My Philosophical Writings by Scott S Forster

8/6/2019 My Philosophical Writings by Scott S Forster

1/23

1

My Philosophical Writings

By Scott S. Forster

2011

I waiver all copyright of my writings herein. Ideas are the product of the whole of humanity and no

one person can claim to have come up with the idea of a certain view .I would out of courtesy like

attribution, however.

My writings contained here are by no means my final words on the topic.They are my sharing of a

conversation of ideas with the world. My modest aim is to inspire thought.


2/23

2

Notes on my Epistemology as of 23/7/2011

May be improved upon or changed at a later date.

y I owe much of my new epistemology to a mix of ideas from Kant,Hume andPragmatism.

y I don't think I really ever accepted the empiricist/rationalist split. We know a lot byexperience but not everything.Reason is limited too.Much of the time both reason

and experience are proving things because we cannot have an experience and not

reason about it possibly at the same time.

y I've come to reject large parts of the enlightenment view of epistemologyexemplified with Descartes.

y Descartes and enlightenment views: - certainty,doubt everything then proveit,unlimited ability to know,typically direct realism (until Kant) clear and distinct

ideas,seeking completeness etc.

y How do we know reality we experience is real: we have nothing else to compare itto.We cannot get out of it- as far as we know- and we have no reason to doubt it.

y Piecemeal: one aspect of a theory can be true while another part is false.There's noreason to reject a whole theory or philosophy if one part is true while the rest is

false or if most of it is true while a part of it is false. It's not either all correct or all

false in accepting theories.We can take a pick and choose approach.In doing that

just be sure you don't accept a piece which relies on a false part and watch

consistence and coherence.

y We cannot prove Idealism false, so we must be agnostic about it however it seemslikely it's false.

y Absolute Skepticism- the idea "We do not know anything"- is false.The idea "wecannot know anything" is likewise false. Both because they are self-refuting.

y Skepticism leans on the idea of certainty as knowledge. A little bit of Skepticismlimits us to not claiming too much as Cartesians did.

y Experience is influenced by expectation, theory and our interests/motivations.y Inquiry is moving from doubt to knowledge.y I reject theory/practice dualism. Thus there is a strong like between praxeology and

epistemology.

y We learn of concepts by experience (concept empiricism) this is knowledge byaquaintance.There can be no such things as innate ideas or concepts learned by

sheer reasoning alone.y Knowledge is tied to learning. Learning is a never ending communal process.y Knowledge by acquaintance is justified by the sheer fact that you are aware of

something.

y Our sense perception is just knowledge by acquaintance and so does not require ahuge proof.

y It is only when we try to express our knowledge from sense perception aspropositions that it requires justification to others (we do not need to justify it


3/23

3

toourselves) and maybe at the point it is justified by the fact you have awareness of

what you perceive- thus refuting Skepticism?

y we have to ask what would prove something to be true if it were true.y A claim is true if it can be justified i.e. proven. That which is true becomes

propositional knowledge.

y If it later becomes unjustified then it becomes untrue.

y Fallibilism: There is no final truth we reach. Truth is provisional and subject tochange.Our knowledge is always increasing and becoming more nuanced.

y Due to this there is always incompleteness and imprecision in our knowledge.However we should still keep improving knowing we will never end this quest.

y Humans have bounded rationality.y Gaining knowledge is limited by the times in which we limit our interests, our

culture,our geography,our experiences,our lifespan etc.There is no such thing as

complete knowledge of everything and no such thing as knowledge lacking

imprecision.

y It's doubtful whether we can be certain of anything.y Yet some claims seem impossible or near impossible to doubt e.g. 2+2=4.y Perception involves some level of interpretation by our brain. There is no such thing

as unfiltered uninterpreted perception.

y The Kantian distinction of Things in themselves and things as they appear is valid- it'sa matter of different understandings not different realities. We cannot get at things

as they are in themselves however so it is irrelevant to our lives.

y Naive aka direct realism- the idea we experience reality exactly as it is with nointerference from our brains or anything else- is plainly false.

y When a situation or perception is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in many wayseither consciously or involuntarily.

y There are layers of meaning along with experience. Aman strangling someone canbe seen purely physically, ethically etc. This allows for spirituality looking at things in

a cosmic or bigger picture sense.

y Beliefs are motivated. We are led to belief things either by soundevidence/reasoning or by flimsy suggestions and the like.

y Emotion does motivate (to some extent) us to believe and act, but this doesn't meanwe're irrational.

y I reject the reason/emotion dichotomy as often if not always false.y We can only ever know things as they appear to us filtered by our brain- we cannot

get at 'things as they are in of themselves' even if such a thing exists which is

doubtful.y Doubt too must be motivated. We do not doubt unless something challenges our

beliefs.So it makes no sense to try to force ourselves to doubt when it doesn't feel

doubtful.

y Doubt as a method is crazy. You don't need to start from a place of assumingeverything is false or asking how do we know anything or doing a Cartesian

experiment and evaluating every single belief. BUT we should still be willing to

change our beliefs when they are shown wrong when we are motivated to do so.


