Being wrong for the right reasons

In a discussion recently with a fellow atheist, I was asked which of the two following options I would prefer; a world full of rational Christians/Muslims/Jews etc. or a world full of irrational atheists. After a brief moment of thought, I responded that I would prefer the rational religious to the irrational atheists. This perplexed my friend, who said that they would prefer the opposite. They couldn't seem to understand why, given that we are both atheists, would I choose a world where everyone is wrong (from our point of view). My response is the topic of this post.

I place a higher value on the method upon which people reach their conclusion (i.e. reason, logic, evidence etc.) rather than whether the conclusions they reach are correct (or whether they match my own conclusions). This is because, if someone is at least willing to base their views off the same method as mine (or society in general), we can actually have a valid discussion of the issue. A person who rejects reasoned argument and evidence as a source of truth can’t be reasoned with.

This brings us back to the original hypothetical; while the irrational atheists agree with a single conclusion I have drawn, the fact that they use an alternative method for deducing it (say blind faith; accepting a claim as true regardless of the evidence for or against it) means they are more likely to have false views in other areas (politics, science etc.). And being that the theists in this hypothetical are using reason and logic to come to their opinions, they are more likely to have better opinions in these areas. So I would much rather a world where people came to the wrong conclusion on the topic of whether a god exists or not, but were still using the preferable method of coming to other conclusions.

An analogy of what I mean can be found in mathematics classes; from my experience, teachers would give marks on tests if you used the right formulas, but made an error in calculation (and therefore had the wrong answer). Some teachers would even go so far as to not give full marks for a question if working was not shown, even with the right answer. This is pretty much exactly what I mean; it is better to use the right formula, make a mistake in calculation and come to the wrong answer than to use no formula at all and get the answer right by chance.

Intentional Utilitarianism - A New Approach?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with utilitarianism, it is a view of morality that holds that an action is right if it leads to an increase in wellbeing or, conversely, a decrease in suffering (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). Therefore, actions that are immoral are those that lead to a decrease in wellbeing or an increase in suffering. It is part of a much broader category of moral theories described as teleological or consequentialist; moral actions should be judged on their consequences (the other category being the deontological theories; moral actions should be judged by their adherence to rules i.e. the Ten Commandments).

One of the problems I have with utilitarianism (even though I describe myself as such) is that it seems to discount motivations that lead one to their actions. I’ll give an example of a scenario where this becomes an issue;

Scenario 1:

Adam is a 22 year old who, in a fit of rage, intentionally runs over his girlfriend Eve with his car and kills her.

Adam* is a 22 year old who, through a small mistake on his part, runs over his girlfriend Eve* with his car and kills her.

Under utilartarianism, both of these actions are equally immoral; they both lead to the same consequence of Eve being dead. Yet, most of us would agree that there is a difference between the two (that Adam* is not as immoral as Adam). While it might be possible that our moral intuition about this is wrong (and they really are equally immoral), I think this is an case where utilitarianism fails to accurately describe what is moral.

However, I believe there is a simple addendum that can be added to utiltarianism that rectifies this (and many other similar) problems; taking intentions into account. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to have a second set of consequences; the intended consequences. The intended consequences can be compared to the actual consequences to determine the morality of an action. For example, let us assign some values upon which to evaluate this previous scenario;

Eve/Eve*’s death = -1,000

Therefore;

Adam’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve’s death)
Adam’s intended consequences = -1,000 (he intended to cause Eve’s death)
Adam’s average consequences = (-1,000 + -1000)/2 = -1,000

Adam*’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve*’s death)
Adam*’s intended consequences = 0 (he intended no harm)
Adam*’s average consequences = (-1,000 + 0)/2 = -500

Therefore, we can say that Adam’s actions are more immoral than Adam*’s actions. It should be noted that while the numbers are just arbitarily assigned, the underlying principle still holds; if the intended consequences are moral or neutral, it lessens the immorality of the actual consequence. I’ll also now provide a example in the positive to show that it works both ways;

Scenario 2:

Gill Bates gives a billion dollars to charity to help those in need and gets a tax break unintentionally.

Gill Bates* gives a billion dollars to charity to for the expressed purpose of getting a tax break.

