A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments

siLLy puPPy wrote: The word "liberal" has been so widely defined with varied nuances as to be completely meaningless in the modern day. I don't really agree with everything on your list. Just one small example: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. Sounds like a commandment for left brain imbalance and passivity. While skepticism is essential for a careful analysis of anything, evidence can lead to conclusive results. Are you not certain that gravity exists? Are you not certain when someone who rapes and murders children is evil? There are indeed certainties in this world and so called axioms like this are created to pacify intellects into non-action.

I am reasonably certain, but not with absolutely certainty of course, that I am not certain about anything. I think I think, therefore I think I think I am, I think? This is true when it comes to physics and metaphysics for me; for ethical and scientific thinking.

That said, with those two examples, I strongly believe that neither of those are conclusive. With gravity, as I said on page one, science deals in evidence, not proof. It is still commonly called the theory of gravity and certainly the ideas of how gravity works have changed in physics (ideas such a as gravitons in quantum physics). That no one has been able to disprove that gravity exists (science works with falsifiability) does not mean for certain that it does exist. Gravity may be extremely probable, but that doesn't make it certain. One doesn't have to go far as to say that we may be totally misunderstanding and observing the universe a la we are in some kind of a Matrix or a brain in vat to go down that route.

While I would describe rape and murder as evil, and the very idea of raping and murdering children fills me with fear and disgust, I could not say with certainty that the perpetrator is evil (in fact, I would resist such statements). Rather like with liberalism, it depends on the approach to what constitutes evil. First of all, I would describe myself as a hard determinist (again, I'm not absolutely certain of determinism).   I don't think we have free will in a a true sense, or heredity and environment force or decisions, and causal chains force action. Now this can lead to passivity, but I have a more compatibilist of approaching agency which I won't delve into (I did write papers on it). There are psychological and physiological reasons why someone would do such a thing. Often it's the result of past trauma, the psychopath's brain seems different (there have been many MRI studies on this) in at least one case it was found that someone who became murderous had developed a brain tumour that caused behavioral differences. We don't fully understand consciousness. To me the idea of someone being evil implies that that person is fully responsible and to be blamed for their actions, and people are complex (a person who has done even the most heinous of acts may contain both the capacity for good and evil, and have done both good and evil acts).

I do not believe that one needs certainty, either moral or scientific, to take a very active approach. We can operate according to sets of assumptions. We act as if gravity exists (whatever the ultimate cause of the effect) and we take actions when it comes o the murderer to protect society. I'm comfortable enough feeling reasonably certain of things and holding assumptions that may be false. That understanding need not lead to apathy.

I hold the idea that a world with the greatest amount of happiness and the least harm and misery for people is better than the opposite, and that it is generally morally better to try to bring happiness than sorrow to others. It is enough that I feel quite certain of that.

Edited by Logan - February 12 2019 at 08:23

I act as if it exists and assume it to exist -- I have confidence that it exists, but am open to the possibility that it does not, no matter how unlikely that seems to me. Our existence may be very different to what we perceive even if extremely improbable.

^ and yes i do believe there are higher beings that exist in dimensions above us that can supersede our limitations but i'm talking about the systems we experience ourselves as mere mortals. And if you are trying to get into the Matrix sort of thing where everything is just a cosmic computer program where any laws can be changed by an insert of a cosmic algorhythm then i can hang with that. Theoretical hypothesis and speculation is quite fascinating but doesn't negate natural laws in the plane of reality where we currently exist.

^ good luck with all that! Belieiving gravity is real isn't science. It's about experience. Just like burning your hand on a hot stove. I will never assume that i won't injure myself on a hot stove under any circumstances. Not everything is a theory. I do agree that much science is represented as truth when in fact it is theory but there are certain things that are. I understand where you're coming from because i used to be that way myself. Certain spiritual disciplines have given more insight into the tangible nature of certain universal principles. Like i said, it's a left / brain imbalance that kept me in this state. Interesting topic! I'm all about philosphy and existential quandaries of life :)

Logan wrote: By the way, my non-absolutist perspective is very different to "those religious nuts who believe poisonous snakes won't bite them when they dance with them because they pray to Jesus and then end up dead" in that I would not take such things on faith. They are believers whereas I don't believe in anything with absolute certainty. My assumptions would not lead me into such situations.

siLLy puPPy wrote: Logan wrote: By the way, my non-absolutist perspective is very different to "those religious nuts who believe poisonous snakes won't bite them when they dance with them because they pray to Jesus and then end up dead" in that I would not take such things on faith. They are believers whereas I don't believe in anything with absolute certainty. My assumptions would not lead me into such situations. NOT believing in anything, just like atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. I have had this argument with a friend for years who refused to believe in the possibilities. However religious believers and not believing in anything have more in common than is readily apparent. Different shades of gray. You are more grounded in reality but you'd be surprise that despite your words, you really do believe in certain things.

I wouldn't be surprised. I believe in a great many things, including gravity, but I see that as different as in being absolutely certain of things (partially this is a question of semantics). I guess it depends on what you mean by fundamentalism (we all have fundamental beliefs and assumptions, I think). For the general audience, there is a spectrum in atheism, it means without theism for those that don't know. I am a soft atheist (otherwise known as agnostic atheism). I don't claim that there is or isn't a God, hard atheists claim that there is no God, which seems closer to the orthodox religious mindset to me in that there is a belief system which makes claims (claims that I don't think can be adequately answered). I think we all have plenty in common in different ways and we all operate using sets of assumptions. I act as if things are true and false even if when thinking about it I think that it is not necessarily 100 percent true or false. I was branded a nihilist when young by a friend, but I would reject such a claim.

Edited by Logan - February 12 2019 at 09:43

 

With regards to the example of gravity, the doubt is there for the attempts to describe gravity as an amalgamation of other existing forces, meaning that the theory of gravity would almost always be true as it stands today, but only because it has come so close to a more accurate account for what causes things to attract to mass. And then there is the more wacko theories of the earth moving upwards (or perhas outward for non-flat-earthers, but it's mostly flat-earthers promoting this theory), which with some theoretical hassle (a lot, actually) might also be the basis of a plausible alternative theory... None of this requires you doubt the fact that you can fall of a ledge if you tried, but it is the stuff that motivates theoretical science to keep developing.

Edited by twseel - February 12 2019 at 11:17

siLLy puPPy: Regarding gravity I probably believe the same as you do, so why would I come up with a counterexample?  However, that I won't hasn't any implication on whether or not certainty is absolute, which was your case (mine is that for acting in life the absoluteness case is irrelevant).  

Closer to home. Is it not a certainty and absolute that symphonic prog is a subgenre on this site?

When is it never the absolute case that 1 plus 1 doesn't equal 2?

Why is their certainty and absolutism? Because mathematics proves it to be so.

I think that the axioms could've been worded better.

When it comes to human values, behaviors and philosophies I think that it does apply.