4/23

4

y We can only seek to correct our beliefs when we come to notice they are false ormight be false. We cannot expect to systematically doubt everything and there's

little reason to try to. So it's not a problem really, that one of our beliefs might be or

is false or wrong in some way.

y Logical and mathematical truths are analytic. They are true by definition because wehave defined the systems to be. They are human constructs (to some extent?)because we have defined '2' to mean XX objects and so when you have XX XX we

have defined that as '4' and it just happens that 4 divided by 2 is two since 2 2's

make 4.It is interconnected logically and also human created. These truths are not

'discovered' in the word but invented.

y Maybe you do not need to find a foundational starting point such as infoundationalism. we have to start in the middle of things i.e. somewhere.

y Yet if axioms work and are certain truths, why not use them?y A good explanation must make sense and help solve problems.y Agnosticism remains since God could exist as a thing in itself or it might be a thing as

it appears yet we not realize. It stands in any case.

y Colour: is part of our interpretation from perception. Those who had an illnesswhich results in black and white vision proves this?

y We have certain expectations of what will happen. Our thinking is influenced byhabit and custom.

y Reasoning is somewhat like imagination.y We have simple ideas e.g. red and complex ideas e.g. a red car. Our complex ideas

rely on experience (Hume)

y My recent views are a move away from my tendency to think and treat things suchas number or meaning as objective objects out in the world to be discovered a near

Platonism despite by Aristotelian leanings.

Agnosticism on whether God(s) were involved in the big bang or not.

How would we know ifGod created the world or set the laws of nature in motion? Our proof that

builders have created something is witnesses,DNA ,tracing the tools used and the like.But God

surely left none of that and if so it would be impossible to know whether he created the world or

not.However we do know the big bang and evolution occurred and the world was not made in 7

days.


5/23

5

Religion as Mysticism.

Influenced by RudolfOtto's idea of the holy and William James' varieties of religious experience, as

well as transcendentalism, Schleiermachersdefence of religion etc...

It seems to me that Religion should and ,is more based on a set of experiences and feelings rather

than creed or dogma. While meanings and factual claims are derived from these experiences and

emotions and are used to interpret them,Idon't think it's central to

religion.Mysticism,pantheism,panentheism,deism etc. are closer to a true religion it seems than

institutionalized organized dogma ones.

All religions which are institutional and organized with a set creed, seem to me to be attempts to

prove a backstory or impose a theory upon a set of experiences and emotions as well as add an

implied morality which is said to follow from it.

How would I describe religion then? it is a set of experiences and emotions which involve a set of

beliefs and a sense of meaning about the world. Religion is not as commonly supposed a set of

beliefs(though it does involve them of course) or a certain attitude to some task or subject which is

consistent and profound so that you dedicate your life to it - that is devotion .Religion is closer to

John Hick's concept of experiencing-as than a bundle of theories. Religion it appears can either be

naturalistic or supernatural.Naturalistic religion derives it's meaning from the natural and limits the

cause of the religious experience to the naturalistic only.It does not allow for a supernatural

realm.Such a religion would be I think suitable for an agnostic or atheist. The current movement of

religious naturalism(eg. Ursula Goodenough) whereby meaning is found in for example evolution

and the interdependent web of life is an example of how this is possible.

The supernatural branch of religion seeks to explain the experiences in a cause outside of the known

natural world and finds value and meaning from this source.While I consider this branch to be

unviable(since it seems to me that the term 'supernatural' lacks any possible meaning and so is

subsumed under the term natural) ,it should be included in the definition because it exists in the

world.Supernatural religion covers classical deism, classic theism, the Abrahamic religions etc.

What do I consider a religious experience? It goes by various names and labels and the experience

may be said to be ofGod or from God. Maslow calls it Peak experience, Otto calls it the Numinous, it

has been called Mysticism, "union with god", "oceanic feeling", transcendence, "communion with

nature", mystical experience, unification, "divine presence," cosmic consciousness" etc.


6/23

6

To quell the fears of the naturalist I say : there's nothing supernatural with having an experience you

find difficult if not impossible to explain or do not know the cause of. Mysticism is entirely valid as

long as no factual claims are made about the ACTUAL existence of god(s) In this way, Mysticism

seems to be a perfect religion for agnostics.

Mysticism may be a valid part of phenomenology with the idea that you have an experience and try

to explain it as it occurred without trying to interpret it too much. I would say that the more

interpretation of this experience is laid upon it(and this is especially the case in supernatural

religion) then the more the central importance of what actually occurred is detracted from and the

more it becomes what is conventionally considered to be religion today i.e. dogmatic, and creed

laden.

All of this has an interesting implication for religious pluralism as seen from the agnostic's point of

view. If as I do believe ,that we cannot know whether god(s) exist or not but we do know that many

have had the above mentioned experiences in different forms, then this means we should not allow

one religion to claim absolute truth. We do not know either way. All paths are potentially open-

including atheism. Different religions become different labels for the difference experiences and

different conceptions of gods(as philosopher of Religion John Hick has argued) We cannot claim as

fact anything other than these experiences occur and we do not know there cause for sure.

Happiness and Sadness: A comparison.

Happiness and sadness differ in a number of ways. The obvious is the objects of concern and the

value judgments expressed by their occurance.However that topic is not my concern here.I wish to

look at how they differ in how they make us consider the world.

Happiness is active, it is phenomenological and sensual.It is tied up with living,enjoying and being.It

is largely,unreflective.It is a strange fact of life that we are happiest when we just concern ourselves

with what is happening or to come and do not reflect deeper than that.While that works in instances

it cannot and is not achieveable as a lifestyle.Possibly this is why perfect happiness is unattainable

and also why Hedonism is not workable. Happiness never brought us social change or

revolutionaries.No, it is to sadness that we turn for that spark.

