. How can you show this experimentally? How can you
show this in animals?
Through the use of language we can differentiate between right and wrong.
We don't need to prove it experimentally. It is self evident. You can,
through the use of your language and your moral or ontological sense, reach
a truthful conclusion: "That you can't prove that I have any sense of
justice." Again out of bound with experimentation.
>>>There is no difference between how we infer humans have a sense of
justice and how we determine this for animals.<<<
Of course there is. You forget that we have the image of God, or are you
going to deny the revelation of _truth_ in scripture for lack of
experimental proof? You either except it or reject it, you have the _free
will_ to do so.
>>>Even language doesn't help us much here. Just because you say you have a
highly developed sense of justice doesn't make it so. <<<
How do you know that? How can you be certain, _absolutely_ certain of that
fact (or should I say truth)?
You write that I _say_ it. May be you ought to consider the _duality_ of
language and moral knowledge in this case - something uniquely human. This
cannot be shown experimentally and that is my point.
>>>You might be a sociopath, you might be a robot who goes around
proclaiming to all that you have a highly developed sense of justice.
Behavior is all I can use to determine your value system, and you might be
a robot programmed for the right behavior to fool me.<<<
And who programmed me? Someone with an obvious sense of justice expressed
linguistically.
>>>Shoot, I don't know if you have a pre-meditative state, whatever the
heck
that is. prove to this group you have a pre-meditative state--after you
define your term.<<<
Pre-meditative state in human beings is self evident as I have already
said. No court can prima facie convict a murderer if they cannot prove his
pre-meditation - _mens rea_ (at least in the common law world). Where have
you been?
>>> Have you ever compared salaries with your co-workers who are doing the
same job? what do you feel like when you don't get as much as they?<<<
You misunderstand because you have an extremely utilitarian view of this -
in line with most atheists. Are you sure you understand salvation?
Your position is extremely close to a relativist one. May be you need to
take a course in basic _Christian_ moral philosphy.
"Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>@lists.calvin.edu on 18/09/2003
09:16:39 PM
Sent by: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
To: <Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au>, "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
cc:
Subject: RE: Capuchin's show sense of justice/fair play
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au
>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:40 PM
>
>
>As has been pointed out before, these experiments (and these days there
>seems a report like this - supposedly linking human morality/language to
>animal behaviour and vice versa - on a monthly basis) only show what
>animals do in a _post-event_ situation. The behaviour is correlated to
>post-event _results_ only, and is a post-cognitive phenomenon.
I am not sure at all what you mean by this. Please define your terms. Are
you saying that humans have precognition as opposed to animals who have
post-cognition? What is that?
>
>To conclude from an experiment like this that "human's sense of justice is
>inherited and not a social construct" as these people are quick to do, is
>misplaced. The only viable conclusion could be that animal 'morality'
(more
>accurately behaviour) is a results-based one.
On a purely observational basis, I can't prove that you have any sense of
justice at all. All I can do is observe your behavior. There is no
difference between how we infer humans have a sense of justice and how we
determine this for animals. Even language doesn't help us much here. Just
because you say you have a highely developed sense of justice doesn't make
it so. You might be a sociopath, you might be a robot who goes around
proclaiming to all that you have a highly developed sense of justice.
Behavior is all I can use to determine your value system, and you might be
a
robot programmed for the right behavior to fool me.
>
>What these experiments can never do is to show the pre-meditative state of
>animals and this is where humans come in.
Shoot, I don't know if you have a pre-meditative state, whatever the heck
that is. prove to this group you have a pre-meditative state--after you
define your term.
>
>Human beings seek justice for its own sake, not to get better quality
food.
>The sense of justice, real pre-meditative justice, can never evolve.
Oh??? Have you ever compared salaries with your co-workers who are doing
the
same job? what do you feel like when you don't get as much as they?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 20:09:21 EDT