Hitchens and ethics

[ipwnuathalo]

I spent a few hours listening to the “four horsemen” (Dawkins, Hitches, et al) discuss atheism and theism. My previous experience with atheism was with Neitzsche.

I am hung up on something here. Neitzsche makes perfect sense to me. If God does not exist, all things are permissible. This is an atheism which is perfectly accessible and understandable. If God does not exist, then I am a product of random chemical processes, and I do not possess any other reality than my physical reality. As such, anything I may do or not do has no more and no less significance than what any animal does. And, it follows, that it makes no more sense to assign a moral value to any human action than it does to any action by any animal.

I don’t happen to agree with Neitzsche’s premises, but I give him a pass because he lived before Hubble and Gould and others destroyed the scientific foundations of 19th century atheism. Different topic for different thead (many threads). I do, however, find Neitzsche clear and his conclusions logical given his premises.

My problem is that Hitchens, a couple of times in the interviews I’ve listened to, passes off very, very lightly the problem of atheistic ethics. Specifically, his quote is “It’s not as if I need a cosmological dictatorship to tell me what’s right and wrong”. I need the long version of his ethicla theory, and I haven’t located it yet.

I have read some JS Mill, and am starting to read Hume. I’m no expert on ethics at all, but I’m interested.

What I’d like to know is what ethical theory do the modern pop atheists espouse? I’m only a few days into this question and all I’m into so far is vagueness. I asked an atheist friend who wants to debate me (when I’m ready, I told him) and he directed me to a series of lectures on the Darwinian, biological genesis of ethics as an evolutionary response. I tried to explain to him that this was a different answer to a different question: He was answering “where did ethics come from historically” as opposed to “what is the source of ethical truth”. No dice, he didn’t understand the distinction.

I’d like to find something like a succinct explanation of the source of ethical truth, according to someone from the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd. I’m going to be very disappointed if it’s a Darwinian explanation of the historical causes of ethics as a phenomenon. Hopefully it’s something solid enough to really dig into. Please educate me if you don’t mind. Thanks in advance.

 

[Nooj]

I am hung up on something here. Neitzsche makes perfect sense to me. If God does not exist, all things are permissible.

Permissible? That implies there is someone (i.e. God) to permit actions. It is more accurate to say that if you’re a moral nihilist (not necessarily an atheist), there are no objective judgements one can bring to the issue of morality.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

This is deflecting the thread. Before I assist you in deflecting, can you answer my question about Hitchens (or Dawkins, et al)? Thanks.

You’re not correct. Ethical actions may be taken as a subset of possible actions, with ethics anwering the question “of the possible actions, which are permitted?” and in the absence of authority (or an ethical system), all are permitted because none are forbidden.

Semantics, only semantics.

 

[Havard]

I was totally expecting a different kind of post from someone named “ipwnuathalo”

I’ve read a lot of Hitchens’ articles, but none speaking to the core of his beliefs on the basis for ethics. Dawkins seems to rely heavily on science, and in particular Darwin. I guess you’d call him a scientific rationalist? In my experience, Hitchens seems to be a lot more critical of Christianity… although Dawkins is proudly atheist, I’ve heard him actually be complimentary about some aspects of Christianity.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Havard - Thanks.

On the issue of Darwinism and ethics, I have no problems with the proposal (as a proposal) that “ethics is a development of a series of Darwinian responses by the human species to the environment”. As a Catholic, I suspect I am even allowed to partially believe that and remain orthodox, to the extent that such a statement reflects the existence of natural law. Again, other topic, other thread (would be a good one, no?).

However, surely (and I’m not being sarcastic) this is not the totality of Hitchens’ ethical foundation. He acts like it’s the worst sort of theist propaganda to say that atheists lack a system of ethics…but I’ve read some Strauss, some Anscombe, and one book by Alasdair MacIntyre and although I consider myself a newbie at this (unlike Halo ) I feel as if Hitchens is glossing over both two centuries of philosophy AND the major vulnerability of his entire belief system in passing off the question of ethics lightly.

So, hopefully Hitchens (or any of the ‘pop’ atheist authors) has a more highly developed ethical system, one worth considering, and someone can point me to an explanation of it that sheds some light on what Hitchens meant by “right and wrong”.

