Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader and his good friends, The Smallholder and the Minister of Propaganda, got to talking about athesim, faith, culture, and reason during our all to short visit two weeks ago. The conversation we had is one that has still been floating in and out of your Maximum Leader’s mind when he has had free time for contemplation. In our conversation the Smallholder and Minister of Propaganda were both espousing ethics and social behavior as governed by reason. Your Maximum Leader objected saying that faith and tradition and custom have an important role to play.

The Smallholder and Minister of Propaganda asserted that while tradition and custom have a role to play - reason should trump custom and tradition. Smallholder pulled out the faith-based/traditional bias against homosexuals and homosexual marriage as a case where reason would show that our society’s behavior in this area is unacceptable. Your Maximum Leader changed the context of the debate somewhat by saying that the problem of reason alone is that reasoned arguments rely on the acceptance of premises. Once you accept a broad premise, it is possible to reason away some pretty awful stuff. Then your Maximum Leader brought up the case of the Downs Syndrome baby. Can one construct a reasoned case whereby the aborting of a child with Downs Syndrome is acceptable? The conversation started to get interesting when the Smallholder and Minister of Propaganda started to disagree with each other based on the assumption of certain premises.

It was getting very interesting when we three were suddenly interrupted by the more pressing issue of what beers to purchase for ourselves to consume. Alas, we didn’t get back to ethics again… (But the beers were quite good!)

In a moment of strange serindipty, an interesting piece appeared in a recent Washington Post. The piece by Michael Gerson is called “What Atheists Can’t Answer.” Allow your Maximum Leader to cite the major thrust of Gerson’s piece:

If God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every culture, human beings can be good without God. And [Christopher] Hitchens is himself part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for sympathy and cooperative purpose.

But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: “Obey your evolutionary instincts” because those instincts are conflicted. “Respect your brain chemistry” or “follow your mental wiring” don’t seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: “To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I’m going to do whatever I please.” C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”

Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests — a fear of bad consequences — will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.

In his essay, Gerson seems to point to one of your Maximum Leader’s all-time favourite arguments against a purely rational basis for ethics. Namely, human selfishness and self interest. The Hobbesian in him smiles widely whenever we have to confront our basic animal nature — and are shocked by what we see.

Of course, your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe that tradition/custom/faith is the end-all/be-all of ethics and morality. But he does rely upon it rather more than would the Smallholder or the Minister of Propaganda. Your Maximum Leader, whenever the discussion turns to a purely rational basis for ethics, is always reminded of the passage from Burke that can be paraphrased by stating that logical arguments are all fine and good until you disagree with the outcome of the argument. (NB: Your Maximum Leader wishes he could find the passage to cite, but he can’t. If you are familiar with Burke’s Reflections and can give the citation, your Maximum Leader will insert it.)

Your Maximum Leader should, by way of fairness, point out that Christopher Hitchens reponds to Gerson’s peice with his own. It is, like all Hitchen’s peices, a good read. You can find it here.

In an odd way, this discussion also lends itself to the discussion that our dear friend the Big Hominid is having about the nature of “God’s plan.” Certainly human suffering is a great argument against a benevolent Diety or divine plan. Some of the same underlying issues are also brought to bear on the nature of ethics and behavior.

Food for thought, and perhaps a more detailed posting…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will make a confession. In front of you all he will admit that he hasn’t read his loyal minion Bill’s web site in about a week. He could make all sorts of excuses for this, but there aren’t any really. Normally he reads the blogs of all his “Loyal Minions” daily… Sorry Bill…

That apology said, your Maximum Leader did want to nitpick on something Bill wrote just recently. Bill wrote a thoughtful and lengthly exposition on suicide recently. There is a lot there to comment upon. Especially since your Maximum Leader disagrees with a number of Bill’s conclusions. But your Maximum Leader will focus on one part of Bill’s essay in this post.

Bill writes:

The logic is “Thou shalt not kill” and if one kills oneself, it is sinful. But this is a very absolute proscription. It requires that a person in agony beyond any normal comprehension [it does exist, I’ve been there, bk] with no hope of alleviation must continue to suffer until they die without outside intervention. To take this position and blame God for it is to make God a partner to torture. This is totally incompatible with a benevolent God. However, if God cannot or will not violate the laws of nature to relieve this suffering which must grate against the omnibenevolent side of His nature, then He becomes by default a party to torture. In such a conflict, brought on by the very nature of the omnipotent God, the choice to end one’s life voluntarily seems hardly to be a sin, but rather the resolution of a difficult problem. By my reasoning, suicide under such circumstances is not a sin.