Sadness is active too though it might not seem that way since there is also a sense of disengagement

with the world.The sense of self becomes enlarged and feels distant and cold to the outside

reality.Sadness is engaged with the troubles of self and the world.It is tied up in them and

overburdened by them.It is a kind of drowning in intensity of feeling,ofvalue.Yet sadness has it's

place in the world.Dissatisfaction brings change and from change, the possibility of progress.Sadness

gave the world it's revolutionaries.Sadness is as much a necessity of life as joy.They each have there

part to play.Again we see the dialectic and duality of life playing out.Both sides , negative and


7/23

7

positive are necessary for fulfillment for vitality, for the beauty and depth of the world.This is the

transcendent understanding.This is spiritual enlightenment.

On Art.

Art and Science Contrasted.

Art is different from scientific enterprise.It's pretty obvious but it demands being said again ,that art

is not a science.Why would that need to be said? to elaborate on the difference between the two.

The telos of art and science differ considerably. Science (broadly conceived so as to include the

social sciences including philosophy and natural sciences as one whole) aims to explain and attempt

to understand the world.It is a rational and empirical endeavour.It aims to discover objective factsabout the world, objective in the sense that they are available to all and all can come to understand

the why's and how's that make them facts.

Art is highly contrasted with this purpose.Art is not the use of the above mentioned for the end of

understanding and explanation.Granted, art can involve these aims but that is not it's primary

purpose.It's primary purpose tends to be to express.I should note at this point that in the process of

elaborating the difference between the two I am not intending to give a definition of art since such a

task is at best problematic, and at worst impossible.

I see no conceivable way in which aesthetic judgments can be considered objective, no possible

standard on which it can be judged.Within science, propositions can be judged in contrast to truth

and can be tested and proven via a mix of empirical and rational evidence.Not so with aesthetic

judgements.I cannot prove to you that this painting is better than that one in the same way I cannot

prove to you that caviar is better than a mars bar.It is a matter of person taste and preference.It is

incapable of being proven because it is outside the realms of discourse requiring or even seeking

proof.Those criteria are irrelevant to it's aim.

The philosophy of art cannot be a normative science.It cannot tell us how to consider thesethings.It

must only aim to explain and help us understand why we might feel this way.

On The Selves: A brief sketch

I dont have too much to say on this topic. I think it seems to have been covered by many and done

to death. I will instead attempt to offer a brief sketch of my view.


8/23

8

The Self, the identity , is not an essence, an object in space . The Self is a relation. The Self is a

creation. The self is praxeological in the sense that it is created through action but also through our

mental experiences i.e. our thoughts, beliefs, emotions, memories. Hume was in fact correct. The

self is a bundle of relationships, a collections of phenomenon.We experience the self as a unity yet

to some extent this is not how it is.Our core self,our phenomenal self unites all these seperate

selves into a unified experience.

There is in actuality, two selves; There is the biological self-composed of cells and matter and the

like. Then there is the mental self the self-composed on my subjectivity- the self which is composed

of memories, of experiences, of personality, of belief, of emotions ,of thoughts. The Self is an

expression and a disposition. Self is not solely self-defined. Identity always exists in relation to a

broader social cultural context. In this respect, we find there is also another self: The relational self-

defined in our relationships to others for example in how we are in our role as parents to a child.

In discussions such as these there always arises the question of whether the self is now what it was

in the past. Too often I see the certain divisions of the self-conflated and it lacks nuance. Here Id like

to parse it out somewhat. The relational self is to some extent highly fluid. Our relation to another

can change from boyfriend say, to husband. However in another respect it is fixed- we will always be

a child of someone from such a place, from such a culture.

The Biological self(excluding growth, injury, deformity, aging , etc) is as stable as any physical living

object can be. There is relatively high continuity between who I am today and who I was yesterday

despite the fact that on a genetic level I am but a copy of a copy of a copy. As to the philosophic self,

there is a small degree of continuity between who I am today and who I was a month ago or maybe

even less. Now it is true my experience which have occurred do not change (and in some sense they

belong to the relational self) yet I am continually having new ones which result in alterations in my

philosophic self in relation to my emotions, beliefs, thoughts, personality and memories. These

abstract aspects of our self are so highly alterable whether by us or stemming from others that there

can be said to be very little relation between the past and present self- in some cases none at all

even if belief is considered as a spectrum. For example ifI once was a Communist but am now a

Conservative then this difference could only be described in everyday language with the phrase Im

not the person I once was. In this way, it could be said there is no self(philosophic self) but right

now at this precise moment. And maybe to some degree, this conforms with the Buddhist notion of

no self.


9/23

9

Working out Ethics: Some Notes.

Ethics involves:

y Kantian Respect for personhoody Confucian et al golden rule modified by Kantian respect for personhoody Aristotelian/Natural law theorists Stoics(etc.) ideas of Virtue Ethics.y Consequentialismy Eudaimonia ofAristotle,Roderick Long etc.y Natural Rights.y Enlightened Self-Interest - rejecting Stirnerite 'might makes right' or misguided a-sociality.y Altruism- rejecting cultish dependence or sacrificial 'charity'.y Moral terms: Good means act(s) which are desirable ,which you should do. Bad/evil means

those acts which you should not do, acts to avoid.

y Ethics begins from human commonality(meaning the acceptance that we are all humanswith the same rationality,emotionsetc) which could also be called human nature or

personhood.

y Personhood= capacity for rationality and moral accountability.y Others are like you ,you wouldn't like to be treated badly(a sort of Kantian Golden rule) - this

leads us to Respect Personhood.The concern for yourself aspect means it's self interested

while your concern not to see those you care about treated this way means it's altruistic.

