Ape Man

This is a comment I posted recently on this blog (on this post). I will probably regret it in the morning. In my opinion, if you address any philosophical issue in under 30 pages you are guaranteed to make a fool out of yourself. So read this quick, before I think better of it and take it down. (I should note that I made a few changes that I wish I could have made to original comment)

Mr. Pollack,

I am afraid that I am being a bit presumptuous by interjecting myself into this discussion, but your question is one that fascinates me. I have been toying with your question in my mind for some time now. But I have been stuck on one particular problem: I cannot conceive of an imaginary rational (i.e he tries not to hold contradictory beliefs) person who truly believes in moral relativism, much less an actual rational person.

For example, let us imagine that there is a man who believes that having multiple wives is good thing in one situation and a bad thing in another. Let us say that he believes that it is a good thing where war has changed the balance between males and females. Let us say that he thinks that it is a bad thing where the balance between males and females is equal. Let us say that this man is rational (using the definition above). So let us say that he unifies his contradictory positions by saying that multiple wives are good in the one situation because it promotes social stability and bad in the other because it harms social stability.

Is this man a moral relativist? Some people would say yes. But I would say no because the man is entirely consistent in what he values. He always values social stability; it is just the means of achieving that value that change. To my mind, what you value=your morals.

Let us take an even more extreme case. Let us say that there is a totally selfish man. Let us say he makes moral judgments based entirely on what pleases himself. Is this man relativistic? Again, I would say no. He is entirely consistent in what he values.

It seems to me, Mr. Pollack, that your very question presumes an objective morality. For you say “Many feel that our evolved moral intuitions – which have explicable adaptive reasons for being what they are – are all that there is (which is not to say that we mightn’t refine them as needed, as has plainly happened over recent centuries)” your are implying a constant set of values. For otherwise your use of the word “needed” would have no meaning.

Now let me say right off that I don’t really think that the government should do absolutely nothing to protect shareholders. It is one of the proper functions of the government to protect property after all. But it is not proper for the government to mow your lawn, clean your house, or supervise your employees. Can we all agree with that statement?

Then why does there seem to be such a common consensus that the government should be heavily involved in protecting shareholders from their management? If you hired employees for your small business it would be your lookout to make sure they treated you right. Sure, you can take action to try to recover some money if they rip you off, but all business owners know that it is their job to make sure their employees behave. Why should shareholders be different?
(more…)

Vinod Khosla (among many other people) wants the government to spend vast amounts of money to help along the production and adoption of ethanol. In other news, the Mexicans are having trouble buying corn to feed themselves because of existing ethanol production.

Cheap shot?

Maybe. But I have serious problems with Khosla and those like him. You see, Khosla admits that ethanol will currently do almost nothing to help American achieve energy independence. But he argues that if we throw enough money at the problem innovation will change that and he invokes Moore’s law to prove his point!! (more…)