Sidebar - I’m through 3 of these “four horsemen” videos and I don’t think this sort of presentation does their cause any good. The presentation serves only to highlight the least objective parts of their arguments. I do hate to do it, but I suppose I need to purchase and read Hitchens’ books.

 

[Nooj]

This is deflecting the thread. Before I assist you in deflecting, can you answer my question about Hitchens (or Dawkins, et al)? Thanks.

I don’t know, I don’t read Hitchens or Dawkins. I don’t think they’ve explored non-theistic morality in depth.

and in the absence of authority (or an ethical system), all are permitted because none are forbidden.

What about nothing is forbidden and nothing is permissible at the same time, in the absence of an authority determining what is forbidden and permissible?

 

[Havard]

If you find something that’s on point to that, I’d be interested in reading it. Most of the pieces by him that I’ve read are on particular issues-du-jour.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

What about nothing is forbidden and nothing is permissible at the same time, in the absence of an authority determining what is forbidden and permissible?

What about it? Does this forum have an ignore function? I think I’ll go look.

 

[Nooj]

What about it?

I’m pointing out that there may be an option you haven’t considered yet.

Does this forum have an ignore function? I think I’ll go look.

I haven’t found one yet. Quite new here myself.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

If you find something that’s on point to that, I’d be interested in reading it. Most of the pieces by him that I’ve read are on particular issues-du-jour.

I’ll keep looking, I’ll keep reading him and delve deeper into his thought. Hopefully some members here can help direct my search.

I have a suspicion that there is noone behind the curtain. I have the distinct feeling that another atheist philosopher would have mentioned a significant breakthrough in ethical theory, and I further suspect that one of the theist philosophers I’ve been reading would have had a go at refuting it…if it existed. The MacIntyre book deals largely with exactly the lack of a post-Christian ethical framework in the newly atheist cultures of Europe and America.

However, I could be quite wrong and my reading may have been too spotty to pick it up.

 

[Nooj]

This video may help. Hitchens talks about an internal moral compass, perhaps inherent to human beings. I’d be surprised if he actually goes more in-depth than this in his books.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Nooj - Thank you for that link. If that is indeed as deeply as he has ever endeavored to explain his position, then I am appalled. I certainly don’t see why anyone would consider him a spokesperson for atheism. It’s all rather cartoonish.

I see at least 3 or 4 hours of his interviews on YouTube that I suppose I should take in as time allows.

I am also becoming used to his style of debate. It’s not really respectable, is it?

“Christopher, do you believe X?”

“Let me ask you another question, can you concieve of any reason religion would allow me to believe X more deeply? No, I didn’t think so.”

 

[James_S_Saint]

I spent a few hours listening to the “four horsemen” (Dawkins, Hitches, et al) discuss atheism and theism. My previous experience with atheism was with Neitzsche.

I am hung up on something here. Neitzsche makes perfect sense to me. If God does not exist, all things are permissible. This is an atheism which is perfectly accessible and understandable.

I’m surprised you could accept Nietzsche so easily. The authority that truly limits what can or cannot be done is what we call Logic. The Abramic common populous often do not understand that God and Logic are essentially the same thing, nor did Nietzsche.

In Atheism, “God” is pictured as a separate being who mandates ethical behavior and chooses to punish those who do not comply. This imagery is a false image of the Scriptural story and is held by many of the religious as well. In that regard, the Atheist is right in his argument of the non-existence of that “God”. The problem is that the Atheist refuses the notion that the Scriptures were not talking about that kind of a God. But if they accepted that it was merely a semantical misunderstanding, they would have no enemy to fight or rationale to rebel.

But even to the Atheist, logic still reigns. Although the Atheists speak of randomness and arbitrariness, at the core of every argument lies a logically based presumption. Even the Atheist still believes that some things are impossible although if asked directly, he might argue (when don’t they).

Thus for the Atheists who understand that logic is still the guide, the question of ethics becomes one of what is logically required. This leads to the question of “required to accomplish what?” And that question leads to the question of purpose. Thus ethics is logically tied to purpose.

The most common view that I have seen among Atheists is that purpose is both subjective and arbitrary. And though it most certainly must be subjective, it certainly cannot be arbitrary. Logic permits nothing to be arbitrary.