Again, conventional utiliartarianism would say both Gill Bates and Gill Bates* are equally moral; in both cases the charity gets a billion dollars and they both get a tax break. Yet, most of us would say that Gill Bates is more moral. The solution, again, is to take their intentions into consideration;

Giving a billion dollars tocharity = +500
A billionaire getting a tax break = -50 (that extra money he saved could have been better spent by the government/it is unlikely to increase his own well being).

Therefore;

Gill Bates’s actual consequences = +500 (he gave a billion dollars to charity) and -50 (he got a tax break) = +450
Gill Bates’s intended consequences = +500 (he intended to help those in need)
Gill Bates’s average consequences = (+450 + +500)/2 = +475

Gill Bates*’s actual consequences = +500 (he gave a billion dollars to charity) and -50 (he got a tax break) = +450
Gill Bates*’s intended consequences = -50 (he only intended to get the tax break)
Gill Bates*’s average consequences = (+450 + -50)/2 = +200

Again, it is not so much that the numbers I have used accurately reflect the proportional differences in the consequences, just that the underlying principle holds; intended consequences have some bearing on the morality of an action.

It should be noted that this is just a rough outline of my idea. I can see many potential problems that need to be sorted out. An example being is that, in my scenarios, I assumed that actual and intended consequences are equally important (i.e. 50:50). In my opinion, it would be closer to 75:25 (in that, actual consequences are more relevent in determining morality than intended consequences). Another example is that intentions have to be conveyed by the person and, therefore, a person could lie about their intentions to seem more moral than they are (i.e. Gill Bates* could lie and say that he was really doing it for charity, when his true intentions are simply for the tax break).

So that is my idea; feel free to rip it to shreds if you see any problems or offer any advice on improving it.

UPDATED (10/01/2010)

A fellow medical student (thanks Ben) has suggested to me a possible addition to this take on utilitarianism; taking potential consequences into account. This is most applicible to actions that do not always have consequences, such as driving while under the influence. I will again go through a scenario to demonstrate the two competing ideas (utilitarianism vs. Intentional utilitarianism);

Scenario 3:

Clyde drives his car sober, not causing any accidents.

Clyde* drives his car intoxicated, not causing any accidents.

Once more, utilitarianism would have us believe that these two actions are morally equivilant; they both do not cause any suffering. Yet, we would all recognise that driving while intoxicated is clearly immoral. This can be rectified by taking potential consequences into account;

Potential consequences of driving while intoxicated = -500
Potential consequences while driving sober = -10

Therefore;

Clyde’s actual consequences = 0 (he didn’t cause any suffering)
Clyde’s potential consequences = -10 (he drove while sober)
Clyde’s average consequences = (0 + -10)/2 = -5

Clyde*’s actual consequences = 0 (he didn’t cause any suffering)
Clyde*’s potential consequences = -1000 (he drove while intoxicated)
Clyde*’s average consequences = (0 + -500)/2 = -250

One might ask why I am giving a negative value to driving while sober; the reason is that even a perfectly lucid individual who follows the road rules to the letter could still be involved in an accident (i.e. a child running out in front of their car with little warning). Therefore, one accepts a certain level of potential consequences when one gets behind the wheel of a vehicle.

It should also be noted that the relationship between the potential consequences of driving sober and intoxicated is proportional; I am assuming that driving intoxicated increases one’s potential of causing suffering by a factor of a fifty. If, in reality, it only increases it by a factor of twenty, then the average would change accordingly.

A further point to take in is how I am defining the terms;

Potential consequences – The predicted consequences before an action is taken. For example, Russian Roulette with a six shooter, with death being a value of -1000, would have a potential consequences value of -166.66 (-1000/6).

Intended consequences – The hypothetical consequences if an action goes exactly as one intends (i.e. a perfect execution of the action).

It is possible to combine all three sets of consequences; actual, intended and potential. Also, to give a more accurate representation of the completed theory (which is long way off, assuming no one can point out any critical issues as it builds), I will proportion the consequences in a 3:2:1 ratio (i.e. actual consequences are 3, potential consequences are 2, and intended consequences are 1) To demonstrate an example of this, I will revise the intitial scenario;

Scenario 1 (revised):

Adam is a 22 year old who, in a fit of rage, intentionally runs over his girlfriend Eve with his car and kills her.

Adam* is a 22 year old who, through a small mistake on his part, runs over his girlfriend Eve* with his car and kills her.

