What ethics a 'Skeptic' has

[jmercer]

Re: Ethics

Hi jmercer,

I think that DavoMan mentioned 'ethics' not 'methodologies.'

While he didn't use the specific word "methodology" or "method", he did say "approach to an argument", which is a good definition for the word.

Ethics apply to every stream of human life. Some humans may be sceptical about certian things, but unethical in others - for example, a sceptical person will conclude that there is no afterlife, but might willingly take up a gun and go out shooting people. That's what I take to mean by 'ethics.'

We can debate if ethics truly apply to every stream of human life; it could be an interesting debate. (If so, then we need to start a new thread rather than derail this one.)

However, regarding your example... you appear to be confusing the process at arriving at a belief with the effect that belief has on ethics.

The itself process is irrelevant. (Except in terms of success rate of correct conclusions.) It doesn't matter if they use skepticism, the scientific method, a ouiji board, a pendulum, psychic advice, library research or pulling answers out of a hat as their methodology; the belief itself is what ends up being incorporated into their ethics.

So, a human brain (and therefore a human being) employs ethics every day of his/her life, not necessarily because he/she may or may not be a sceptical person, but deciding what is the right and wrong way to behave.
Patsy.

Correct.

Ethics are essentially a social construct of a framework for acceptable and appropriate behavior; scepticism is a methodology for determining the truthfulness (or establishing the probable truthfulness) of statements and claims.

Because ethics are a part of humanity's social framework, I'm not willing to speculate on the possibility of it's existence in a non-human framework... so in that regard, using the phrase "human brain" and "human being" is fine by me. It's not clear to me that an artifical intelligence (or alien intelligence, for that matter) might even employ a social framework at all, let alone one recognizable by humans.

I will pick a nit and object to "human brain" and "human being" regarding skepticism... Skepticism - being a logical, self-consistent system for determining truth (or assigning probability of truth to a claim) - can be utilized by any intelligence capable of learning a logical system. This would include artificial and alien intelligences.

 

[DavoMan]

Holy forums, batman. Look at what I started. I actually can't think of anything more to add, so you guys go ahead.

Edit: I could take all the credit here but I am actually stealing Micheal Shermer with the 'approach to an argument' thing. It just makes perfect sense.

 

[Pup]

Re: Re: Ethics

However, regarding your example... you appear to be confusing the process at arriving at a belief with the effect that belief has on ethics.

The itself process is irrelevant. (Except in terms of success rate of correct conclusions.) It doesn't matter if they use skepticism, the scientific method, a ouiji board, a pendulum, psychic advice, library research or pulling answers out of a hat as their methodology; the belief itself is what ends up being incorporated into their ethics.

Agreed. The obvious and equally off-the-wall counter-example would be a father who believes his daughter is possessed by a demon and kills her upon god's order (or one of the numerous variations you read of in the news occasionally).

 

[Bronze Dog]

Another off-the-wall example: A universal salvationist who goes on a killing spree because he believes everyone will end up in heaven: He's just accelerating the process.

 

[Pup]

Re: Re: Ethics

While browsing eBay for Tolkien books, I spotted an auction where the seller was presenting a fairly recent, still-in-print edition of the Hobbit and trying to pass it off a valuable, out-of-print 1937 edition, blah, blah, blah. Everything he said about the book was a lie. So I e-mailed the only bidder (who was bidding a rather high price) and told him what I thought was going on. But it occured to me that he could easily think I'm just trying to get him to cancel his bid only to turn around and try to sell him my copy of the book instead. So I told him, "I don't expect you to believe me any more than the seller. You shouldn't. Don't take my word for it. Search the internet. For goodness sakes, this exact edition is available at Amazon! Go look. Just check it out for yourself before you pay this guy." I never heard back from him (I guess he was embarassed), but the next day his bid had been withdrawn.