How is this Kantian golden rule justified? Universalizability.You would not wish for disrespect

for personhood to become Universal.

y Universalizability rules out: Rape,molestation,theft,killing of innocents,aggression(againstinnocents),unkindness(in some contexts) wars against

innocents,racism,sexism,homophobia,animalcruelty,manipulation,fraud,bullying,paedophil ia,continualincest,unnecessary animal testing,

y Respect for Personhood leads to respect for the inherent worth of all humans.y Desire: Roderick Long is right.Desire for X is a response to the perceived value of X. You want

X because for some reason you believe it to be valuable.

y Respect for personhood involves treating them as you wish to be treated.As a human beingnot an object, a being with free will,withemotions,with desires etc.

y Disrespect of Personhood aka Dehumanization which is treating individuals/groups as nonhuman or less human or less human than another group/individual.

y Opposition to dehumanization and concern for all leads to opposition toclassism,sexism,racism,nationalism.

y Where there is not a mutually beneficial relationship, there is disrespect for personhood andhierarchy/dehumanization.

y This can either be voluntary -just dehumanizing and a hierarchy or involuntary i.e. involvesaggression -the epitome being the state.

y Concern for all means that your family,friends,countrymen or women have no more worththan someone the other side of the world.Concern for all means opposition to utilitarianism


10/23

10

because it does not trat everyone as moral equals but some as less than others- ie. it's

dehumanizing.

y In the case of two drowning children whereby you can save only one - one your own one astranger- it is no more moral to save your own child than your own or the stranger's child. It

is moral to try to save one of them and two if possible.It's immoral to do nothing or try to

only save your child because they are your child.y hierarchy involves dehumanization.y Natural Rights: necessary for human flourishingy Violating rights is disrespect for personhood.y Virtues: Virtues allow for flourishing and in some cases, respect for personhood.y Virtue involves self mastery as in self knowledge,conscientiousness,understanding of

emotions and fears,seeking to improve flaws and overcome irrational fears.

y There are moral and non moral virtues.y Concern for all: Harmony of MORAL interests.y Consequentialism is inadequate as it only cares about consequences and not humans and

does not care for respect/disrespect of personhood.It'sdisembodied.Thankfully as Roderick

Long notes,few consequentialists are consistent enough to be this way.

y If you don't care about others you do not care about yourself (and vice versa) thus it'snihilism.

y Immorality harms the common good aka concern for all.y Immorality is self destructive.y Properly understood your self interest and others interest in moral terms DONOT conflict.y It's not often easy or possible to seperate consequences of an act from whether it

respects/disrespects personhood.

y There are negative duties:- do not rape and Positive duties:-help those who are sufferingwhenever it is possible.

y Good acts are those that respect personhood and have good consequences i.e. desirableones

y evil acts have negative consequences and disrespect personhood.y Some acts are always wrong : Rape,theft,slavery,racism, etcy Some acts are always wrong when against innocents: murder,aggression,kidnapetcy Some acts are heavily contextual: lying is not always wrong, breaking of trust,

disloyalty/betrayal, animal cruelty,environmentaldegradation,bullying,insults,one night

stands,infidelity etc.

y Lying: Kant argued it was always wrong as it always constituted disrespect forpersonhood.But lying to a murderer/rapist or the state does not do this.Furthermore there's

the consequentialist element.you don't want the state to trust you or you trust it becauseit's illegitimate.In this case lying is moral as it does not disrespect personhood and if you lie

to prevent rape,it has good consequences.

y Sexual Ethics: Kant argued sex outside marriage involves disrespect for personhood.This isfalse.He thought only marriage was mutual.But non married relationships can be this

way.Morecorrectly,one night stands involve disrespect for personhood i.e. they treat

individuals as objects for orgasm and sex.One night stands are sexist,not mutually beneficial


11/23

11

morally ,degrade sex and love and the individuals involved and emotionally harm the

individuals involved.

y There are degrees of goodness and degrees of badness.So a person who lies is better than aperson who steals but bad comparative to a person who does neither.It's comparative.

y Intent is relevant to some extent.A person who accidentally does evil is less evil thansomeone who knowingly does so.

y Whether you are a good or bad person is determined by the tendency of your acts.One actalone (depending on what it is) cannot make you good or evil.

y No one is completely good i.e. perfect but no one has never done a good act even a smallone.

Simplifying it.

y Respect for personhood= RPy Voluntaryism principle: only voluntary relations are moral (V)y Mutuality Principle: only mutually beneficial relations are moral (M)y If RP is happening/happened then there must be V and My If V then M and so RP is possible.y If you have V AND M then RP is happening/happened.y you cannot have M without Vy M is sufficient and necessary for RP.y V is necessary but not sufficient for RP and/or My If M then you have to have V and so RP is happening/happenedy

RP leads to respect for equal worth of all people (E

)y E involves V AND My V covers opposition to rape,theft,aggression,murder,war ,statism etc. V leads to Anarchism

and the NAP.

y M covers opposition to hierarchy ,treating people kindly,exhibitingvirtue.It leads to anti-racism,feminism,anti classism etc.

y If concern for all aka common good (CG) is absent then there's no RP, No M but V couldexist.

y Hierarchy violates M, RP,CG and Ey Statism violates RP,M,V,E,CGy Aggression violates RP,M,V,E,CG.y RP= involves Ey E=Involves CGy CG= involves My M= Requires Vy Respect for V requires respect for the NAP,consequentialism, respect for natural rights,y NAP comes from individual Sovereignty.