Thus ignoring the historical cause of perceived and accepted ethics (as requested), the only alternative for the Atheist is to determine what the purpose of a life is and then determine what rationale suits that purpose.

I have yet to find an Atheist who can handle such a question, but I can stand in his shoes for a moment just to make a little progress down that road.

To logically determine the purpose of life void of an authoritative being, logic itself must stand as the only authority. But logic can only tell of what can be and what cannot not be. Yet from what must be, we can derive that any action must have consequence. If that consequence is undesired, then one must not take the action. And that is the beginning of all ethics (God or not).

The problem you run into is that many want to associate ethics merely with social concern void of personal concern. This cannot be done unless you “arbitrarily” accept that society is a required supreme goal and for political socialist reasons, such is often promoted. I can’t imagine what rationale would bring that conclusion. Thus the question must begin on the individual level so as to justify any social level of concern. And that is not only doable, but logically provable.

A moral or ethic can only be defined in regards to its associated consequence. If an action brings death, for example, then the action has a priority over other behavior and desired goals and thus can be considered a moral concern. Again, the Atheists will argue that no concern is necessarily a highest concern. But that assertion is untenable.

From the vague notion and principle we call evolution, we can conclude that those who care nothing about death, do not survive long enough to dictate what is ethical or isn’t. Thus ethics is determined by the lives who chose to be concerned about death. And that gives us a beginning for rational thought concerning ethics.

So to skip over quite a bit and get more to the direct concern of the OP, rational choices that maintain a life form the individual’s ethics, and DNA evolution theory supports this notion.

But with an individual’s moral ethics comes the challenge of what to do about other lives who interfere with an individual’s effort to maintain their personal rationality and ethical standard. That conflict then leads to rationale about how to treat others so as to be able to maintain one’s own survival.

I skipped a good deal of the detail and certainly stopped before the conclusion of what Atheistic ethics must eventually become, but I think I relayed the basic idea of how a “Godless” mentality must derive ethical standards beyond merely accepting social traditions.

Did that help any?

 

[hatsoff]

I’d like to find something like a succinct explanation of the source of ethical truth, according to someone from the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd. I’m going to be very disappointed if it’s a Darwinian explanation of the historical causes of ethics as a phenomenon. Hopefully it’s something solid enough to really dig into. Please educate me if you don’t mind. Thanks in advance.

To quote Paul, “‘everything is permissible’—but not everything is beneficial” (1Co 10:23, NIV). This sums up quite nicely my position on morality. From a divine perspective, since God does not exist, nothing is prohibited by Him. But that hardly means we can go around acting on whim all the time. For we have our own human values which we care about deeply, and they include social concerns.

If I lie, cheat and steal, God is not going to smite me, and I will escape the government’s notice, so long as I take care. But is that really what I want to do? Lying, cheating and stealing cause people close to me to suffer, and since I have uncontrollable empathy for my fellow man, it in turn leads me to suffer. Since I do not want to suffer, I don’t want others to suffer, either, and that constricts my behavior.

In other words, it’s beneficial for me to adopt a moral standard.

I imagine the Four Horsemen have similar opinions.

 

[Bluegoat]

Any explanation I have seen of ethics relating to Dawkins is indeed based on evolutionary theory. But I would not expect him to be a great thinker on this, you’d be better off with Nietzche, for all that I find his conclusion horrible. Dawkins in general has little to say about the fundamentals of human thought or of being. Like your friend, I don’t think he would understand the distinction in your question.

 

[Oreoracle]

He was answering “where did ethics come from historically” as opposed to “what is the source of ethical truth”. No dice, he didn’t understand the distinction.

I’d like to find something like a succinct explanation of the source of ethical truth…

Well there’s your problem. You won’t hear many atheists speaking of ethical “truth.” You see, ethics are prescriptive, not descriptive; that is, they don’t describe reality, but rather demand that it be a certain way. That’s altogether different than any sort of fact, which is a statement that adheres to reality. Generally, most atheists believe that ethics are subjective, and I would go even further by saying they’re emotional. Unlike yourself, however, I don’t believe that this makes ethics valueless.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

But that hardly means we can go around acting on whim all the time. For we have our own human values which we care about deeply, and they include social concerns.