Your Maximum Leader will disagree with this particular passage - but perhaps not for the reason one mght think.

Why do we believe in an omnibenevolent God? Bill’s point above only holds true if one accepts that God is omnibenevolent. Why do we suppose that He is?

Excursus: It is funny that your Maximum Leader should focus on this point. He has an ongoing discussion with a particularly devout friend of his that always boils down to this point. If that friend is reading this (which is doubtful) take heed… All the stuff that follows is old-hat to you.

Your Maximum Leader for many years was caught up in the problem of evil. He looked at, accepted, then rejected, many answers to the problem of theodicy. Eventually he came to think that evil exists because God Himself allows it to exist. There is suffering, intractable pain, disasters, and all other ills because God allows them to exist.

One can try to construct the various arguments to try and preserve the concept of an omnibenevolent God; but at some point - as Bill points out - you always make God complicit in some “unsavory” proposistions. Most devout people have issues with making God complicit in suffering. But where do we stand if we accept God’s acceptance of evil and suffering?

Sometime it may be much easier to accept that God is beyond our poor human ability to define. Our attempts to define Him are nothing but limitations on God’s nature, limitations we impose on Him in an attempt to understand Him. But God is ultimately beyond our understanding. His purpose in setting about creating everything is beyond our understanding. Perhaps the existance of evil and suffering is also beyond our understanding.

To get this back to Bill’s points on suicide… As harsh as it is to say, perhaps God has a purpose to our suffering. A purpose which is not for us to understand.

Just something to think on.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, a few days ago, posted about an Economist article about the shrinking realm of “free will.” This rather lengthy post (admittedly mostly excerpts) elicited a response from your Maximum Leader’s best bud, the Big Hominid.

In part Kevin wrote:

My buddy Mike is worried about the disappearance of what many philosophers call “libertarian free will.” I’d venture that Mike has little to worry about: even if we become capable of tracing every single human impulse back to a previous physical cause such that nebulous concepts like “mind” and “will” need not be invoked as explanations, there will always remain the question of predictability. Although not often explicitly included in philosophical definitions of freedom, it is usually implied that freedom contains an aspect of unpredictability. This is not to say that freedom is merely a form of randomness; after all, random phenomena do not demonstrate the existence of freedom. But a free creature, and that creature’s interactions with its environment and with other, similarly endowed creatures, will produce possibility trees that ramify in surprising and unpredictable ways. Rest easy, my friend. You’re as free as you need to be.

First off, your Maximum Leader was pleased that his post appeared under the rubric of “Great Reads.” It was an undeserved compliment. But, compliments aside, something about what Kevin was saying disturbed your Maximum Leader.

A day or two after reading Kevin’s comment your Maximum Leader had the pleasure of talking (alas not at enough length) on this subject with Buckethead on this same topic. At that point your Maximum Leader recounted his (then rather vague) misgivings about predictability and free will. It seemed as though if one were to accept Kevin’s point (and there isn’t any reason not to frankly) then one wasn’t really talking about free will but rather statistical probability.

Buckethead and your Maximum Leader speculated that neuroscience, genetics and understanding of human physiology expand more and more human behavors would be able to be traced to a particular genetic, hormonal, or other factor. While it would be wrong to say that all human behavior in all instaces would be controlled by some genetic/physiological predisposition, we speculated that the range in which one could possibly behave might be severely constrained.

Allow your Maximum Leader to try to use an analogy… As our scientific understanding expands, our range of action is decreased. If a human being could be said to be a car, with unlimited free will one would be free to drive where ever one would want to. On the road, off the road, on the highway, in the mud… Where ever. But, as we learn more about how genetics affect our choices, our driving choices are limited. Rather than being able to go any where, we are only able to drive along a two lane highway. We can drive where ever we want on that two lane highway - but we can only drive on our designated road.

This doesn’t particularly seem like “free will.” At least it doesn’t seem to be free will to your Maximum Leader. He realizes that this argument is highly speculative. Rarely do people exercise free will to an extreme. We act within the strictures of social conventions and normal behavior. But what if through tens of thousands of years of breeding we humans are predisposed towards following social convention? Is that even a choice? What if the extent of your ability to make a choice is deciding to wear white after Labor Day?

Then we can get back to the issue of predictability… If human genetics predisposes one towards a particular activity or behavior, how free are you to really resist? How long to you hold out against your nature? Sure, there is an element of unpredictability. But are we talking about free will - or statistics? Can one say that the chances decrease that one will avoid one’s nature as you get older? Would they increase? Can you truly avoid your own nature?