12/23

12

Animal Ethics.

Respect for sentience/commonality of Sentience (since animals do not possess personhood) gives us

animal ethics and concerns about animal cruelty.Also Consequentialism and whether suffering is

necessary comes into play.

Environmental Ethics.

Consequential aspects of it.

Our concerns are tied to the planet. Environmental damage is suicide.

Virtue ethics- treating the planet with little concern might pass over to humans or animals, shows

lack of conscientiousness, lack of modesty of place in the universe, shows arrogance etc.

Shows lack of respect for uniqueness of existence and it's mystery/awe.life as sacred.


13/23

13

Some scattered thoughts on Ethics.

I've realized my past approaches were wrong because they were incomplete.I think a rangeof

ethical systems are half true in that they grasp only a part of a very complex system- i.e. they are

vastly incomplete .I think ethics is basically about relationships -with self and others. It makes no

sense to talk of ethics in any other way.

I do not claim my theories on ethics to be complete just (hopefully) more fleshed out that others in

the sense that it gives weight to a range of legitimate and commonsense considerations while other

theories are often narrowly simplistic e.g. Kant's idea that all of ethics is universal rules applicable

regardless of context or a situational ethics type theory which says all of ethics is contextual or an

egoistic theory which only considers self interest.

Ethical truths are not facts we come across in the same way we discover a new species of animal or

a learn a new truth about how a certain chemical works.Ethical truths exist by necessity of human

interaction- they exist due to usefulness.It could maybe even be ventured they are human creation

but nonetheless vital,meaningful.

There's nothing mystical or mysterious about justification for moral/immoral acts.If you believe X to

be a moral act you must justify it.X is a moral act if you can show why it should be done.

Emotivism in ethics is fatally mistaken.

Moral Nihilism doesn't really make sense.Even if you yourself and only you want to be treated well

then that implies a sense of some kind of ethics.

I hold to the Good Reasons Approach:- " that simply states ethical conduct is justified if the actor has

good reasons for that conduct".

Wellbeing is important in ethics and this is covered by Eudaimonia.

The contextual aspect ofEthics is covered by Virtue ethics.

The rules applied regardless of context are supplied by a form of Kantian Golden Rule.

I believe in an interwoven mix ofNatural rights, eudaimonia,Virtue ethics,

consequentialism,Kantianism and rational enlightened self interest aka rational egoism.

I take voluntaryism and mutuality(or reciprocity) to be first principles of ethics.

I think ethics begins from a kantian respect for personhood with understanding our human

commonality- linking this to the golden rule.

I think that we accept we share a human commonality is undeniable given we experience empathy.

I think concern for everyone is important too and this breaks down the false altruism/egoism

dichotomy.It's also why mutually beneficial relationships are the only moral ones,why hierarchy is

immoral and why utilitarianism is immoral.

Disrepect for personhood aka Dehumanization.


14/23

14

From human commonality I think we get a kantian golden rule about respect for personhood and

from this and a few other understandings we see that to be moral ,relationships must be voluntary

AND mutually beneficial.So in my opinion,Anarchism stems from our humanity itself since

voluntaryism rules out statism and mutually beneficial relations rules out hierarchy.

I reject largely Kantianism however in the sense of moral absolutism e.g. lying is wrong in ALL and

any context. I think what is moral is heavily contextual .Obviously I do accept some things are always

wrong e.g. rape.Some acts are more contextual than others e.g. whether you acted unkindly to

someone ,is quite hard to discern.

The two reasons why I consider certain acts to be immoral are (1) disrespect of personhood (2)

consequences.

I think all ethical systems involve an element of consequentialism but it lacks the emotive nature of

ethics which is expressed with us and does not value people in of themselves.

By Self interest I mean any act which benefits you.I would argue immorality does not truly benefit

you.I

reject the altruist/self interest split sinceIbelieve helping others benefits you (and them) and

helping yourself benefits others.I believe the only time this split is valid is immoral actions because

they benefit neither you nor others.I think Rand maintained this split was valid in all cases and this

led her to think you can benefit others while harming yourself and seemed to imply that helping

others is risky.I think her egoism was pretty evil.

I reject as untenable and/or immoral : ethical skepticism,moralrelativism,utilitarianism,moral

pragmatism and moral intuitionism.

I am favourable towards the Universal Prescriptivism of R.M. Hare

Morality is a mix of what Kant called Hypothetical imperatives and Categorical imperatives.-

"Hypothetical imperatives compel actions in given circumstances:ifI wish to quench my thirst, I must

drink something; ifI wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.A categorical imperative, on the other

hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances,

both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:Act only

according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal

law."

I agree with Kants idea of perfect and imperfect duty

Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other

with respect and compassion.

SumanSuttam , verse 150

If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then

would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would

do for oneself.Mozi

Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.T'ai Shang

Kan Ying P'ien


15/23

15

I accept Universalizability.

That ethics is irrelevant without moral agents does not lead to relativism but shows ethics is

relational.It is not 'out there' in a platonic sense unattached from people.

All ethical systems have some element of consequentialism in them.It is illogical to claim that acting

in a morally good way could lead to bad consequences.