Ah, the complexities of "ethics." The above is also an example of making an ethical decision to commit civil disobedience for a greater good. As I'm sure you know, emailing the bidder was "transaction interference," and the bid retraction was for a disallowed reason, both reportable and sanctionable offenses according to the eBay rules which both parties agreed to. In this case of course, most people would say it was the "right" thing to do, but one could discuss forever where the ethical line should be drawn between obedience and disobedience. And none of the arguments would need to be based on skepticism vs. non-skepticism, since the ethical issue would stand alone.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Ethics

The itself process is irrelevant.

Ack! Dyslexics of the World, Untie!

That should have read:

"The process itself is irrelevant."

Ack!

 

[Psi Baba]

Re: Re: Re: Ethics

Ah, the complexities of "ethics." The above is also an example of making an ethical decision to commit civil disobedience for a greater good. As I'm sure you know, emailing the bidder was "transaction interference," and the bid retraction was for a disallowed reason, both reportable and sanctionable offenses according to the eBay rules which both parties agreed to. In this case of course, most people would say it was the "right" thing to do, but one could discuss forever where the ethical line should be drawn between obedience and disobedience. And none of the arguments would need to be based on skepticism vs. non-skepticism, since the ethical issue would stand alone.

Point taken, except I would have to disagree that his bid retraction was for a disallowed reason. He probably claimed that the seller was misrepresenting the item which I believe is a valid reason for cancelling the bid. Call what I did transaction interference, but all I did was provide the bidder with additional information about the item. I never advised him to retract his bid, I merely encouraged him to verify the information for himself. He did the rest.

 

[Pup]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics

Point taken, except I would have to disagree that his bid retraction was for a disallowed reason. He probably claimed that the seller was misrepresenting the item which I believe is a valid reason for cancelling the bid. Call what I did transaction interference, but all I did was provide the bidder with additional information about the item. I never advised him to retract his bid, I merely encouraged him to verify the information for himself. He did the rest.

Note that I'm not arguing the ethics of the point or disagreeing with your decision to act, but the bid retraction actually would be against the rules. Bid retractions are only allowed under the following circumstances, from http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/bid-retract.html

You made a typographical error and entered the wrong bid amount. ... If you do not place another bid, the retraction will be in violation of eBay's policy and could result in your suspension. ...

The description of an item you have bid on has changed significantly.

You can't reach the seller. This means that you tried calling the seller but his or her phone number doesn't work, or you have tried emailing a message to the seller and it comes back undeliverable.

Someone has bid on an item using your User ID and password.

The second one is the closest to what might apply, but it only works if the seller actually revised the description after the bid, not if he misrepresented the item before the bid was placed.

Ebay defines transaction interference here: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/transaction-interference.html including: "Members are not permitted to email buyers in an open or completed transaction to warn them away from a seller or item."

And now I think this has become an illustration of how one can apply skepticism ("are you sure those are the rules?") without addressing ethics ("was the action the right one?")

 

[DavoMan]

Interesting. To make a bold statement:
There has been a fair number of people on this forum who have called me a hypocrit etc and other nasty things when I say I don't care about other people. I say I would love to exploit peoples' stupidity or emotional weakness to make money.

They call me a hypocrit because they see being self-centered and skeptical as polar opposites.

I am guessing it's because Randi is both a skeptical guy and an honest guy fighting for these people who get burnt by the woos. I am a skeptical guy and love to exploit dumb people.


I don't think every JREF fan quite realises that those are two seperate elements. To sum it up, Randi is both a skeptic and a nice guy. I am a skeptic and not as nice.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Interesting. To make a bold statement:
There has been a fair number of people on this forum who have called me a hypocrit etc and other nasty things when I say I don't care about other people. I say I would love to exploit peoples' stupidity or emotional weakness to make money.

They call me a hypocrit because they see being self-centered and skeptical as polar opposites.

I am guessing it's because Randi is both a skeptical guy and an honest guy fighting for these people who get burnt by the woos. I am a skeptical guy and love to exploit dumb people.


I don't think every JREF fan quite realises that those are two seperate elements. To sum it up, Randi is both a skeptic and a nice guy. I am a skeptic and not as nice.