It is still a vexing question.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been writing this piece for a while. He forgets when he started it. It was probably the week before/of Christmas. He’s been tinkering with it off and on. It doesn’t satisfy him. But, at some point he felt he just needed to hit the publish key…

Your Maximum Leader read something the other day. Contemplating the full implications of the item he’d read kept him up that night.

Yes. You read that correctly. Your Maximum Leader read something and it kept him from sleeping for a good hour or two one night. (And a few subsequent nights actually.) If you know anything about your Maximum Leader you would know that he likes his sleep and is loathe to lose any of it.

He thought he’d blog about it, but Christmas intervened and the item flew from his list of priorities upon which to opine.

Then he was catching up on reading blogs he’d missed over the past few days and came upon a post by his friend Buckethead. The post cited the very same article that kept him up. The item kept circulating in his mind. And finally, a post is now coming on this subject in an effort to exorcise this mental demon.

Did you happen to catch a brief piece in The Economist? The one entitled “Liberalism and neurology: Free to choose?” No? Well click here for it.

Didn’t click? Let your Maximum Leader excerpt a few passages:

In the late 1990s a previously blameless American began collecting child pornography and propositioning children. On the day before he was due to be sentenced to prison for his crimes, he had his brain scanned. He had a tumour. When it had been removed, his paedophilic tendencies went away. When it started growing back, they returned. When the regrowth was removed, they vanished again. Who then was the child abuser?

His case dramatically illustrates the challenge that modern neuroscience is beginning to pose to the idea of free will. The instinct of the reasonable observer is that organic changes of this sort somehow absolve the sufferer of the responsibility that would accrue to a child abuser whose paedophilia was congenital. But why? The chances are that the latter tendency is just as traceable to brain mechanics as the former; it is merely that no one has yet looked. Scientists have looked at anger and violence, though, and discovered genetic variations, expressed as concentrations of a particular messenger molecule in the brain, that are both congenital and predisposing to a violent temper. Where is free will in this case?

Free will is one of the trickiest concepts in philosophy, but also one of the most important. Without it, the idea of responsibility for one’s actions flies out of the window, along with much of the glue that holds a free society (and even an unfree one) together. If businessmen were no longer responsible for their contracts, criminals no longer responsible for their crimes and parents no longer responsible for their children, even though contract, crime and conception were “freely” entered into, then social relations would be very different.

…

Science is not yet threatening free will’s existence: for the moment there seems little prospect o anybody being able to answer definitively the question of whether it really exists or not. But science will shrink the space in which free will can operate by slowly exposing the mechanism of decision making.

At that point, the old French proverb “to understand all is to forgive all” will start to have a new resonance, though forgiveness may not always be the consequence. Indeed, that may already be happening. At the moment, the criminal law - in the West, at least - is based on the idea that the criminal exercised a choice: no choice, no criminal. The British government, though, is seeking to change the law in order to lock up people with personality disorders that are thought to make them likely to commit crimes, before any crime is committed.

…

Nor is it only the criminal law where free will matters. Markets also depend on the idea that personal choice is free choice. Mostly, that is not a problem. Even if choice is guided by unconscious instinct, that instinct will usually have been honed by natural selection to do the right thing. But not always. Fatty, sugary foods subvert evolved instincts, as do addictive drugs such as nicotine, alcohol and cocaine. Pornography does as well. Liberals say that individuals should be free to consume these, or not. Erode free will, and you erode that argument.

In fact, you begin to erode all freedom. Without a belief in free will, an ideology of freedom is bizarre. Though it will not happen quickly, shrinking the space in which free will can operate could have some uncomfortable repercussions.

Heh. That is understatement for ye. “Uncomfortable repercussions.”

(Excursus: Okay… Your Maximum Leader pretty much excerpted the whole article. He fears that you are lazy and wouldn’t click. Then again perhaps you aren’t lazy, your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to risk you not returning… Your Maximum Leader, after reading the piece in The Economist, thought about it so much he had to go back and print it out. He printed it out and posted it upon his Villainschloss bulletin board. Right next to a copy of another opinion piece he printed out… The other piece he printed out in 2002 (and found on his bulletin board ever since). That other piece is entitled “Unpleasant Truths.”)