If I lie, cheat and steal, God is not going to smite me, and I will escape the government’s notice, so long as I take care. But is that really what I want to do? Lying, cheating and stealing cause people close to me to suffer, and since I have uncontrollable empathy for my fellow man, it in turn leads me to suffer. Since I do not want to suffer, I don’t want others to suffer, either, and that constricts my behavior.

In other words, it’s beneficial for me to adopt a moral standard.
-Hatsoff

Hatsoff, thanks for responding.

You appear to have tersely stated a basic utilitarian argument for ethical behavior, that ethical behavior is that behavior which minimizes pain. You appear to have appended the word “value” to it without really connecting it, and this is the crux of the argument.

If Hitchens had said in any of his interviews “I am an animal, I act according to self-interest although given the complexity of my brain and the behavioral options it affords, the exact path of self-interest may be a bit circuitous and difficult to follow, but ultimate like all animals my behaviors have no higher meaning” I would have given him a pass.

However, as I noted, Hitchens (the very popular and visible atheist celebrity) regularly invokes value terminology like right and wrong, without context or foundation. This is precisely why I am interested.

No one has supported the assertion that everyone has uncontrollable empathy for their fellow man. I submit that since your assertion is a completely unsupported universal, a counter-example suffices to refute it. See the killing fields. Any of them.

But since that assertion does not support the idea that value judgements have meaning in a utilitarian system, your post is more of the same that I’ve been seeing from Hitchens, the idea that somehow instinctive behaviors shaped by evolution become ethical behaviors evincing ethical truth because…well, because is the question, isn’t it?

The lion kills lion cubs sometimes because it has this programmed behavior among many. Sometimes this “uncontrollable hostililty” to cubs surfaces due to natural forces. It’s just a response to stimuli. If humans sometimes show “uncontrollable empathy” and other times show “uncontrolable hostility” to other humans, in what way is this different from lion behavior except in terms of complexity?

 

[djeter]

Michael Novak devotes a great deal of his book No One Sees God to dealing with “the new atheists” (Hitchens is one) and their stances on morality. Some salient reading selections here

Design As Solely The Result Of Chance.
It is quite stunning how again and again contemporary evolutionary biologists confirm the findings of classic Jewish or Christian morality – not in all respects, but in nearly all the most central ones. Indeed, they do so not only in ethics, but in the design they find so beautiful in the structure of the universe. They explain this design as completely and solely the result of chance. This is an implausible claim, to be sure, but they insist upon it. And then they add—and this is the kicker – that, yes, the design they detect does look as if it had been designed by a designer, but their science shows that it really wasn’t.
You don’t believe me? Reflect on these four passages from Daniel Dennett (easily replicable in Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and others).

The first is this:

“It just stands to reason (doesn’t it?) that all the wonders of the living world have to have been arranged by some Intelligent Designer? It couldn’t all just be an accident, could it? And even if evolution by natural selection explains the design of living things, doesn’t the “fine tuning” of the laws of physics to make all this evolution possible require a Tuner?”
Dennett is pretty firm in his reply: “No, it doesn’t stand to reason, and, yes, it could all just be the result of ‘accidents’ exploited by the relentless regularities of nature, and, no, the fine tuning of the laws of physics can be explained without postulating an Intelligent Tuner”

His second quip is snappier: “Not one sperm in a billion accomplishes its life mission—thank goodness—but each is designed and equipped as if everything depended on its success.”. (Not a single one of them will stop to ask for directions.)

The Circularity Of Neo-Darwinism
Christoph Schönborn denounced “neo.-Darwjnjsm” in the New York Times, he was understood to be attacking a scientific theory, and this mistaken impression caused shock waves that were unnecessary. This inflamed usage runs counter to the definitions most dictionaries have accepted across many decades. Believers cannot allow atheists to Own the word “Darwinjsm.” Darwinist theory is widely viewed as an enormous accomplishment and a pillar of modern science. For believers to lock themselves into a rhetorical stance against “Darwinism” is wholly unwise.

Though many students of the humanities, accustomed to terms such as “neo-Platonism” “neo-Thomism” and “neo-Kantianism make the mistake of interpreting “neo-Darwinism” as a philosophical reference, we should acknowledge that the term is most properly understood as “the synthesis of Darwinist theory of natural selection with modern genetics.”

