Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Peter_Plato]

I see that as technology driven. e.x. Airplanes, Nuclear weapons, automatic weapons, automobiles.

Perhaps, but the intention behind the development and implementation of that technology has not changed or improved. Why develop those technologies except with the intention of using them? Nuclear weapons were developed with the direct intent of becoming more destructive.

It is not as if there are less people with exponentially more capabilities. No, there are MORE people with MORE destructive capabilities.

The practice of sacrificing born or yet to be born children has never been as widespread as it is today. That has nothing to do with technology, other than, perhaps, it is safer for the perpetrator to walk away unscathed, which is the incentive to develop more and more immoral technologies.

It is becoming easier to be immoral, which harkens back to my morality calibration filter.

 

[davidv]

That’s a silly comment.

No nore silly than your claim that there is no objective truth.

If someone says that the circumference of a circle is PI x Diameter, you don’t get to decide if it’s true or not.

Why not. You wrote in prior posts the what is true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.

You don’t get to decide the chemical composition of water or the speed of light or the force of gravity. Reality comprises the hard facts of life.

Morality of actions are part of the hard facts of life.

But if I say it’s true that it’s perfectly OK to have sex when you’re not married or that it’s true that gay marriage is not immoral or that wearing a contraceptive is fine or that stealing food if my family is hungry is perfectly acceptable or that torturing someone to save a city is acceptable, then you can disagree with me all you like. But it won’t change reality.

You may be confusing justice with law and both of them with morality.

Not confused at all. A law based on immorality is unjust. The three topics are intricately connected.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Perhaps, but the intention behind the development and implementation of that technology has not changed or improved. Why develop those technologies except with the intention of using them? Nuclear weapons were developed with the direct intent of becoming more destructive.

It is not as if there are less people with exponentially more capabilities. No, there are MORE people with MORE destructive capabilities.

The practice of sacrificing born or yet to be born children has never been as widespread as it is today. That has nothing to do with technology, other than, perhaps, it is safer for the perpetrator to walk away unscathed, which is the incentive to develop more and more immoral technologies.

It is becoming easier to be immoral, which harkens back to my morality calibration filter.

This is a big long but runs counter to your stats -

youtu.be/ramBFRt1Uzk

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Moving back to my contention in the opening post that the Golden rule is more like the “form” that morality takes, it would seem necessary to begin to specify the content.

While I do agree that the content required by moral thinking would need to be objective, I don’t think mere objectivity (defined as accepted by some, most or all moral agents) is sufficient to make something obligatory.

That is why I am suggesting that the place to begin moral discussion is to presuppose that what “moral” means is “obligatory for all moral agents” and then move from there to determine which principles are to be viewed as absolutely obligatory and objectively so.

All right thinking moral agents would agree that, objectively speaking, such principles are obligatory, even though immoral agents would disagree. The point being that the determinations of immoral beings should not count against such principles because immoral beings would be, by definition, incapable of rendering moral judgements.

We would not appeal to pedophiles to determine whether pedophilia is morally wrong precisely because someone who engages in pedophilia could not render an unbiased judgement on the issue. (Recall neutrality as a stipulation.)

That also means that even though universal agreement is lacking as to whether pedophilia is wrong - pedophiles might disagree - that is not sufficient to nullify the moral determination.

Again, that is the move by moral relativists to discount moral determinations. They claim the existence of individuals or cultures that practice certain acts are sufficient to discredit these acts as morally obligatory. I would disagree. The existence of individuals or cultures that practice immoral acts simply means immoral or morally defective individuals and cultures do, in fact, exist.

That said, I am proposing the following principle as an absolutely binding principle on all human moral agents:

When the choice is between directly ending the life of a human being and the convenience of another human being, the value of life ought always supercede the value of convenience.

Convenience is defined as any aspect of existence or any choice which requires less resources than an alternative. In other words, a convenience is anything which makes life easier for the moral agent. Convenience should never be the option that overwhelms or directly takes the life of a human being, simple convenience or taking the option of saving of resources should never “weigh” more than, or result in, the direct taking of a persons’ life.