So what is happening to Free Will? Longtime readers will know that for many years your Maximum Leader and his good friend the Smallholder have been going back and forth about a genetic disposition towards homosexuality. While your Maximum Leader has not accepted that a specific “gay gene” has been discovered, he recognizes that further genetic research may well show the existance of such a gene or grouping of genes. Or, it is possible that brain research will show that a particular area of the brain might be formed in a way (thanks to a person’s genes) that predisposes them towards homosexuality.

As it stands now, the arguement goes, “you can’t object to a person being a homosexual if their genetic makeup predisposes them towards being gay.” Frankly, your Maximum Leader doesn’t object to a person being gay. It really isn’t any of his business. So honestly, your Maximum Leader doesn’t care if it is Free Will or genetics/neurology that might make a person gay. In this case, genetic predisposition towards this particular lifestyle is benign.

But when you talk about other genetic predispositions, ones that aren’t benign, then you start to get into a very scary area.

Your Maximum Leader had mentioned at some time in the past the (now discredited) studies of those men that have an XYY chromosomal pairing (as opposed to the “normal” XY pairing). It was believed, and who knows - future research might show again, that men with the XYY chromosomal pairing were prone to violence. While having the XYY condition did not act as a mitigating factor a criminal proceeding, who is to say that in the future it will not?
Consider for a moment the number of cases where women suffering from extreme PMS have had their criminal sentencing reduced or been found not criminally liable for their actions. (Here is an interesting PDF from an Austrailian doctor on this subject.) In the United States the “PMS Defense” was first used in the early 1990s by a Virginia surgeon. Alan Dershowitz wrote a piece lamenting the successful “deployment” of the defense. Your Maximum Leader remembered reading it at the time, and a quick Google search found a copy of it. It is here. It is interesting that Dershowitz wrote in the article: “Her acquittal sends a doubly dangerous message. First, that our hormones are beyond our control and that we are not responsible for how they manifest themselves. And second, that women with premenstrual problems are somehow less reliable and less predictable than other people. Neither is true.” Dershowitz’s statement that our hormones are within our control is particularly interesting. Will modern genetic research and neuroscience back him up on that?

We’ve established, for good or ill, a legitimate (if hard to utilize) defense against criminal prosecution involving hormonal changes. How hard will it be to make the short hop over to a legitimate defense against criminal responsibility based on one’s genes?

Now, you may be saying to yourself that your Maximum Leader is something of an alarmist on this. (Frankly, Mrs Villain and her sainted Father thought so.) Perhaps you are right. But consider carefully the past 30 years and how our understanding of human biology has changed our life. Then consider how that understanding how changed our behavior and attitudes.

Consider the recent peice from the Times of London that figured in a recent Opinion Journal piece. The Times article was “Science told: hands off gay sheep.” Here is what the good people at Opinion Journal wrote about this article:

A frequent complaint about social conservatives is that they are “antiscience” because in some cases (most notably embryonic stem cell research) they oppose scientific inquiry for moral reasons. But here, courtesy of the Times of London, is a case of social liberals who are antiscience for reasons of ends rather than means. That is, there are some things they do not think we should know:

Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

It is an article of dogma among gay-rights activists that sexual orientation is entirely biological in origin and that it is immutable. If one accepts these premises, it is harder to sustain the premise that homosexual conduct is immoral or hat gays should not be protected by antidiscrimination laws. But what if science determines that there are elements of environment or even choice at play? Seems to us gay-rights activists ought to think about alternative arguments rather than making their moral conclusions dependent on an empirical supposition that may or may not be true.

The italicized portion was the Opinion Journal quoting The Times. Blockquotes within blockquotes seemed a bit much…

What are the implications of a “straightening patch” that a pregnant woman could use to “remove” the hormonal tendency towards homosexuality in her child? What would be the implications if a “straightening patch” could be developed for a mature man or woman?

Isn’t the very discussion of homosexuality as a “hormonal condition” fraught with philosophical danger? If homosexuality is hormonally driven could one say that it is a “hormonal abnormality” and that heterosexuality is “hormonally normal?”

More insidiously, suppose that a “gay gene” is identified? It isn’t outside the realm of possibility that a pre-natal test could be developed to show if a human fetus had the “gay gene.” If parents found that their fetus/baby was going to be gay and they chose to abort the baby, what then? Your Maximum Leader reads that approximately 90% of pregnancies were terminated when there was a positive prenatal test for Downs Syndrome. Can one assume that there would be an alarmingly high rate of abortions if a fetus’/baby’s orientation towards homosexuality could be detected?

