When a man says “this is good in itself,” he seems to be making a statement, just as much as if he had said “this is square” or “this is sweet.” I believe this to be a mistake. I think that what the man really means is: “I wish everybody to desire this,” or rather “Would that everybody desired this.” If what he ways is interpreted as a statement , it is merely an affirmation of his own personal wish; if, on the other hand, it is interpreted in a general way, it states nothing, but merely desires something. The wish, as an occurrence, is personal, but what it desires is universal. It is, I think, this curious interlocking of the particular and the universal which has caused so much confusion in ethics.
The matter may perhaps become clearer by contrasting an ethical sentence with one which makes a statement. If I say “all Chinese are Buddhists,” I can be refuted by the production of a Chinese Christian or Mohammedan. If I say “I believe that all Chinese are Buddhists,” I cannot be refuted by any evidence from China, but only by evidence that I do not believe what I say; for what I am asserting is only something about my own state of mind. If, now, a philosopher says “Beauty is good,” I may interpret him as meaning either “Would that everybody loved the beautiful” (which corresponds to “all Chinese are Buddhists”) or “I wish that everybody loved the beautiful” (which corresponds to “I believe that all Chinese are Buddhists”). The first of these makes no assertion, but expresses a wish; since it affirms nothing, it is logically impossible that there should be evidence for or against it, or for it to possess either truth or falsehood. The second sentence, instead of being merely optative, does make a statement, but it is one about the philosopher’s state of mind, and it could only be refuted by evidence that he does not have the wish that he says he has. This second sentence does not belong to ethics, but to psychology or biography. The first sentence, which does belong to ethics, expresses a desire for something, but asserts nothing.
Ethics, if the above analysis is correct, contains no statements, whether true or false, but consists of desires of a certain general kind, namely such as are concerned with the desires of mankind in general – and of gods, angels, and devils, if they exist. Science can discuss the causes of desires, and the means for realizing them, but it cannot contain any genuinely ethical sentences, because it is concerned with what is true or false.
From Science and Ethics By Bertrand Russell, In Religion and Science (Oxford University Press, 1961)
see http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html
Via a comment and link from Wes George at ‘Ecology and Ethics (Part 1)’
see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003277.html#comments
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Year one ecology textbook, used at universities around the country, circa 1980-96:
“A NATURAL LEGACY, ECOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA” second edition, edited by Harry Recher, Dan Lunney & Irina Dunn (Maxwell Macmillan Publishing Australia)
Page One, Chapter One. The very first sentence of the book (after the foreward, preface) is an inspirational quote:
“Liberation is a powerful word. It is the slogan of oppressed human groups of all sorts. It has been extended to animals by their human defenders.” –Charles Birch and John Cobb (1981)
First line of text in the book: “In rejecting the mechanistic model which dominates Western concepts of life, Charles Birch and John Cobb turned to ecology as a model which views living organisms as inseparably interrelated with their environment…Birch and Cobb apply their model not only to ethical principles, but to problems of economic development and to the limits to growth of the world’s economy.”
John Cobb is Ingraham Professor of Theology at the School of Theology, Claremont California.
Page Two:
“It is easy to be critical of the past, but what is needed is a vision of future environments which are free of pollution and rich in opportunity, environments where liberation is not an unattainable goal.”
And in Conclusion on page 388:
“Not only has Australia yet to develop an environmental ethic, but it has seen a political party previously committed to the phasing out of uranium mining take government and halt or reverse the environmental policies for which it was elected. In such an economic and political climate it is all too easy to surrender individual responsibility and blame government for making the wrong decision. Ultimately, however, it is we who determine who is going to be in government. People as a combined force have a greater strength than as individuals. Collectively they can lobby and effect change…”
So, as a 19-year-old first year ecology student I am told on DAY ONE by a theologian that ecology is a fluffy branch of Liberation Theology which combines evangelical enthusiasm with a civil right movement for animals? By the end of the term I am being instructed how to vote.
I’m confused. I thought ecology was in the Earth Sciences Department.