If one assumes there is no God, no design, and no future plan in the structure of the universe, as Dennett and the others do, then one needs two new principles for the impressive dynamism, the movement, the change we see around us. First, what makes things go? Second, what makes progress happen? That is, what makes evolution tilt upward? “Natural selection” satisfies both needs.

Moreover there is a very neat offset: If there is natural selection, there is no God. And if there is a God, then natural selection is one of the possible ways through which He might have organized world process.

But these two propositions are not symmetrical. The first one does away with God, on account of natural selection But the second keeps both God and natural selection.
Well, partisans of the first proposition might say: If we have natural selection we don’t need God. “Do not multiply entities without necessity”

To which the riposte might be: At its deepest level, partisans of the atheist position who rely on Ockham are assuming a very high degree of intelligence at work in the world, economical, tending toward elegant simplicity How do they explain this assumption? Ockham’s razor is based on it.

On a less profound level, another riposte is possible: Such partisans seem to imagine that the terms “God” and “natural selection” are two different “explanations” for the same thing. Thus, the rule of Ockham’s razor says that one of them must go. But while natural selection may articulate the method by which species make themselves more fit and improve their capacities, and so forth, the human mind still requires an answer to the question, But what kind of intelligence and dynamism might have implanted “natural selection” as a law of nature, at the very beginnings of biological life? Did the law of natural selection – pop! – just suddenly appear?

Then, too, where do partisans of “natural selection” come up with the loaded term “the fittest”? Such a term requires an energizing source of intelligence and dynamism that puts in place an absolute standard, by which given states of development are adjudged progressive or regressive, backward or avant-garde, worse or better. Without such a standard, there is no non-tautological way to separate what is “more fit” or “fittest” from “whatever happens to be.” On its own terms, natural selection has a fatal ambiguity within it. It seems to display circularity in Darwin’s thought. If X is “fittest.” X is more likely to “survive.” If X survives, that shows that X was “the fittest” among competitors. Fittest = survivors. Circularity?

 

[djeter]

And one more:

Three Moral Objections To Darwinism
There are three moral objections to Darwinism, when it is presented as an alternative to traditional ethical systems based upon reason, common sense, and careful reflection on Jewish and Christian revelation. The first objection is based upon the horrors unleashed by the eugenics movement of the period 1896-1945, first supported by many of the most accomplished and socially esteemed elites of New York and Boston, and then so horribly abused by Adolf Hitler.

The second objection opposes the rationale for the First World War presented by the German General Staff, which argued that the strongest races had a moral duty to supplant the weaker ones, in order to further a healthier natural selection of the fittest. A duty imposed, no less, by Darwinian natural law.

The third objection confronts the effect upon young and imbalanced minds of being taught to admire atheism, nihilism, and natural selection. Two such were Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, the brutal young murderers in Chicago in 1924. This objection was raised by Clarence Darrow, in his defense of these tragic youngsters against capital punishment, on the grounds that their minds had been unfairly poisoned by readings assigned them at the University of Chicago.

The point of these objections is that, if Darwin’s theory of natural selection were applicable to humans as to the other animals, in order to weed out the helpless weak, nothing would be morally wrong with the use of eugenics. Nor would anything be wrong with a strong nation’s practice of justifying by the law of natural selection the depredations it inflicts upon weaker nations. Nor would anything be wrong in the dreadful, murderous conclusions drawn by Leopold and Loeb from the texts they had been assigned to study But the spontaneous sentiments of the human heart, once the relevant information is before it, cry out that these are evils to be opposed. These evil impulses are not “natural” duties to be obeyed. Whatever its strength in other areas, something is seriously wrong with an unmodified Darwinian social theory about human beings.

Pressing on, we find that many of our most irrepressible inquiries push beyond the bounds of science: Why do human beings, since it is said to be so futile a longing, nonetheless long for eternal life? Why is atheism so hard to live by, since spontaneously even the atheist heart on some surprising occasions involuntarily breaks out with “Oh! Thank God!”? Jean-Paul Sartre candidly confessed in The Words how hard it was to remove all religious instincts from his life.