Morality involves your relationships with your self and others.While a Hermit can be moral or

immoral to themself.They cannot act immorally or morally to other people and the good and bad

they can do is limited.this could be both a blessing and a curse.

Act utilitarianism: I reject act utilitarianism which claims that morally good action should aim at the

greatest good for the greatest number.

I-It relationships and Dehumanization: Are treating others as objects as in

racism,sexism,homophobia,ageism,statism,xenophobia,rape,aggression etc.It seems to be what I

mean by dehumanization.Humans are considered often considered synonmous with a group ,seen

as worthless lifeless and deserving of abuse.

Why Act Utilitarianism is evil: If would say it's ok to kill 1 innocent person to save 100 people

1. This utilitarianism favours the majority over the minority(it is majoritarian) essentially it is might

makes right the essence of democracy.

2.favours group over individual-inegalitarian.It's morality by numbers.

3.Ignores rights in favour of consequences.However violating rights has bad consequences and sets a

bad precedent.This approach leads to bad consequences for all.

4. ignores link between your actions and others.Seems to claim others actions can be more moralthan yours.

5. claims happiness is a value that can be calculated or measure.this is absurd.

I do not believe anyone's self interest or flourishing is more important than anyone else's.

Concern for self and others= Concern for all= treat others as well as you'd like to be treated(golden

rule) = mutually beneficial relationships(mutuality principle) for them to be mutually beneficial it is

necessary for them to be voluntary yet voluntary relations can sometimes not be mutually beneficial

.

Exploitive relations= are ones in which one person is harmed and another 'benefits'(seems to but

doesn't)

I think we all have an natural inclination to help others(which is evolutionary) and it tells us we can

flourish by helping others.I think then also the selfish aspect comes in where we know helping others

benefits us and makes us feel good.Empathy and sympathy make us feel sorry for the person and

think what if we were in their shoes.These emotions like all emotions imply a judgement -I want to

help and I should help because I would want someone to do the same for


16/23

16

me.Theseemotions,ourinclinations and our minds formulating why we should help ,why it is moral to

do so and undesirable or immoral to do otherwise makes us strongly inclined to act morally.However

it is indeed possible for someone to know all of this and not act either for emotional reason or for

some conflicting irrational reason they have decided.

"Values are relative in the sense that to be good, something must be good to someone for

something".

I believe in Aristotles doctrine of the mean(moderation). for example rushing into danger without a

thought is rash but being so afraid that you do not face danger is cowardice. I believe to be virtuous

you must use your reason to find the moderate position between these too which is a reasonable

kind of bravery.

The best life is a balance between beastly hedonism and saint or godlike attempts at Asceticism. The

balancedlife,the human life mixes self control and pleasure.It is neither heedless pleasure or rigid

self control

Life neither should be suffering or any harder than it already is neither should it be full of endlesspleasure (without consideration for anything else)

The human life is intellectual/spiritual to the exclusion of the material/physical body nor vice

versa.Itis a balance of concern for both in equal measure.

The human life is a mix of seriousness and lightheartedness. It is the middle way between sexual

hedonism and sexual asceticism( which I think is what claims that sex should only be for procreation

amount to).The human life is moral/philsophical and practical since there can be no true distinction

between the two.

virtues :

y Honesty,y justice,y integrity& Consistency(keeping your word and promises and being sincere in word and

action.)

y truth seeking,y Rational thinker.Willing to be think critically.y Self aware of how actions affect others.y loving ,y compassionate-concern for poor and marginalized,y knowledge seeking,y pride,y justice seeking,y responsibility ,y Benevolent, kind ,caring and sensitive (feels hurt when aware of injustice and suffering) ,y seeks peace whenever possible and avoids confrontation as much as possible,y Never use anyone or control them or manipulate or be coercive(people should be treated as

ends in themselves not as means to an end)


17/23

17

The Good Person.

The Good person must feel sadness in seeing suffering,sadness and anger at injustice,must feel good

in doing good,must feel guilt in doing evil,must fight passionately for the good and true,must live

goodness not just talk about it.

The Evil Person.

The Evil Person feels joy in suffering,joy and happiness in injustice, feels good about doing evil or

knowlingly and willingly does not care, feels stupid or resentful of doing good or others doing good,is

willing to sacrifice truth and justice to something else especially conformity or fear or criticism and

talks of goodness possibly but does not live it.

Elements of the Good Life.

y Knowledge.y Rationality.y Peace.y Liberty.y prosperity and wealth.y Justice.y Meaningful relationships especially love and friendships.y having a purpose in life- meaningful activites.y Self confidence/self belief.y SelfImprovement.

Biodiversity.Mainting Biodiversity has instrumental value.Humans can benefit from the clues animals

and plants might have and killing off these possibilities cannot be good.

Moral Omissions. Failure to act can be immoral because they represent a lack of virtue i.e. a lack of

concern for others in terms of kindness and compassion.

On the saving someone dilemma.The scenario is:- 2 people are drowing. one is your child and the

other a strange .You can't save both because of the time it will take to reach both.Who is it moral to

save? is it more moral to care for family or strangers?My answer:- there is no moral duty to save

either.It's neither more moral to save either which would be utilitarian which is what this example

seems to presuppose ie. that whether it's moral increases as the person is more related to you or

more of a stranger.Neitherdominates.What's moral is to save whoever you can.It's not immoral to

not be able to save someone.It IS immoral however to save no one.