In a previous post, responding to Roscoe Turner, regarding the means by which moral rules can be “empirically” determined (the instrument by which they are to be measured,) I replied that the most appropriate instrument for making moral determinations is a fully functioning human moral agent. There is no better instrument. Human beings (at least those which are functioning well, morally speaking) are the most capable instruments for determining what “moral entails,” so the burden falls on us as moral agents to make "empirical’ moral determinations.

Again, that all humans do not agree simply means some are defective as instruments for moral detection. They are, plainly put, “immoral” or defective moral agents.

With that stated, I am proposing the bold faced rule above as a kind of “calibration” test to determine whether the agent is indeed capable of making accurate moral determinations. Given that human moral agents are indeed moral agents, then the value of a human life should take precedence, as the calibration test implies, over any other determinations. A moral agent who cannot subscribe to that “calibration test” simply does not qualify as a “moral agent.”

Notice there is no reference to God to alienate or eliminate atheists a priori. Atheists should not be disqualified simply because they don’t subscribe to a belief in God. However, I would claim, they must pass the calibration exercise.

I am open to a better “calibration” principle, but I do think the rest of my contention holds. That human moral agents are the best means of determining human moral determinations and that some objective filter is required to rule out those incapable of exhibiting sound moral thinking. To argue against these is simply to “fall back” on relativism as a default, though, untenable and indefensible, moral position.

The above reads as if you agree with us you are worthy to judge. How is a proper moral agent determined?

When the choice is between directly ending the life of a human being and the convenience of another human being, the value of life ought always supercede the value of convenience.

This maxim would make this communication impossible. The metals needed to run your computer and other electronics are responsible.

bloodinthemobile.org/the-film/video-blog/

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This is beside the point. There is still a question of whether the Inuit marriage customs can be considered morally licit. Just the fact that a group practices such customs does not, by default, make these customs “moral” as you seem to imply. Their “standards” may have been defective and, hence, would be immoral, standards. That is still an open question.

To assume that standards become moral simply because an entire cultural group practices them is not a position that is defensible. Human sacrifice was practiced by the Aztecs and other cultural groups. Are you prepared to allow human sacrifice as morally legitimate? I am not.

This rule does NOT pass sound moral deliberation:

If practiced by cultural group, then (by default) morally acceptable.

Again the question is of absolute vs relative. They are functioning within their moral parameters.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011
The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
   a.some other group, such as a religion, or
   b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

 

[Bradski]

We would not appeal to pedophiles to determine whether pedophilia is morally wrong precisely because someone who engages in pedophilia could not render an unbiased judgement on the issue. (Recall neutrality as a stipulation.)

You’re being too simplistic. You have in your mind a definition of the term paedophilia, which might include someone who wanted to have sex with what you would describe as an underaged person.

If that person was, for example, two years old, then I don’t think that anyone would agree with you that it would be wrong (there’s no chance of it being mutually agreed to have sex).

But what if the age is, let’s say 15. The church allows sex down to the age of 14 (as long as it’s within marriage). But is it morally right or wrong? Is there an answer that is right in all circumstances for all individuals? Obviously not. The ages we choose are entirely arbitrary.

The existence of individuals or cultures that practice immoral acts simply means immoral or morally defective individuals and cultures do, in fact, exist.

Again, that all humans do not agree simply means some are defective as instruments for moral detection. They are, plainly put, “immoral” or defective moral agents.

But you are missing the obvious. What you are saying is that some are immoral ‘as far as I am concerned’. You are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is moral. How else can you tell what is immoral, other than making the decision yourself? Maybe defer to a higher authority perhaps?

But they both can’t be the moral answer in some (most) moral questions, right?

Is contraception immoral for all, or just for some? I don’t find it immoral in the slightest and I am as sure about that as I can possibly be. But not using it may be the moral standpoint of any given Catholic. Is one of us wrong? I say no.

This is a big long but runs counter to your stats -

youtu.be/ramBFRt1Uzk

And you might want to read Pinker’s ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’. It’s sitting in front of me now and it’s over 700 pages dense with facts and figures that show that we are, without any shadow of doubt, becomming a safer world.