(BTW, co-author Irina Dunn according to Wiki is most famous for coining the phrase, perhaps informed by her expertise in population ecology, “A woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle” as graffiti on a couple of toilet doors in Sydney.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Dunn
Wes,
I too have become a little suspicious of the ‘ecology’ I was taught, long ago. Ecology was packaged for sale as a ‘rigorous scientific discipline’, yet I noted undercurrents of politics and economics. Philosophy was, in those days, a closed book to me.
As my reading, and field experience have expanded, I have concluded that ecology is not a discipline. It draws on the trivium of human knowledge, namely humanities (philosophy, history, art etc.), social sciences (economics, politics, psychology etc.), and natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology etc.).
The sciences (both kinds) are children of the humanities. They may find out things their parents do not know, but must always return for parental support, guidance, and inspiration.
So Jennifer’s raising of ethics is very relevant to the public understanding of ‘ecology’. So are my occasional ramblings about epistemology.
Do you fancy contributing to a new text book for Australian schools, universities and politicians? Draft title “Ecology Ain’t What Yer Think, Mate”. In a few weeks I will be presenting a seminar along those lines, and I am looking forward to the debate.
Sorry, Luke, no chapter on Fortran required.
More catchy – “Like Ecology Ain’t Watcha Fink”?
Green Davey,
Ethics and ecology start from the historical frugality of existence.
It’s a hard one to sell to kids today.
True oh Spanglo,
But the recent thread on mental disorders suggested that some young people are becoming obsessed with frugality, so maybe the tide is turning.
Send ’em to Brat Camp, and let them starve for a bit, until they learn to snare a rabbit, and cook it over a fire they have made themselves. Now THAT’s ecology.
And how ethically sensitive will starving kids be? About the same as starving people in Ethiopia or Bangladesh, fighting over a loaf of bread?
Do you fancy contributing to a new text book for Australian schools, universities and politicians?
Pollies? The magnum opus textbook for politicians already exists. Simply substitute “Australia” for “Italy.”
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm
I’m not qualified, try as I may, I have yet to coin a single phrase that has been adopted into the common lexicon via pop-sociology or rock n roll. C’est la vie! (trans. Oz; Such is life)
However, I would be honoured to preview your seminar presentation, and perhaps add a few notes for your consideration.
There is only good and bad Fortran Davey. God’s will. (see appropriate nucleotide sequences or not) OK where’s the seminar 🙂
Show me your algorithm not your undies.
Davey,
I was reminded of that every time I didn’t eat me crusts.
But you’re right GD. Economies govern ecologies and more than ever in this coming world of excess population.
Self regulation is still a looong way off.
Ummm, young rabbit on an open fire! I haven’t had tea yet. I’ll bring the bourbon.
As for the science of ecology, it has the potential to become a meta-science. One that, as Edwin Lazlo has said, “specializes in generalization,” and gives us the holistic picture. But first it must be set free from political bias. This may not be attainable in our lifetimes.
Tragically, misguided and simplistically direct moral vanity has set back the science of ecology by generations, and thereby doomed many ecosystems to extinction in pursuit of irrational and irrelevant socio-economic paradigms.
Science has spent the last 230 years constructing pigeonhole disciplines that refuse to talk to, much less acknowledge, each other’s existence. This was an important foundational stage for science, but now the interconnectivity of the disciplines is emerging as the only way forward.
The most interesting element of the past 30 years has been the convergence of disciplines—Ethnobotany, socio-biology, complexity-game theory, biochemistry, and on and on.
We live in an era, unique in the billion-year history of our biosphere, in which a phenotype generated technocultural memory ( science) is on the verge on mastering control over its genotype. We are, therefore, literally among the very last generations of Homo sapiens to walk this planet. What comes next is anyone’s guess, but two things are almost certainly known:
First, climate change is happening at a much slower pace than the exponential rate of technological evolution, thus rendering CC a mote point, whatever happens we will adapt and with us, our ecology.