Eve/Eve*’s death = -1,000
Potential consequences of intending to cause Eve/Eve*’s death = -950
Potential consequences of driving with no impairments = -10

Therefore;

Adam’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve’s death)
Adam’s potential consequences = -950 (he intended to cause Eve’s death)
Adam’s intended consequences = -1,000 (he intended to cause Eve’s death)
Adam’s average consequences = ((-1,000 * 3) + (-950 * 2) + (-1000 * 1))/6 = -983.33

Adam*’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve*’s death)
Adam*’s potential consequences = -10 (he was driving with no impairments)
Adam*’s intended consequences = 0 (he intended no harm)
Adam*’s average consequences = ((-1,000 * 3) + (-10 *2) + (0 * 1))/2 = -503.33

The reason I do not have the potential consequences of intending to cause Eve/Eve*’s death as the same as actually causing her death is that it is possible to fail; one could attempt to kill someone but not, therefore, due to that possibility, it is valued slightly less negatively.

Again, any criticism will be greatly appreciated.

UPDATED (13/01/2010)

It has been pointed out by Dylan that what I really mean by potential consequences is better described as a ‘recklessness index’; a measure of the risk assoicated with a particlar action leading to a particular outcome. I am choosing, however, to call it a ‘Risk Index’, as I believe this can be equally applied to both positive actions (like donating to charity) and negative actions (such as drink driving).

The Risk Index (RI) is based on another suggestion made by Dylan; Best Available Evidence (BAE). The BAE is the information an actor has available to them on how likely different outcomes are based on their actions prior to performing them (i.e. foresight). In my new equation (see below), I will express it as a percentage. So, to summarize;

The Risk Index (RI) is the percentage chance that an action will lead to an outcome based upon the actor’s Best Available Evidence (BAE). RI is not exactly the same as BAE; RI is what a normal, rational individual would judge to be the probability based on the BAE. This seperates the possibility of a person who has the available evidence to accurately determine the RI, yet does not due to a fault on their part that a normal, rational individual would not make (i.e. not understanding the evidence well enough).

Example: a person is aware that drink driving increases the risk of crashing by twenty times, yet believes the risk of them crashing is lower because they think they are a better than average driver. The RI this person would calculate for themselves drink driving is therefore wrong as the twenty times increase figure is based upon all other things being equal (i.e. any driver that is drunk is 20 times as likely to crash than if he was sober).

Also, upon review of the values I calculated in Scenario 1 and Scenario 1 (revised), I feel that the average consequences between the two individuals (Adam and Adam*) is too close, given their vast differences in moral responsiblity (intending to kill versus a simple mistake). As such, I am altering my equation to be as follows;

Consequences attributable to actor = ((2 * AC) + (1 * IC))/3 * RI

Where;

AC = Actual consequences
IC = Intended consequences
RI = Risk Index

Rather than revise the previous scenario, I will begin with two new examples, one negative and one positive;

Scenario 4:

John intentionally punches Jim in the face.
John*, due to waving his arms about, unintentionally punches Jim* in the face.

Where;

Jim/Jim* being punched in the face = -50
RI of attempting to punch someone = 95% (in this case, I am assuming that John has attempted his punch while Jim was not looking; therefore, if the scenario was different and John was aware that Jim were expecting the punch, the RI would be lower)
RI of waving arms about = 6%

Therefore;

John’s AC = -50 (he punched Jim in the face)
John’s IC = -50 (he intended to punch Jim in the face)
John’s RI = 95% (he attempted to punch Jim in the face)
Consequences attributable to John = ((2 * -50) + (1* -50))/3 * 95% = -47.5

John*’s AC = -50 (he punched Jim in the face)
John*’s IC = 0 (he didn’t intend to punch Jim in the face)
John*s RI = 6% (he was waving his arms)
Consequences attributable to John* = ((2 * -50) + (1 * 0))/3 * 6% = -2

And now for the positive example (negatives are so much simpler);

Scenario 5:

Jane gives $1000 to a well-established charity organisation, and the money is put to good use.
Jane* gives $1000 to a newly created charity organisation, and the money is put to good use.

NOTE: the two charity organisations share the exact same goal; therefore the only variable between them is the experience that each one of them has.