Again, has nature instilled religious aspirations, beliefs, and longings in us only in order to frustrate them? Their power in us makes a large majority of humans take them as evidence of a dimension of existence about which science, at least so far, is in denial.
Why do we, knowing well our private, deeply hidden betrayals of our own deepest principles—our honesty our courage—still long for forgiveness and for a fresh, clean start? Why are our consciences, even under torture, so insistent on not becoming complicit in the lies our torturers demand that we confess? Why does fidelity under duress become so supremely important, even under threat to our very lives and (since some tortures are intended to maim us) to our future health? To what—to what vagrant impulse, to what fleeting whim, to what law of nature—are we trying to remain faithful? And why?
Why are atheists in the same prisons sometimes so brave, so forthright, so courageous, in standing up to torment? What is it in them that makes truth seem so important, when their fidelity to it does not in fact help them to survive but, on the contrary, threatens to overwhelm and to destroy them?..

 

[ipwnuathalo]

I’m surprised you could accept Nietzsche so easily. The authority that truly limits what can or cannot be done is what we call Logic.

James, thanks for the reply. I think we’re off on the wrong foot at the beginning here. Neitzsche is easy for me to accept because he’s not making an assertion about “what can possibly be done”. I’m not sure at all why or how this leap was made in formulating your response to my post. He’s making an assertion about ethics truth, and that subset of possible actions which potentially are ethical actions. He’s simply asserting an identity, that the set of “possible actions” and the set “ethical actions” are identical. He’s not making any assertions at all concerning the set “possible actions” and so your explanation of logic as the arbiter of possible actions, while interesting, is not really responding to Neitzsche.

The Abramic common populous

I confess that I do not know what this phrase means. I googled “Abramic common populous” and received only one hit. Your post. Apparently, even the internet can be a small world. However, since there does not appear to be another instance of the phrase “Abramic common populous” on teh interwebs, I don’t think it would be out of order to ask for a clarification. Thanks.

…often do not understand that God and Logic are essentially the same thing, nor did Nietzsche……Thus for the Atheists who understand that logic is still the guide, the question of ethics becomes one of what is logically required. This leads to the question of “required to accomplish what?” And that question leads to the question of purpose. Thus ethics is logically tied to purpose.

Yes, there are teleological ethical arguments. This is of interest.

The most common view that I have seen among Atheists is that purpose is both subjective and arbitrary. And though it most certainly must be subjective, it certainly cannot be arbitrary. Logic permits nothing to be arbitrary.

Thus ignoring the historical cause of perceived and accepted ethics (as requested), the only alternative for the Atheist is to determine what the purpose of a life is and then determine what rationale suits that purpose.

I have yet to find an Atheist who can handle such a question, but I can stand in his shoes for a moment just to make a little progress down that road.

To logically determine the purpose of life void of an authoritative being, logic itself must stand as the only authority. But logic can only tell of what can be and what cannot not be. Yet from what must be, we can derive that any action must have consequence. If that consequence is undesired, then one must not take the action. And that is the beginning of all ethics (God or not).

And we have arrived again at the utilitarian concept, fraught with all of its logical problems. I think you and I agree about this, that this is the destination of all such arguments.

The problem you run into is that many want to associate ethics merely with social concern void of personal concern. This cannot be done unless you “arbitrarily” accept that society is a required supreme goal and for political socialist reasons, such is often promoted.

Yes, as I have read in Marx. He at least states his assertion somewhat clearly, that organization is a biological reality, and implies the true teleology of life. Thank you, that last paragraph helped to organize some things in my mind. THAT is a rare thing on the interwebs.

I can’t imagine what rationale would bring that conclusion.

Having looked into Marx a bit, I can imagine it, but I don’t find any reason to agree with it.

Thus the question must begin on the individual level ……Thus ethics is determined by the lives who chose to be concerned about death. And that gives us a beginning for rational thought concerning ethics.

So to skip over quite a bit and get more to the direct concern of the OP, rational choices that maintain a life form the individual’s ethics, and DNA evolution theory supports this notion…… I think I relayed the basic idea of how a “Godless” mentality must derive ethical standards beyond merely accepting social traditions.

Did that help any?

Yes, although I think you must have skipped over my area of interest in that last part, as well. I’ll re-read your last paragraphs and see if I can tease out the part where you

relayed the basic idea of how a “Godless” mentality must derive ethical standards beyond merely accepting social traditions

Maybe after my second cup of coffee.

Cheers!