Second, we are approaching a unique “singularity” where machine calculations per second will eclipse the human mind shortly and continue to grow exponentially from there. Both control of our genome and access to intelligence many billions times greater than we possess today with in the next 50 years renders climatology a relatively quiet backwards of science in the historical scheme.
But it also pushes ecology to the very forefront of the existential debate.
Ecology can be framed as the nonlinear informational exchange between the multifarious functions of the biosphere, i.e. a planetary intelligence. James Lovelock called this Gaia, and (in spite of his theory’s poor reception) it works well as metaphor in an age where each piece of the ecological jigsaw can be modelled as bits of information being processed in a great interdisciplinary mind. Take the informational ecology paradigm to the nth degree, and humanity as a whole forms the cerebral cortex, or consciously aware portion of the biosphere. We are Gaia awakening from a billion plus years of slumber.
We know where we come from. I think we know who we are.
But why? What are we here for? Where are we going? How are we going to do it? When, of course, is now.
Ecology is the great meta-science of the 21-st century, too bad it’s been kidnapped, bashed, and then mugged of its empirical powers by a specific socio-economic agenda. That’s the greatest ecological tragedy of our generation and those responsible will not fair well in the historical narratives future yon.
So tedious ….
Immanuel Kant has already settled the issue of knowledge and ethics. None of this discussion discloses new issues. The Categorical Moral Imperitave has it nailed down completely.
Of course, Thomas Aquinas nailed a good bit of that down before him: God comprehends the universe, and what humans have most in common with divinity is intellect.
If passion were the chiefest virtue of humanity, we’d be best-off as worms and snails. Comprehension and a true love for truth (also called ‘philosophy’ by Greeks and others) is the only thing–for Kant and Aquinas and Aristotle–that nears us closer to the Humanitarian ideal, or closer to what the Divine Architect has established.
The alternative is… well, likely the “deep green” approach, where humans are disposable fauna.
Luke,
You sound like a straight-laced, prune-faced Popperian, with roots further back in Carnap and the Vienna Circle, and even Bertrand Russell, with his symbolic logic.
Try reading Paul Feyerabend, or perhaps Finnegan’s Wake. The twiddley bits entwined in the straight bits, that’s what matters, to be sure now.
Actually, I have noticed you have the capacity for twiddleys – don’t let it wither away through an overdose of fusty Fortran. Take a look at the Book of Kells. If you cannot tear yourself away from computer algorithms, think of Mandelbrot’s Monster.
Then think about ecology, ethics, politics, and – wait for it – climate.
Davey Gam
could you not also have added “Po faced” in your accurate description of his Lukishness?
I do think Po Faced would be very apt, which then gives way to some other appearance when the florid insults explode from his govt. supplied computer keyboard.
Louis,
We must be kind to the poor boy. He is still trying to fit the real world to his Fortran model. That is why I am encouraging him to read more widely, and inquire more into the complexity of things, the mixture of order and chaos which makes the world so interesting. Shhh! I think he is busy on another thread at present. His profane abuse is a sign of some deeper disorder, probably connected with his early childhood. I just watched the movie ‘Monsieur Ibrahim’ for the second time – perhaps Luke needs a Sufi mentor. Do you think Omar Sharif is still available?
Davey,
McKitrick makes a good point about kids and the environment.
http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/RM.AM.pdf
Thanks Spanglo,
It is an excellent point. The vacuous E-word has annoyed me for a long time, as does the B-word (“biodiversity”). It was a pleasure to read some clear thinking. Should we send a copy to all journalists and politicians?
MOPPING UP THE LAST CRUMBS OF AN ANTIQUATED PARADIGM –
CLIMATE NO CHANGE
Who will speak for science when the barbarian is already inside the gate?
Science today, that triumph of humanity over primitive superstition, that monument to the
evolutionary miracle of the human brain, is now being debased by barbarians.