And I would argue that it is because we have a greater undertsanding of morality than we did. Where it leads, I’m not sure.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The above reads as if you agree with us you are worthy to judge. How is a proper moral agent determined?

When the choice is between directly ending the life of a human being and the convenience of another human being, the value of life ought always supercede the value of convenience.

This maxim would make this communication impossible. The metals needed to run your computer and other electronics are responsible.

bloodinthemobile.org/the-film/video-blog/

You are kidding, right?

You point out that a prime feature of YOUR morality is that moral agents must be “worthy” to judge. I move to stipulate precisely what that worthiness entails - the capacity to make sound moral judgements as determined by a free MORAL response to the filter I clearly spelled out - and your only response is that metals and other electronics would pass the filter.

When did metals and electronics become capable of moral decision making? Show that metals and electronics actually deliberate and arrive at moral decisions intentionally and freely. We were speaking of rational, human moral agents were we not?

How would a metal demonstrate that it is making a reasoned moral judgement between the value of a human life and its own convenience? What would “being inconvenienced” look like to a metal or electronic device?

This response makes it appear as if you didn’t follow any of my post.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again the question is of absolute vs relative. They are functioning within their moral parameters.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011
The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
   a.some other group, such as a religion, or
   b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Again, your post makes it appear that either

A) you didn’t follow where I was going or
B) you are playing the “relativist card” to avoid thinking beyond a fixation.

Definition 1 is a descriptive one to qualify what is normally referred to when the word “moral” comes up. The reference is to a code of conduct. There is no attempt to stipulate how a particular tenet might make it onto any “moral” code just that groups or individuals do actually have moral codes to govern their conduct. So what?

Definition 2 is precisely what I am getting at. I attempted to spell out the “specified conditions” that rational moral persons would “put forward” to determine whether a specific principle ought to be part of a moral code at all.

For you to point out that “moral” might ONLY mean something like Definition 1 leads me to think that you are resorting to the relativist’s ploy.

It seems that you are making a claim that moral rules cannot be obligatory BECAUSE they merely refer to any code of conduct an individual or group might have.

Again, unless we begin with the premise that true moral rules have the quality of obligating moral agents, the discussion can go nowhere. You seem to be simply claiming that moral rules do not have that quality and are merely optional for moral agents depending upon which group they belong to.

That would lead me to conclude that your claim as to what an atheist means when s/he says atheist morality is superior BECAUSE it relies on the atheist’s own determination is meaningless. Such a claim is tantamount to saying, “My moral code is better that yours because it is mine, after all.”

Nothing can be claimed about the superiority of one moral code over another unless some independent standard exists for making an objective assessment. Yet you, seemingly, deny THAT possibility by your implication that moral codes are merely descriptive (Definition 1).

If you want to go your way with the self-assurance that your morality is superior simply because YOU claim it is, then there is nothing left to discuss.

Either moral codes can be evaluted by some objective moral standard or moral codes are simply expressions of preference. If the second is your position then you are claiming nothing except that whatever moral beliefs YOU hold, those beliefs are ONLY superior to any other moral beliefs BECAUSE you hold them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And I would argue that it is because we have a greater undertsanding of morality than we did. Where it leads, I’m not sure.

To what “greater understanding” are you referring when

1. You keep insisting moral standards are changing, unstable and not absolute,
2. you have no certainty where “it leads,” and
3. you haven’t stipulated what “moral” actually means.

How can you claim a greater understanding of what is not clearly understood? How would you know your understanding is “greater?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

And you might want to read Pinker’s ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’. It’s sitting in front of me now and it’s over 700 pages dense with facts and figures that show that we are, without any shadow of doubt, becomming a safer world.

How can the world POSSIBlLY be a safer place when shadowy weapons of mass destruction and total annihilation are firmly in the grasp of many more individuals than ever before in history? And those individuals seem quite lacking in the competence to determine what constitutes right moral action. Just those two considerations would seem to overshadow all the 700 pages of facts and figures in Pinker’s book. Maybe your reference is just dense?