Where;

The charity effectively using the $1000 = +100
RI of giving to a reputable charity = 98% (in that, there is a small possibility that the money will be wasted)
RI of giving to a newly founded charity = 75% (there is a greater chance that this charity may be ineffective, as it has yet to demonstrate it is reliable)

Therefore;

Jane’s AC = +100 (her money was effectively used by the charity)
Jane’s IC = +100 (she intended her money to be used effectively)
RI = 98% (it is a reputable charity)
Consquences attributable to Jane = ((2 * +100) + (1* +100))/3 * 98% = 98

Jane*’s AC = +100 (her money was effectively used by the charity)
Jane*’s IC = +100 (she intended her money to be used effectively)
RI = 75% (it is new charity)
Consquences attributable to Jane* = ((2 * +100) + (1* +100))/3 * 75% = 75

The reasoning behind this is that, even though the money was effectively used by both charities, there was a greater risk in wasted money by donating to the new charity. This does not imply that donating to new charities is in any way immoral (it still has a positive figure), just that, given the potential risk associated with giving money to the new charity, it is slightly more moral to give it to the well established charity. This of course becomes null and void when the choice is between a new charity (75) and no charity at all (0).

I know I should like a broken record now but comment, criticise and otherwise make me your bitch (intellectually speaking, of course).

References:

THIROUX, J. & KRASEMANN, K. 2009. Ethics: Theory and Practise, Pearson International Education.

An Apology and an Update

It appears that I have fallen behind when it comes to maintaining this blog. This is not for lack of interest, mind you; I don’t like writing unless I am sure that what I am writing is worth reading (to someone at least) and have not been feeling that spark that I usually do. Fortunately, it appears to have returned, so I figured the first place to start is to review all the books I have read since my last review (which is a lot, so they will be short and to the point).

I have also created a ‘Top Ten Book' list and will update it when need be. This will save me from having to rank each new book I review in the review itself, thus allowing me to talk more about the book itself.

Also added is my 'Websites Worth Visiting' list; this is most comprised of blogs that I often read and find the topics discussed to be of a high intellectual standard. I shall add to it as I come across more sites worth visiting.

You may also notice that I have changed the format/design of my blog. Hope you don't mind the change.

Book Review - ‘You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think’ by Ray Comfort

This book stands out from others that I have read in that it is one that I purchased expressly knowing it had a premise that I disagreed with. If anyone is familiar with Comfort, they might accuse me of intentionally picking someone who has a weak counter-position to my own. This may be true, but I first wish to acclimate myself with the ‘every man’s’ argument for Christianity. To me, this should be the one worth listening to, especially if Christianity is meant to be a belief system for everyone, not just high-end theologians with weird esoteric views of what God is and wants.

Unfortunately, Comfort is more ‘preaching to the converted’. Many of his arguments require that you accept certain premises which he fails to prove or give valid reasons of why we might consider them. Another important point is that many of his analogies are painfully flawed. Not in the sense that the analogy doesn’t hold true when viewed in high detail (as all analogies break down when viewed under a microscope), but they often don’t even hold true on the most basic level. One of his favourite is the ‘creation is proof a creator’ argument, in which he uses the example of a painting; if you see a painting, you know there must be a painter because paintings don’t just create themselves. He then attempts to link this up to humans/the Earth/the universe; because these things exist, they must have a creator i.e. God. The problem is two-fold; firstly, we have no evidence of a natural process that can create a painting, but we have some evidence of natural processes that can create humans (evolution) and planets (stellar formation). The second problem is that he is jumping to his preconceived conclusion. The best we could say is that the universe had a cause, not that it had a creator. Using the term cause doesn’t rule out creator; it is just more inclusive of natural possibilities which we have yet to discover. Comfort instantly jumps from ‘cause’ to ‘Christian God’ (arguably because he was already at that point).

So, would I recommend this book to others? In a roundabout way, yes I would. Not because it contains any points of intellectual value (though it is a good mental exercise to see if you can see how he is wrong), but simply because it is an insight into how fundamentalists view the world.

1.5/10

Another Your Say Letter... This time about gay marriage!