In this rather long and rambling post we see two streams of science that are, in their own way, moving towards challenging our basic ideas of free-will. The greater role in which our genes, hormones, or other human chemistry determine behavioral traits diminishes our traditional understanding of free will; but also opens up potentially distressing areas of ethical discussion about how to craft a human’s behavior through modifcation of genetics or hormones.

Many people will blithely dismiss the full implications of what is going on here. Others will justify manipulation by pointing out the benefits that could possibly accrue from manipulations. It is easy to do both. Afterall, if you could assure that your children (or grandchildren) would all grow up to be healthy, intelligent, athletic, and beautiful wouldn’t you? No need to bring them into the world if they will be sickly, mentally retarded, invalid, or just plain ole ugly…

You might be thinking to yourself, if you can find a cogent thought in this whole post upon which to build a thought of your own, if my Maximum Leader is so unsettled by all this; he must be against the research that is causing us to learn all this… Well… You’d be wrong on that count…

And in a way… That is a terrifying prospect in and of itself.

Carry on.

The mimimum wage should not be raised.

Raising the minimum wage will not help the poor - most workers already make more than the minimum wage. But the minimum wage is by definition inflationary - so the people who are at the bottom of the pay scale will see their dollars truncated; their buying power will actually decrease.

Will’s citation of high school drop-out rates is another example of how the poor will be harmed by raising the minimum wage.

Finally, perhaps the greatest problem of the American underclass is that our society does not allow the natural consequences of a poor work ethics to operate.

The comments about Will’s article are interesting. No one seems to be disputing his evidence: They simply say “nuh-uh!”

Of particular interest are the people who say that Will should work for minimum wage. They illustrate the fact that they miss the point. Will’s pay is already set by the market. His skill and education have allowed him to command a high salary. Hard-working people, simply put, do not make minimum wage.

Nor are they displaced by illegal immigrants - another canard advanced by the innumerate detractors in the Post comment section.

You know the Big Hominid is a good teacher.

Why?

Because he is always thinking and evaluating the success of his lesson plans.

See here for an example of what good teachers do every day.

I thoroughly enjoyed Bill’s Sermon.

His points are very interesting, and as an Episcopalian I have no problem with him straying off the theological reservation (The Nineteen Articles: It’s all good!).

He does lose me on the Christian persecution bit. I tend to think of persecution as when they come and shoot you for following your beliefs. If I ever get up the gumption, I’ll issue a concurring opinion elaborating our theological similarities and our glaring divides.

But go read. Really. It is good stuff.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader would like to devote more mental energy than his time really allows to give his thoughts on a recent post of Brian’s over at Memento Moron. The post is entitled 23 Days Late.

Brian, in the post, does some important introspection about his political views and his views of the Constitution. He makes an interesting point about “means” and “ends” in the application of Constitutional law.

The post caused your Maximum Leader to think a little bit. A few weeks ago the Minister of Propaganda and your Maximum Leader were talking about the uncanny similarity of results in many of those silly quizzes we from time to time take here at Naked Villainy. We had a little moment of epiphany. Our outlook on so many issues is very similar, but the foundations of our beliefs are very different. For the Minister of Propaganda the well-being and good of the community is central for your Maximum Leader the well-being and good of individual is central. (This little bit is greatly paraphrased.)

But Brian brings up a point that your Maximum Leader thinks we all must reflect on a little bit more. Examine the difference in language between the Constitution and the Declaration that Brian notes. The Constitution is talking about our Union, common defence, general welfare, “ourselves.” The Declaration speaks about individual men being created equal, government deriving powers from the consent of individuals. There is a little bit of a dichotomy here that is part of the “problem” with the American ideal. We want to have as much personal liberty as possible in a strong community. At some point those two concepts are in conflict.

Look, for example, at the reaction to the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court. The Court upheld that the Community can take property from an individual for not only “common” use (which was a long-settled question of law) but for the general improvement of the community by another private party.

This decision repulses your Maximum Leader. While he has no objection to the taking of private property (with compensation) for public use; he does object strongly to taking private property (with compensation) and delivering it unto another individual (or private group) for private use. He understands all the nuance to the argument, he just disagrees with the principle.

But this points out the conflict of which he was speaking. Common good? Or individual protection?

Indeed, the War on Terror gives us many more examples of this conflict. Profiling airline passengers. Surveillance in public places. Watch lists. All these are critical questions that as a society we should only attempt to answer after we have an understanding of our own core beliefs and what we consider most important.

Perhaps Brians ruminations and commentary upon them will lead others to think more about what they believe and why.

Carry on.