 

[Bradski]

How can the world POSSIBlLY be a safer place when shadowy weapons of mass destruction and total annihilation are firmly in the grasp of many more individuals than ever before in history?

Yes, it only takes one madman (or at least a few) with relatively common knowledge to be able to kill a hell of a lot more than used to be the case if they were armed armed only with a gun. But I am not talking about one man or a few. I am talking about the majority of people on the planet.

Without any doubt whatsoever, the planet is becoming safer for the individual. Notwithstanding weapons of mass destruction, any given person alive today has less chance of being killed by another than at any other time. Liberal democracy is the norm.

And widen your scope. I am not talking just of the last few years or even the last few decades (although it’s undoubtedly true for these times). I’m talking about the whole history of civilisation. There is a general movement towards less violence, less cruelty. What was generally accepted as morally correct in the past is now generally considered immoral.

This is a fact that would seem to support your position. That we are heading towards something that could be described as an Absolute Morality. Just as it is suggested that we’re approaching The Ultimate Theory Of Everything that will tie in the basic fundamentals of science into one simple theory.

But the TOE will be applicable to everything whereas there are aspects of morality that will be acceptable to you but not to me. And each of us will be correct. At least as far as we are concerned. How could that not be so?

Bear in mind that getting 100% agreement on a moral matter does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that it is the correct one. So yet again, how do you know which is the correct one unless you either make that call yourself. Or…you appeal to a higher authority.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Without any doubt whatsoever, the planet is becoming safer for the individual. Notwithstanding weapons of mass destruction, any given person alive today has less chance of being killed by another than at any other time. Liberal democracy is the norm.

Certainly this claim that we stand less of a chance of being killed by another person today is just that - a claim. You provide no reason for thinking it to be true except that there are 700 pages densely packed with evidence sitting in front of you. Yet, incredibly, not one piece made it into your post.

I did post one piece of evidence that you made no attempt to dispute. The 20th century was the most deadly by far of any past century and many times more deadly than the average of all past centuries. You contradict that by merely claiming it is becoming the safest. Why should I believe that? Strictly by your word that it is so?

Whatever happened to the need for evidence?

And widen your scope. I am not talking just of the last few years or even the last few decades (although it’s undoubtedly true for these times). I’m talking about the whole history of civilisation. There is a general movement towards less violence, less cruelty. What was generally accepted as morally correct in the past is now generally considered immoral.

My stats did cover the “whole history” of civilization.

The study on wars and genocide proves it is simply not true that there is less violence or cruelty today. The statistics on abortion by themselves - speaking of violent and cruel - show that over 50 million human beings have been killed by other human beings in the United States alone since Roe v Wade.

You might argue “A fetus is not a human being.” I would argue that violence simply prevented the aborted human being from being born. Since I once lived in the womb of my mother, as did every other human being alive today, I have no reason to believe fetal humans are not human after all.

The observation that “we stand less of a chance of being killed by another person,” is simply proved false by the fact that in the United States 4 out of every 10 human beings are killed by another person before they even have a chance to be born. When, at any time ever in the past, were 4 out of 10 human beings killed by another? We are not talking about savage barbarians at the gate, here either, we are talking about being killed at the hands of the one person entrusted with the moral responsibility of care. At most other times in history, that moral duty would not even have been questioned, let alone rationalized away.

Sure, liberal democracy can continue to lower the bar on the meaning of “moral” to the very bottom and then proclaim moral supremacy. The truth is that morality hasn’t improved, the standards have simply been gutted.

If nothing is considered morally bad by liberal democrats, then no one can accuse them of moral corruption. Moral evil has been vanquished. All hail the moral champions of today who have stamped out moral evil by defining it out of existence. That’s just brilliant, that is! Too bad our predecessors didn’t think of it. They could have saved themselves all the anxiety, blood, frustration and tears battling evil when they could have simply declared evil to be good and been done with it. That will be the legacy of liberal democracy: the redefinition of good to include all evil, except, of course, the unspeakable evil of those beings who dare to oppose the redefinition.