Pleasures.There are no 'higher pleasures' or 'lower pleasures'.There is only pleasures. I see it as

another false dichotomy.If higher is taken to be the intellectual or moral and lower the bodily then it

reflects a cartesan dualism of mind and body whereas I see both as being valuable to a

eudaimonialife.In which is better it seems to me to be more of a subjective preference.


18/23

18

First Principles of Ethics.

Not intended as comprehensive or fully fleshed out.More to come at a later date...

Humans inclined towards rationality : All humans by the way of a mix of evolution and reality tend

towards thinking and acting rationally.It is impossible to be 100% irrational yet it is highly unlikely

anyone has or ever will be 100% rational.Ethics to be valid must accept human

imperfection.Following from this one immoral act in of itself does not taint you forever as evil

depending on what the act was.

Humans inclined towards goodness : All humans by way of a mix of evolution and the demands of

rationality/reality tend towards acting morally. From a purely consequentialism standpoint, no one

can act consistently evil without suffering (sooner or later) to some extent.

Egalitarianism ofEthics : All humans are worthy of moral treatment but also bound by morality toact in morally responsible ways.This idea was made famous by Mozi, the chinesephilosopher.It is for

this reason that utilitarianism is immoral since it treats some as less worthy than others and this also

applies to ideas like nationalism, racism,duties to family etc above all others.

Voluntaryist Principle: to be moral ,relations must be voluntary.

Mutuality principle: to be moral, relations must be mutually beneficial.

Aggression,hierarchy,manipulation,dehumanizationetc is not mutually beneficial.

It is possible for relations to be voluntary but not mutually beneficial. I reject arguments which reject

this view.

Common good principle: Following from the mutuality principle, to be moral actions must aim at the

benefit of everyone

Concern for self and others= Concern for all= treat others as well as you'd like to be treated(golden

rule) = mutually beneficial relationships(mutuality principle) for them to be mutually beneficial it is

necessary for them to be voluntary yet voluntary relations can sometimes not be mutually beneficial

.

Exploitive relations= are ones in which one person is harmed and another 'benefits'(seems to but

doesn't)

Golden Mean: often in areas of virtue what is demanded is a relative balance between two

extremes. Between cowardice and haste,courage.Between excessive spending and

hoarding,moderation.Essentially in many cases the virtue is to be found in a position of

moderatism.However it goes without saying that moderacy is not in of itself valuable or good. It is

immoral to be moderate in the pursuit of justice,truth or freedom.

Golden Rule - derives from wish to be treated as well as others i.e. to be treated humanely.Thus to

treat others badly and expect good treatment is inconsistent ,irrational and immoral. It shows a lack


19/23

19

of benevolent which is a major virtue.No moral person is consistently unkind or pre-emptively

misanthropic.

Unfairly insulting is dehumanizing as is immoral discrimination as too is aggression.Thoughts

leading to dehumanization are morally undesirable vices.

Voluntary relations are only good in the respect they are voluntary(or maybe neutral) yet merelybeing voluntary is not sufficient for a relationship to be moral,it is only necessary.

Voluntary relations can either be moral or immoral while Coercive ones can only ever be immoral.

In situations involving virtue ,matters are complicated by the context.There is many factors to

consider.It's possible to be doing something which of itself is not immoral but to be doing it in an

immoral way e.g. arguing for something which is true but doing it in an immoral e.g. abusive way.

Taking advantage of the weakness (e.g. illness,disabilityetc) of others is immoral.

No one may be called a good person who takes pleasure or is indifferent in the suffering ,misfortune

or mistreatment of others.To be a moral person,is to be saddened. To be a moral person,is to beoutraged!

Agnosticism on Miracles.Arguments against Proof by Miracle.

Miracles can be defined in a number of ways:-

(1) as events which defy commonly understood expected conventional laws of science or nature.

(2) unusual events

(3) events unexplainable by science,reason etc.

Replies to these definitions.

Reply to (3) Unexplainable events do not prove anything.It does not imply a miracle.Our knowledge

is limited and may be in this cause- either forever limited or just in the meantime.We should first

seek a scientific/reason based answer to explain it before jumping into conclusions about god which

would themselves require justification -extensively.Even if we cannot explain these events, all it

proves is the limits of our knowledge.It is not a conclusive argument.

Reply to (2)Unusual events in accord with natural laws of science do not prove anything.You might

appeal to the smallest probability of it occuring but that is not a sufficient justification either.The big

bang was likely a very rare occurance yet it happened all the same.Infrequency does not prove

divine existence or intervention.It is just as likely to be a natural(by which I do not imply a inherent

distinction between supernatural and natural gods since that is to some extent a false one) and

atheistic event.We cannot possibly know the difference.This is inherently tied to the very problems

recognised by agnosticism.

Reply to (1)We come to consider something to be a natural law by it's repeated occurance via

experience of it numerous times,also by deduction from science and reason.So that someone dying

and them coming back to life as if nothing had happened a week later would be a contravening of


20/23

20

them.First we must check the truth of this event and check it actually did happen. Is it possible or

even probable?Hume's test of asking whether it's more likely someone is mistaken or lying is

legitimate here.The alleged shattering of our conventional view of the universe may just be down to

the limitations of our understanding and our theories may need refined.

The Sum conclusion reached by considering the idea of miracles as proof of the existence of god(s) is

basically that if an existing God or Gods were to prove his/her/there/it's existence by miracles, we

still wouldn't believe it and since a miracle is by nature extraordinary however defined, it seems it

could be so unusual that we would not be able to prove it's cause and thus could not know it came

fromGod.