If anyone can grab a hold of the 3rd of December, 2010 copy of the Geelong Advertiser, they can read the letter to which mine is responding to (entitled 'Same-sex marriage against beliefs'). For those of you that can't, the general tone of the letter is a 'the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I believe the Bible, therefore I win' type argument. This I couldn't let slide. Here is my response:

"In responding to Dennis Irvine’s letter regarding gay marriage (3/12), it is hard to believe that a person could be so disconnected from the facts.

Firstly, a literal reading of the Biblical account of creation (i.e. Adam and Eve) has been disproven by science. The evidence shows that humans evolved from, and still are, animals.

This does not disprove God, of course. It merely disproves that the Bible has an accurate portrayal of the origins of humanity.

The second point worth mentioning would be that it appears that Mr. Irvine is being selective in what he takes from the Bible.

In the same book that prohibits homosexual interactions, it also prohibits trimming the sides of one’s beard.

I doubt Mr. Irvine would write such an impassioned objection to the ‘immorality of beard trimming’.

The more relevant correction would be that there is no evidence that raising children in a same-sex environment is detrimental to their development.

It appears that the more important factor is whether children are raised in a loving environment, regardless of the gender of the parents.

Finally, it should be noted also that our society is a secular one. As such, our laws must have a reason that is not specific to religion. The justification must be relevant to all individuals, be they religious or non-religious.

Secularity is the only way in which a society that is comprised of religious and non-religious individuals can interact without the oppression of one group or the other.

Therefore, if you wish to argue that the law should not recognize gay marriage, a secular justification needs to be provided, not one based on personal religious beliefs."

As always, if I get a response, I will post more details.

Movie Review - Deliver Us From Evil

I recently watched the documentary 'Deliver Us From Evil'. Information about the movie can be found here and here, but it tells the story of both Oliver O'Grady, a Catholic priest convicted for molesting children, and several of his victims. What first drew my attention to this movie was the fact that O'Grady is actually featured in the movie, giving his own memories, thoughts and feelings on his crimes. To sum up my overall thoughts, I consider this to be one of the most powerful documentary I have seen. Others seem to agree, as it has won several awards, though it narrowly missed out on the Oscar for Best Documentary, losing to An Inconvenient Truth. While I did enjoy Gore's movie, I don't think it is anywhere near as good as Deliver Us From Evil. But I digress; on with the review.

NOTE: If you have not seen the film, I would recommend you stop reading now and go watch it. My review will spoil some of the aspects that, in my opinion, make it so hard-hitting.

Rather than detail the content of the film (as you should all have gone and seen it before reading this section), I want to touch on what I thought was the aspect that gave it that extra something.

For me, it was the editing that made it magnificent. Throughout the first half of the movie, while not ever denying that he committed the crimes that he did, the movie does take a 'soft' approach to it; the words used to describe his actions are along the lines of 'touch', 'rub' and 'play with'. Not only that, O'Grady often expresses how shameful he felt after each act and how he swore to himself he would never do it again. These two aspects combine to make you a feel almost sympathetic towards him; rather than portraying him as a predatory monster, he is at first painted as a flawed, sick human being.

This portrait is shattered midway through the movie however. The language used in describing his acts dramatically changes, detailing how brutal they actually were. O'Grady even seems to become less ashamed of what he has done. And that is what I thought made it so powerful; the movie tricks you into feeling sympathy for him, then WHAM!, he is revealed for the monster he is really is. This made me feel terribly bad. How could I have ever been sympathetic to such a horrible human? It made me feel bad enough that I was crying significantly when Bob Jyono broke down. Then it dawned on me; that must be similar to what his victim's families felt. They let what they thought was a nice priest into their lives, only to have him molest and rape their children.

So that is my take of the movie. If you agree or disagree with my interpretation, let me know.

UPDATE: It seems O'Grady is in trouble again.

My Moral Framework

I recently completed an assignment on my values and moral framework. As I scored fairly well (23 out of 25) and that ethics and morals are a subject that interest me, I decided to share my essay with you. Would enjoy any feedback, positive or negative.

"1. Introduction

An ethics and moral framework is an important component of any worldview. It enables us to make choices on how we should act and how we should interact with others (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). As there are many frameworks in the world, choosing one requires exploration of what each individual values and then a comparison to find a framework that incorporates those values.

2. Personal Values

The following are the values that I have identified as being of importance to myself. I hold each of them in the same regard.