History, not acclamation, will decide the success of liberal democracy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Bear in mind that getting 100% agreement on a moral matter does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that it is the correct one. So yet again, how do you know which is the correct one unless you either make that call yourself. Or…you appeal to a higher authority.

Apply your “logic” to any endeavor for truth or knowledge. Getting 100% agreement on any matter - scientific, legal, political, practical, etc. will not “by any stretch of the imagination mean that it is the correct” view of the matter. So does that mean we must either make the call ourselves or appeal to higher authority in those areas? I don’t see why it should.

The whole point of my enterprise was to construct a capability “filter” regarding moral discourse. Find a basic principle that is as close to axiomatic as possible, morally speaking, to weed out individuals who are incapable of exhibiting sound moral reasoning and then use the “moral sense” of those remaining to deliberate or reason from the basic principle to derive important moral implications.

This is the “method” I am proposing to achieve clarity on moral thinking:

1. Identify basic or “axiomatic” moral principles.
2. Use those principles to determine moral capacity, expertise and competency.
3. Initiate reasoned discussion with those who demonstrate moral capacity/competency/expertise to “flesh out” the moral implications that follow from axiomatic moral principles.
4. Develop a rationally sound moral philosophy (derived from basic principles) based on reason and logic.

It is certainly true that no one can be forced to be moral, but it is possible to assist those who do want moral clarity to work out a sound ethical perspective that they accept, as part of what “moral” means, will obligate them (as moral agents) to specific moral choices. The idea would be to persuade by reason and clarity rather than impose by force or compulsion.

Do you have a problem with the method I am using?

The principle or “filter” I proposed - and it was only a proposal for debate - was:

When the choice is between directly ending the life of a human being and the convenience of another human being, the value of life ought always supercede the value of convenience.

You made no attempt to show this principle to be lacking or misconceived, but rather went on a largely irrelevant tangent about pedophilia and birth control. Your point about pedophilia didn’t even address the reason I made reference to it in the first place.

I am under the impression that many individuals who want to “appear” to be moral, but do not seriously want to think through the repercussions of moral principles to the point of being obligated because there is no other way out, will resort to playing the “relativist” card to nullify the serious implications to their behaviour they want to avoid.

You seem to also be playing the “relativist” card by sidetracking the discussion to differences in moral perspectives rather than addressing my point.

Focus on discussing the method I am proposing, if you don’t mind.

 

[Bradski]

OK…in regard to violence in previous times, there is a table here (newscientist.com/embedded/20worst) that appears in the book I mentioned.

It’s no good looking at any era and say it is more dangerous or safer without taking into consideration the population at the time. It’s obviously more dangerous to live somewhere (or sometime) where there are 100 people and 10 of them will die a violent death than it would be to live somewhere where there are 1000 and ten will die a violent death.

So the deaths in the table are adjusted for population.

Apart from the Second World War, I’ll be surprised if you come anywhere close to getting any of the top ten. I certainly didn’t. In fact, some of the most violent episodes I had never heard of.

You are quite possibly safer from a violent death today than anyone who has ever lived in previous times.

Now, in regard to your axiomatic basis for some sort of moral committee, unless I’m reading you incorrectly, the test for membership is whether you think that abortion should be allowed.

Well, I’m going to cheat and put down that I think it shouldn’t. So I’ve turned up for the first meeting and I ask if it shouldn’t be agreed that barrier methods of contraception should be made easily available. So that we can work to reduce the number of abortions. Seeing that people will be having sex outside marriage. Which is something with which I have no problems.

Now, is there a morally correct answer to contraception, or just one that is right for some people and not for others. Ditto sex in and outside of marriage.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You are kidding, right?

You point out that a prime feature of YOUR morality is that moral agents must be “worthy” to judge. I move to stipulate precisely what that worthiness entails - the capacity to make sound moral judgements as determined by a free MORAL response to the filter I clearly spelled out - and your only response is that metals and other electronics would pass the filter.

When did metals and electronics become capable of moral decision making? Show that metals and electronics actually deliberate and arrive at moral decisions intentionally and freely. We were speaking of rational, human moral agents were we not?