21/23

21

Why I am now Agnostic. An Argument from Divine Hiddenness.

Today I realized Agnosticism is true.

Theist: claims God exists i.e. is making a positive claim.

Uses Cosmological, ontological,teleological arguments among others.

Also says god's existence is evidenced in the world around us.

Atheist: claims God doesn't exist .

Refutes Cosmological and all others.Highlights logical flaws,assumptions and implications of all of

these and finds them lacking.None of these prove the existence of god.

The honest moderate Atheist: is not anti-religion,understands religion is diverse and not all theists

hate homosexuals,hatescience,believe in violence etc.Is religion tolerant.Understands religion has

done both good and bad in the world.

The honest Atheist's only argument against the existence ofGod is that there is no proof.They rely

on the argument that that which exists can be proven,that which can be proven is knowledge and all

knowledge is factual.The honest Atheist's argument for atheism is negative and they make no

positive claims.They reject the arguments of the theist as false and faulty logic but also reject

overrated arguments by Militant Atheists.

Militant Atheist: hates all religion.With a degree of faith and irrationality believes all religion is

hateful, anti -science and denies religion has done anything good ever.They assume all religious

people are evil explicitly or implicitly.Feels the need to constantly preach it's atheism to the

world.They use false invalid arguments to back up their atheism such as "evolution proves there is

no need for god so god does not exist" or the 'omnipotent paradox' or the problem of evil or the

problem of suffering.

Agnostic: Often agrees with Atheist's criticism's of theist arguments.Rejects Militant Atheist's

arguments.At the core of the matter rejects both Atheism and Theism in favour of the idea that

God's existence is unknown and/or unknowable.It's like there's a black impenetrable curtain

obscuring our view and god/s could be behind that but we can't know.If god/s are there then it's

true we're prevented from knowing (intentionally or not) since there is no evidence either for god's

existence or against so to us it looks like god isn't there.It looks like atheism is true.If atheism is true

and there is no god then there's no way to know because there's no proof there isn't a god because

it looks like how it would looks if god was preventing us from knowing god existed.This is called

Divine Hiddenness.


22/23

22

To the theist the Agnostic will say ,since your arguments for god's existence are false how do you

know god exists-basically they take the Atheist type skepticism stance there.Theism is not based on

evidence or proof.It is irrational.

To the Atheist the Agnostic will say how can you know god does not exist? what proof do you havethere is no god/s? Atheism is not based on evidence or proof.It is irrational.

Why we can't know ifGod's exist or not?

To claim X as knowledge and a fact ,X must be proven to be true.

But God's if they/he/she/it existed could prevent you from finding proof- either using their powers

to block you seeing/thinking/find evidence empirical or logical or because they exist outside timeand space and do nothing in the universe only sitting thinking and watching like an Aristotelian type

deist god or they are some force that cannot be found.

So even if god did exist it could be that we would never know.From a human being's point of view

there could be a god and it would seem like there wasn't since we could find no proof.

Why would a god want to do this?

I can only speculate of course but I could imagine a scenario were God/s do not want us to be forced

to accept him and would rather we come to accept them/him our self.This is strange but possible

and quite in line with the idea that God cannot be forced upon you but must be a choice.

But what about the fact that no argument can prove god exists?

That is tricky.Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that can't be proven both empirically

and with logic.It would be weird if god exists but cannot be proven by rational argument.Maybe it is

because of god's tampering in the world?? or maybe because all knowledge must begin with

empirical knowledge and since there can be no empirical knowledge of god then there can be no A

priori knowledge to prove god exists either.It's confusing and strange.If god does exist surely that

would be proof of an irrational god.I'm not sure.

( the following Below is Updated from 21/8/2010)


23/23

23

To say I don't know on an issue is to say there is no valid proof a claim is true or false e.g. " carrots

exist".If you couldn't prove they did exist and you couldn't prove they didn't exist(you can but

assume you can't) then you would have to be agnostic on the issue.

To Atheists,Agnostics say what if your wrong that ifGod(s) existed we would know.What ifGod

could exist and us not know.This is not a claim of knowledge but possibility.It's possible.

What's the proof? Well ifGod could be powerful enough.This assumes he can hide himself and

would.

It's not impossible if he exists he could do this.Since there is no argument that it's impossible-

possible examples could be God loves us too much to do this etc- then it's possible.Given that God

could hide himself and there is no evidence either way that there is or isn't a God or Gods we cannot

know whether God(s) exist or not.

If there is a God who's hiding and therefore agnosticism is true.We cannot know.

If there is a God who's not hiding then it's provable and either Atheism or Theism is true and can be

proven true .But neither have been.

If there is no God and atheists still rely on absence of proof as proof of atheism then we must remain

agnostic because we do not know if simply God is hidden .Thus in this case it appears to us as

atheism and agnosticism are virtually the same.

To prove Atheism fail, it must be proven

(1) God exists and is knowable.This is how the Theist could defeat agnosticism.

(2) it is knowable that God cannot exist i.e. Atheists show the existence ofGod(s) is impossible.

Atheists can never show the God could be hidden.All they can ever try to do is show that it's

impossible for there to be a God.

To my claim,we will never know -My proof is that this situation will never change until any of the 2

above claims are proven.Until then Agnosticism holds.

First written 26/5/2010.

My Philosophical Writings by Scott S Forster

Documents

Transcript of My Philosophical Writings by Scott S Forster