2.1 Truth

Truth is a fairly expansive value. I am applying ‘truth’ to cover all types of truth; be they personal, historical, scientific or any other kind. The main reason for valuing this is that I believe that to determine the best course of action in a specific situation or the best way to live in general, an individual needs as much true information and as little false information as possible. This is demonstrated in Appendix 1; if you have incorrect information, you are more likely to draw incorrect conclusions. I have discussed this issue in regards to creationism (Appendix 2). As stated, I believe that denying evolution and promoting creationism in its place is spreading misinformation, thus promoting people to draw conclusions on other issues that could possibly be incorrect.

2.2 Equality

The equality I speak of is slightly different from the normal concept of equality; that all men (or people) are created equal. I do hold that everyone should be treated equally. However, there are differences, often subtle, between men and women, between people of different ethnicities and between people of different cultures and countries. The equality that I value is that an individual is judged as an individual, not by the various groupings they belong to. For example, women on average have lower physical strength than men (Martini, 2006). If a woman is applying for a job that requires physical strength, she should not be judged by her gender’s average physical strength, but by her own personal strength.

2.3 Liberty

Liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act occurring to their own will (Carrier, 2005). Before including it as a value of my own, I would add a qualifier; provided their actions do not infringe on the liberty of others. Preventing an individual from infringing on the liberty of another (i.e. stopping a person from killing another) is an action I would say is permissible, as the killer is violating the liberty of the victim in the first place. An example of my value is my position on drug legalisation and use (Appendix 3). My opinion on this issue is that anyone should be allowed to consume any substance, provided they do not interfere with others while under the influence. For example, a person who drinks alcohol yet does not harm anyone while intoxicated should be allowed to continue drinking. The simple potential of alcohol contributing to violence in some individuals is not sufficient to disallow others from using it.

2.4 Altruism

Defined in the ethical sense, altruism is the idea that individuals should take actions that help, benefit or otherwise improve the lives of others, possibly even with detriment to one’s own life (Carrier, 2005). Altruism can be derived into two categories; reciprocal altruism and true altruism (Appendix 4). The reason I put forward that altruism is a value worth having is that the significant majority of humans want to both live and to avoid suffering (Appendix 5). Following from these observations, it could be concluded that if everyone wants to avoid suffering, it should be in our best interest to work together and consider the suffering of others as equally as our own. Example being that if you are in a well-off position in life, considering others who are not as well off and trying to help them is something you should strive to do.

3. Framework

The following is the framework that I found to fit best with my values. It should be noted that, as the framework was not constructed by me, it is not a perfect fit.

3.1 Secular Humanism

Defined simply, is a worldview that places value on the progress and betterment of human life, without having to lean on supernatural ideas (Carrier, 2005). While having specific tenets (Appendix 6), these are not rigid rules that cannot be changed but more a guide on how to live. As to what Secular Humanism is in terms of morality, I personally see it as a combinational approach between utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Why I considered Secular Humanism to be the best fit with my values is as follows.

Truth is perhaps the most obviously compatible with Secular Humanism. Points one, two and four of Appendix 6 all demonstrate a commitment to search for truth and to always demand factual support for claims. Equality seems to conform with points five and seven; treating people equally and by their individual abilities would help to reduce inequality and the suffering caused by it. Point six seems to espouse liberty; that individuals have autonomy over their actions by making them responsible for them. Finally, altruism is demonstrated in points two, three, five and seven as they ask us to take into account the well-being of the entire human race, rather than just ourselves.

The final critical point of why secular humanism is my framework rather than simply humanism is that secularism is what works best for everyone (Appendix 7). As stated, secularism prevents a religious majority from imposing their will, good or bad, on a minority who do not share their religious convictions. It does not suggest that people should not have religious beliefs, just that their beliefs are personal in nature and do not apply to everyone.

4. Conclusion

While more being a guide than a perfectly constructed moral and ethic system, secular humanism still has a lot to offer humanity. It should be noted, however, that secular humanism does not require everyone to follow its rules; just to respect the opinions of others.
 
6. Appendix

Appendix 1

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: 4.1 Earthquake in China.

“We make the best decisions we can with the limited amount of information and brain power we have at our disposal. Sometimes it turns out good (as it did in this scenario), sometimes it turns out bad.