How would a metal demonstrate that it is making a reasoned moral judgement between the value of a human life and its own convenience? What would “being inconvenienced” look like to a metal or electronic device?

This response makes it appear as if you didn’t follow any of my post.

I wasn’t saying the metals are moral agents. I am saying you are indirectly responsible for horrible conditions for other human beings by using electronics.

I am not claiming absolutism, so I don’t need an absolute meter of morality. If a society like the Inuit determine that their marriage customs work for them, the customs work for them. There is no need to determine if they are illicit for all humanity for all time.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Again, your post makes it appear that either

A) you didn’t follow where I was going or
B) you are playing the “relativist card” to avoid thinking beyond a fixation.

Definition 1 is a descriptive one to qualify what is normally referred to when the word “moral” comes up. The reference is to a code of conduct. There is no attempt to stipulate how a particular tenet might make it onto any “moral” code just that groups or individuals do actually have moral codes to govern their conduct. So what?

Definition 2 is precisely what I am getting at. I attempted to spell out the “specified conditions” that rational moral persons would “put forward” to determine whether a specific principle ought to be part of a moral code at all.

For you to point out that “moral” might ONLY mean something like Definition 1 leads me to think that you are resorting to the relativist’s ploy.

It seems that you are making a claim that moral rules cannot be obligatory BECAUSE they merely refer to any code of conduct an individual or group might have.

Again, unless we begin with the premise that true moral rules have the quality of obligating moral agents, the discussion can go nowhere. You seem to be simply claiming that moral rules do not have that quality and are merely optional for moral agents depending upon which group they belong to.

That would lead me to conclude that your claim as to what an atheist means when s/he says atheist morality is superior BECAUSE it relies on the atheist’s own determination is meaningless. Such a claim is tantamount to saying, “My moral code is better that yours because it is mine, after all.”

Nothing can be claimed about the superiority of one moral code over another unless some independent standard exists for making an objective assessment. Yet you, seemingly, deny THAT possibility by your implication that moral codes are merely descriptive (Definition 1).

If you want to go your way with the self-assurance that your morality is superior simply because YOU claim it is, then there is nothing left to discuss.

Either moral codes can be evaluted by some objective moral standard or moral codes are simply expressions of preference. If the second is your position then you are claiming nothing except that whatever moral beliefs YOU hold, those beliefs are ONLY superior to any other moral beliefs BECAUSE you hold them.

Even definition 2 has a “conditional” clause, “given specified conditions”. The Inuit had a specific set of conditions that determined their morality in terms of the marriage customs. I live under different conditions. Why would I judge their morality using my conditions as the meter.

It would be like saying a flip flop isn’t a proper shoe because it’s not good in the snow. It works fine as a shoe at the beach. Not everyone has to wear snow boots.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re being too simplistic. You have in your mind a definition of the term paedophilia, which might include someone who wanted to have sex with what you would describe as an underaged person.

If that person was, for example, two years old, then I don’t think that anyone would agree with you that it would be wrong (there’s no chance of it being mutually agreed to have sex).

Haven’t we already agreed in past threads that you don’t believe that the criterion for sex being moral is that both parties are willing?

Or have we?

Now that I’m typing this I can’t recall if you’ve ever acknowledged that sex between 2 mutually agreeable people doesn’t necessarily mean it’s moral.

What’s your position again?

 

[PRmerger]

Even definition 2 has a “conditional” clause, “given specified conditions”. The Inuit had a specific set of conditions that determined their morality in terms of the marriage customs. I live under different conditions. Why would I judge their morality using my conditions as the meter.

Are you willing to apply this paradigm to Aztec child sacrifice as well?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Are you willing to apply this paradigm to Aztec child sacrifice as well?

I am not willing to defend Child Sacrifice anymore than I’m willing to defend the Genocide in Deuteronomy. Are you willing, under banner of absolute morality, defend the child killing in those episodes?

Are you equating polygamous relationships and child killing? Are all moral questions equally weighted?

 

[Peter_Plato]

OK…in regard to violence in previous times, there is a table here (newscientist.com/embedded/20worst) that appears in the book I mentioned.