It also may have to do with the fact that exploiting the peoples stupidity and emotional weakness to make money when you know better could be called fraud and that's what most skeptics here seem to despise. (As opposed to people who are honestly deluded about whatever superpower they claim to have).
Not that I disagree with your statement that those are two separate issues.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's certainly intriguing, given that we seem to agree ethics and scepticism have nothing to do with each other, that by far the majority of posters at this temple of irreligious amorality seem to be either deeply decent people, or astoundingly good liars.
(I except Davoman, whom I suspect of being both honest and a rather poor liar.)

 

[SwissSkeptic]

It's certainly intriguing, given that we seem to agree ethics and scepticism have nothing to do with each other, that by far the majority of posters at this temple of irreligious amorality seem to be either deeply decent people, or astoundingly good liars.
(I except Davoman, whom I suspect of being both honest and a rather poor liar.)

That won't save us from HELLFIRE, though

 

[DavoMan]

It's certainly intriguing, given that we seem to agree ethics and scepticism have nothing to do with each other, that by far the majority of posters at this temple of irreligious amorality seem to be either deeply decent people, or astoundingly good liars.
(I except Davoman, whom I suspect of being both honest and a rather poor liar.)

I'm actually a great liar but I am just honest with you JREF people because you are so good at spotting bull$hit.

 

[Open Mind]

Interesting. To make a bold statement:
There has been a fair number of people on this forum who have called me a hypocrit etc and other nasty things when I say I don't care about other people.

Using your reasoning, how do you know they are not just being skeptical without being ethical?

I say I would love to exploit peoples' stupidity or emotional weakness to make money.

Why? Do I contact the police now?

Where would you draw the line? How about ringing an old lady's door bell, claiming to be the postman and asking for a drink of water on a hot day ..... you could then make a quick grab of anything valuable in sight? After all she was stupid enough to be emotionally kind and to go get you a drink. ....... is this the sort of society you want to live in?

I suppose your type of society would work too .... .. old ladies would eventually reply ' ....... off' I'm not stupid enough to give you water' and hit you over the head with a nearby barometer before raiding your pockets ..... she could claim to the police 'I'm innocent, it is just survival of the fittest - the only true purpose of life,'

If you don’t like my reply, remember, as you suggest I'm just being skeptical without any sense of ethical behavior

I am guessing it's because Randi is both a skeptical guy and an honest guy fighting for these people who get burnt by the woos.

So you admire his ethical stance against fraud?

Not that I'm sure his $1,000,000 challenge publicity stunt, debunking about 2 hopeless but hopeful claimants per year in the briefest of trials is that ethical either. To determine the truth long-term proper trials are required, it is much like saying 'I can't find any strong effect, so my test proves nothing exists at all ' ... it impresses many observers though ... ..... Randi does however serve one very useful purpose in the PSI debate - as an exposer of over the top claims or fraud.......but he isn't going to find or acknowledge weak PSI effects - he isn't looking for these.

I am a skeptical guy and love to exploit dumb people.

Much of the skeptic website ammunition comes from CSICOP, Skeptical Inquirer, Prometheus Books, Free Inquiry etc. .... ...... all founded by Paul Kurtz, philosopher, secular humanist and co president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

What lies behind much of the skeptic movement is secular humanism ..... mostly scientists, rationalists who have done none or extremely little proper PSI research offering critique if current claims and revision, rewrite of historical claims .... ..... their noble intention (possibly misguided) is to create an ethical society without paranormal beliefs.

 

[DavoMan]

Great post.
Yeah it's the humanist part which I find interesting. Why is it so intertwined with rationalist? Thinking about it, I dont understand where the link is. I guess these groups need the humanist aspect as a push for the rationalist aspect? I dunno.

As far as 'exploiting' people. 'Exploit' is a very relative term and doesn't neccecarily imply fraud or bad-taste. I have exploited people and given them benefits at the same time.

Example:
I swapped my slow computer with great graphics for a fast computer with crap graphics. The other guy benefitted cos he can play games well.

I exploted him cos I spent a hundred bucks upgrading my newly accquired fast computer and now I got a monster gaming computer. He could have done that origionally but I didn't tell him.