The only way we can make sure that our decisions go in our favour is by making sure we have as much good information and as little bad information as possible.”

Appendix 2

Taken from ‘Creationism and the spreading of misinformation’ (Bishop, 2010a).

“So on one side of the coin, we have experts saying that evolution is correct. On the other side, we have ‘experts’ saying that evolution is incorrect. How is your average individual, with very little understand of how science actually works, going to be able to tell the difference between the two? From the laymen perspective, it could seem like scientists are ‘divided’ on the issue of whether evolution is right or wrong (more accurately, indicated by the evidence or not). This is possible the main reason I choose to speak out against creationism/other pseudoscientific claims whenever I get the chance; it spreads misinformation among the general population. And being most people have very little time/interest in going to check if a claim is true (assuming they would even know where to start), a fair number of individuals will accept what these groups say as truth.

Being ignorant of a subject is bad enough, but lying to disprove it is infinitely worse.”

Appendix 3

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Drug Legalisation in Australia

“An individual is responsible for his or her own actions, even if their actions are being influenced by other factors, in or out of their control. (example being mentally ill; even though they may not be in direct control of their actions, we still lock them up if they harm others).
Following from this premise, one can draw the conclusion that ingesting any substance is permissible, so long as the individual accepts responsibility for the actions they take while under the influence.

Example being the difference between happy and angry drunks; if you know you get angry when under the thrall of alcohol, you should not drink.”
 
Appendix 4

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Virtue Ethics

“Well, I would divide altruism into two types; reciprocal altruism and true altruism. Reciprocal altruism is helping others so that they may help you at some point. True altruism would be helping others at a detriment to yourself that may never be paid back (or with no intents for it to be paid back).”

Appendix 5

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Earthquake in China

“1. Everyone wants to live.
2. Everyone wants to avoid suffering.

I perfectly understand that neither of those are entirely universal (though near enough). Also, premise 1 overrides premise 2 (i.e. ending someone’s life to prevent their suffering is not okay, unless of course they want to have their life ended).

Yes, those two premises are my opinion. But others opinions would overrule them if I had to deal with those people (i.e. if I was in a disaster situation like the one described and someone said 'I'm in too much pain. Just leave me to die', I would consider respecting their wishes). They are just general rules I go by until presented with exceptions.”

Appendix 6

Taken from ‘What is Secular Humanism?’ (Stevens et al., 2010)

“Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

• A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.”

Appendix 7

Taken from ‘A Response… But No Apology’ (Bishop, 2010b)

“Our government is secular, as stated in Section 116 of the Constitution:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

This part of the constitution is incredibly important; it is what keeps the religion that is held by the majority (Christianity in Australia) from imposing its will on the minority (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists etc.). Statistically speaking, the amount of representatives in the government would more or less reflect the averages of the population; we have a majority of politicians being Christian. If it were not for this law, there would be nothing stopping them from passing laws that restrict other religions and promote Christianity. The same goes the other way of course. In Japan, where around 65% of the population is non-religious, they are prevented from passing laws that restrict those who are religions by Article 20 of their Constitution:

“(1) Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all.
(2) No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.
(3) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.
(4) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.”
This is the fairest system one can have in place, as it prevents any majority, be it religious or atheist, from imposing their views on the minority. This a major problem with any dictatorship, be it an atheist or religious one.” 

7. Bibliography

BISHOP, J. R. 2010a. Creationism and the spreading of misinformation. Lord Bishington's Thoughts [Online]. Available from: http://lordbishington.blogspot.com/2010/03/creationism-and-spreading-of.html [Accessed 21/04/2010].

BISHOP, J. R. 2010b. A Response... But No Apology. Lord Bishington's Thoughts [Online]. Available from: http://lordbishington.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-but-no-apology.html [Accessed 21/04/2010].

CARRIER, R. 2005. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism, Bloomington, Indiana, AuthorHouse.

MARTINI, F. H. 2006. Fundamentals of Anatomy & Physiology, USA, Benjamin Cummings.

STEVENS, F., TABASH, E., HILL, T., SIKES, M. E. & FLYNN, T. 2010. What Is Secular Humanism? [Online]. Council for Secular Humanism. Available: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what [Accessed 24/04/2010].

THIROUX, J. & KRASEMANN, K. 2009. Ethics: Theory and Practise, Pearson International Education."