It’s no good looking at any era and say it is more dangerous or safer without taking into consideration the population at the time. It’s obviously more dangerous to live somewhere (or sometime) where there are 100 people and 10 of them will die a violent death than it would be to live somewhere where there are 1000 and ten will die a violent death.

So the deaths in the table are adjusted for population.

The problem with “adjusted for population” is that it presumes the “adjusted” event could actually take place at a future time in its inflated glory. If we compare, for example, Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, the only reason Mr. Khan’s adjusted number can possibly reach 778 million is precisely because it is statistically inflated. Even if I were to admit that Genghis Khan were as hideously evil as Adolf Hitler I have no reason for accepting that his death count would even come near 778 million (or whatever it would be adjusted to 1940-45). It is just plain silly to think, given all factors that the number is a realistic one.

As deceptively compelling as the chart is, I don’t find it realistic precisely because it is skewed. It would be like saying, if I killed one man at the time of Genghis Khan that would be the equivalent of killing 17 or 18 men today. Why do I have any reason to think that is even plausibly true?

In addition, even accepting the face value of the chart, there is still the question of the lax moral view on abortion having resulted in the deaths of something like 1.5 billion children, which is about double Mr. Khan’s “production.” Why was that chilling statistic left off of Pinker’s chart?

Lastly, his chart says nothing about the sheer numbers of horrific events. Why does he not speak of the frequency of such events in the past century as opposed to historical frequency. The statistics on war and democide does factor frequency by making it a question of deaths per 100 taking into account all events, not just the ones that serve a purpose.

Apart from the Second World War, I’ll be surprised if you come anywhere close to getting any of the top ten. I certainly didn’t. In fact, some of the most violent episodes I had never heard of.

You are quite possibly safer from a violent death today than anyone who has ever lived in previous times.

I doubt that precisely because the means to bring about the death of massive numbers of humans today are far in excess of any means available in the past.

It is certainly not true that yet to be born children are “possibly safer” than ever before because the probability of them making it out of their mother’s womb is approaching 50/50 in many countries. (In particular, those which would be described as liberal and democratic.)

Now, in regard to your axiomatic basis for some sort of moral committee, unless I’m reading you incorrectly, the test for membership is whether you think that abortion should be allowed.

And is it the reason you reject the “axiomatic basis” that it clearly points to abortion being wrong? You don’t like the implications, so you reject the premise?

We can play that game until the cows come home. That is just to say: I want to be moral to the extent that I want to be moral so I’ll just deny any principles that take me where I don’t want to go. It is putting the cart before the horse regarding moral thinking.

If your default position is, “I can be made to do only what I want to do,” then you have eliminated every principle that might obligate you to some other action a priori. That position subscribes to the notion that moral obligation is merely optional. So your obligation not to rape or murder only holds IF you want it to be so? What if you don’t want it to be so? No obligation exists EXCEPT where you want it to exist? The rapist doesn’t want the obligation, so no obligation?

Well, I’m going to cheat and put down that I think it shouldn’t. So I’ve turned up for the first meeting and I ask if it shouldn’t be agreed that barrier methods of contraception should be made easily available. So that we can work to reduce the number of abortions. Seeing that people will be having sex outside marriage. Which is something with which I have no problems.

Now, is there a morally correct answer to contraception, or just one that is right for some people and not for others. Ditto sex in and outside of marriage.

So your position is that you won’t agree to any basic principles because those might lead to some conclusion that you find unacceptable?

Regarding the basic axiom: I noticed you failed to give a direct response to why it is defective as a starting point. (Other than it has implications you don’t like about abortion.

In other words, are you claiming that it is sometimes morally acceptable to value the convenience of some human beings above the lives of other human beings?

If true, then perhaps Genghis Khan was showing morally upright behaviour and Pinker’s use of him as a representative of evil was in error? After all, valuing convenience over life would make the deaths of 1.5 billion human beings morally acceptable. On the same principle (or lack of it) Mr. Khan was merely acting on convenience. What’ strong with that? His victims were preventing him from fulfilling his freedom, goals and ambitions! What’s another 778 million, eh?