The Church of green warming religions is very big in Christian Europe. Everyday anythings are now blamed on warming and reported uncritically by media. The dumbed-down, trumped-up science is the modern religious medicine used to mesmerise the masses. Institutionalised across the globe, politicians and activists of all persuasions, present their arguments in terms of what ‘the trumped-up science’ is telling them to do. The so called “world’s best thinkers” have grabbed and promoted this moral agenda emphasising sinful behaviour change over technological innovation – purchasing the absolution of carbon offsets for their sins.
Climate environmentalism is a political mission with a religious agenda, offering disciples the delicious prospect of being in the right and running things under the motherhood banner of saving the planet – very attractive to the young and fearful old. Activists demand the high moral ground, with an epitaph chanting “O Mother Earth… pardon me for trampling on you.” Any movement enforcing this degree of moral certitude is a sign of uncertain things to come.
The science of future climate is in its infancy and is multi-disciplinary, no one branch knows the whole story. The truth is – climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable and modellers don’t expect to do well. We are being asked to take irreversible actions today, to produce un-testable postulates for tomorrow, based on computer simulated predictions in excess of 100 years. Very iffy stuff! When the Western world became increasingly pessimistic about Man’s carbon footprint, science was hijacked to decode nature’s message. The more scientists research global climate, the more we learn how much they don’t know. The more alarmists talk, the more we realize they know even less.
We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes. Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables. Fluctuation in the Sun’s intensity is arguably the controlling factor in Earth’s climate. To assume human induced carbon emissions alone will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science. Advocating carbon change will change the way you live, but will not change future climate. It’s a blatant tax on breathing. To accept the mantra of evil carbon is to invite the death of nationalism to dinner.
That’s the thing about history…when you live it, you’re rarely there. Real science is alive and lives in time. It is what it is. Not what it should have been or would have been. It is what it is. So enjoy the journey, because the destination may not be that great. Look at the best educated generation in history… all dressed up with nowhere to go. Superstition is the mantra of the day. Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Science, that once esteemed bastion of knowledge and fertile pillar to truth, has been neutered into the floppy-dick instrument of global politics and vested activists. Not only does the censorship of science render it impotent, it also looses its ability to objectively inform the public, producing an atmosphere of deafness towards insight and freedoms. What is at risk is not the climate but freedom. Today we live in the most censored of times.
Is it not high time we entered a dialogue to awaken an audience to the enveloping clouds of non-news that invade our everyday? “Global warming” is only a vehicle that exemplifies part of the way the system works. It is the insidious procession of the erosion of human rights through the co-verted use of selective censorship, that we should be most interested in. Climate science is in the van-guard of such a procession.
The scientific method is not perfect but it does “sophisticate the superstition” and provides a method upon which to gauge progress and proximity of truth. The funnelling of science to deliver a prescribed outcome happens everywhere everyday. In the past, science has arguably aided well for prescribed beneficial outcomes. But the stakes are sky high and connived in the case of global warming.
The western world is not going to cripple itself to iron-out injustice. The moral or philosophical question here is, does the end justify the means or the start of a slippery slope? The real question is, what will they pick on next using “science” to substantiate their stance?
GLOBAL WARMING – SEX TOYS –
CARBON EMISSIONS TRADING is like scratching your back with a dildo – SOMEHOW it just doesn’t feel right. Blind Freddy can see the sums just don’t add up!
Last month “the world’s best thinkers” at the Copenhagen Consensus reported on a PRIORITISED list of solutions to combat the biggest challenges facing the planet.
Their findings included, research showing that even the most extreme carbon emission reductions would have an undetectable effect on warming.
The truth is… the damage cost of carbon in about $2 per Tonne – not $20 to $50 as reported by media.
SAVE YOUR BILLIONS – direct it to where it will do the most good today rather than tilting at windmills for tomorrow. For example – address malnutrition and malaria cheaply today and save millions from death. The brain dead dilemma is – wasting trillions for naught effect with carbon trading or spend two bob today to iron-in doable good.
Carbon cap and trade is extremely costly and will have negligible effect on future climate.
The net effect of emissions trading will have the worst impacts on the poorest people.
WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IS SMARTER TECHNOLOGY.
WAKE-UP AND BE COUNTED NOW.