I direct your attention to Penn & teller's 'Cruel tricks for dear friends'. 2 skeptical & otherwise crafty guys showing ya how to exploit your friends for cash by playing tricks on em.

To be honest, I think the less ethics the better. Personally I dont care for pre-computed decisions. I calculate all my decisions on the fly (realtime! ). Where I see 'ethic' I see 'bias'. DavoMan is the Walking Agument Computer.

 

[jmercer]

Here's the thing, in my opinion.

In order to be skeptical, you have to have the following qualities to one degree or another:

1) The ability and willingness to use logic
2) A desire for discovering the truth
3) The ability and willingness to be diligent
4) The self-imposed discipline to embrace objectivity
5) And finally, the ability and willingness to accept the truth regardless of personal preferences

Obviously, each of these qualities are subjective, and are variable based on the individual personality, beliefs, etc. However, if you look at the qualities involved, they add up to a fairly strong sense of integrity.

I realize I'm piling assertion on top of assertion, but I'm simply offering an opinion while outlining the reasons for it. My conclusion - most people with that much integrity tend to be decent and honest in a lot of other ways as well.

You don't have to be skeptical to have integrity, honesty and decency in your makeup. Very few people are able to be fully skeptical in all areas of their lives; I am an outstanding example of that fact, since I believe in a God based on personal and subjective experiences.

Songstress is another person who strikes me as being a decent human being - and who, as she puts it, turns a deaf ear to certain things we would consider "wooish" - yet is still a practicing medium.

Which, I believe, is the strongest argument available in this thread for ethics being separate from skepticism or credulity.

 

[Camillus]

Dear me, I am incredulous that people here do not believe that scepticism is entwined with ethics.

Scepticism is a virtue. By acting in a virtuous way we promote good (and isn't ethics about the promotion of good?).

I am of course willing to be convinced that I am wrong.

I am a follower of virtue ethics and all I ask is that those who hold that that scepticism is not concerned with ethics convince me that its possession is not a virtue.

I await your repsonses.

 

[Ladewig]

Randi does however serve one very useful purpose in the PSI debate - as an exposer of over the top claims or fraud.......but he isn't going to find or acknowledge weak PSI effects - he isn't looking for these.

Randi is not going to acknowledge weak PSI effects? That's a bold claim, do you have any evidence for it? Wait, I guess I should back up a step and ask what are weak PSI effects?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Dear me, I am incredulous that people here do not believe that scepticism is entwined with ethics.

Scepticism is a virtue. By acting in a virtuous way we promote good (and isn't ethics about the promotion of good?).

I am of course willing to be convinced that I am wrong.

I am a follower of virtue ethics and all I ask is that those who hold that that scepticism is not concerned with ethics convince me that its possession is not a virtue.

I await your repsonses.

Huh. Good point.

I suppose I could revise my argument: Possession of the virtue of skepticism does not necessarily indicate the presence of other virtues.

 

[Ashles]

Dear me, I am incredulous that people here do not believe that scepticism is entwined with ethics.

Scepticism is a virtue. By acting in a virtuous way we promote good (and isn't ethics about the promotion of good?).

I am of course willing to be convinced that I am wrong.

Scepticism may be desirable, thus 'good', but does that make it morally good?

Being born with a healthy body is desirable and good, thus a virtue. But it isn't morally better than being born without legs, or with a cardiac defect.

Or if we bring conscious decision into the equation, is healthy living morally right? It may be a virtue in the sense that it is desirable, but it doesn't 'promote good' when you eat healthily, or evil when you don't.

Scepticism is morally neutral. What we do with the information we gain from scepticism - that's where ethics will apply.

Also you can be sceptical in unpleasant ways.
You could go through life challenging every claim everyone made about everything just to show off your knowledge and to make others feel bad. That would technically be being sceptical. And it wouldn't exactly be promoting good.
What about if I have a relative who uses a crystal to relieve arthritis in their knee - would I be promoting good by explaining to them all about the placebo effect and possibly negating the effect?