Hello Lucy,
Notice that I renamed the thread to be in line with Terry's guidelines.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Masters [mailto:masters@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:03 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd:RE: Darwinism/Compassion]]]]]
<<<I cannot provide you with a B/W answer just as I do not live by B/W
"laws." I think we should take each situation on a case by case basis and
monitor it as we go along. What works well in one situation may not work
well in another. You know, you could "help" one poor person who would
respond well, engage in self-improvement, and use your Christian behavior in
a positive way. You could provide the exact same "help" to another poor
person who doesn't respond well, doesn't engage in self-improvement, and
uses your Christian behavior in a negative way to enable himself to stay
dependent upon you (i.e. "use" you). >>>
AT: As a psychologist, I am confident that you are well aware of the
irrationality and personal biases of human nature. This is well established
in social, cognitive, and research psychology. It seems to me that it would
be a sure way to lose objectivity if we allow these situations to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. Imagine if a research scientist were to
say that - let's do away with formal statistical procedures and guidelines
like requireing statistical significance in order to conclude that there is
a difference; let's just eye-ball the data on a case by case basis. It would
turn science into a entirely subjective enterprise. We don't allow that
because we, especially as scientists, are well aware of how irrational and
bias we ourselves can be. It seems like you wish to do the same in the area
of ethics. Then ultimately, the individual would become the final arbiter of
what is right and wrong.
Another concern that I have is that you seem to be consistently applying the
principle of lesser evil. You take into account primarily the consequences,
and don't pause to reflect on the object of the act itself (whether it is
right or wrong). As long as the consequences leads to a lesser evil (or
better yet, a greater good), one does not have to consider the means by
which this would be accomplish. I would argue that such an approach puts one
in a position of *increased vulnerability* to making decisions that would
abuse human rights and disrespect human dignity. Many dictators and
totalitarian regimes have applied the same principle to justify their human
rights abuses. No, I'm not saying that you are a Hitler, but I am saying
that you are applying an approach that could quite easily lead you to
decisions that are dangerous, given the human tendency to think irrationally
and biasly.
For your consideration.
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 14:30:19 EST