Massimo and Julia sit down with Stephen in this episode of Rationally Speaking, to talk about what he thinks is wrong with the concept of fairness - and about certain traditional values he thinks are more important.
Stephen's pick: "Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions"
References: The Myth of Universal Love.
The injunction to love one another has always struck me as unrealistic, and even foolish. We don't, and I think can't, do that. We love only a very few people. It would seem more sensible to urge that we respect one another.
ReplyDeleteLoving One is loving all,
ReplyDeleteFor All is truly One. =
MJA,
ReplyDeleteyou really ain't helping my already entrenched dislike for most poetry...
give poetry a break ... one rhetorical device does not a poem make!
DeleteSome people need more help than others.
DeleteThat makes you special! =
An excellent episode of rationally speaking. Really enjoyed hearing Stephen Asma's take on this and feel that he raises some very good points. I also appreciated that Massimo raised the distinction between the role of the state and that of the individual as this was exactly what I would have liked to say. I will certainly read Asma's book following this podcast and, love it or hate it, I feel confident that his thinking will bring some much needed balance to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI would also point out that concepts such as fairness vary in meaning from culture to culture. I think Bentham's utilitarianism might not be seen as making much sense by many tribal populations around the world. Another argument against universal love...
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to point out that Stephen Asma wrote that he would kill the entire population of the earth in order to preserve the life of his son -- an incredibly selfish point of view that is reminiscent of the Nazis (e.g. "one German life is worth a thousand Jews").
ReplyDeleteIt's the old Gordon Gekko greed is good / selfishness is good / nothing is owed to your fellow man -- I think it is despicable and contemptible. There are much better things out there to discuss other than this trash.
It's an entirely frivolous assertion, in any case. It's not very likely he'll ever be in a position to kill the entire population of the earth for any reason, is it? "I would do the impossible if...." This is mere posturing.
DeleteThat is a clear misrepresentation of Asma's position. There is nothing Gordon Gekko-ish about it, and listening to this podcast makes that clear. Anyway, ask a dozen parents what they would do to preserve the lives of their children, and I don't imagine you would get a much different response on the whole.
DeleteHe may never be in a position to kill the entire human race, but his DESIRE to do so demonstrates what a crack-pot he is.
DeletePaul,
ReplyDelete(responding to an author-deleted comment, but I thought it was interesting...)
> I wish there had been further discussion, however, as to why we should think ethics and empathy have any close connection at all. Maybe people are so certain of this that they regard it as beneath argument, but I would like to see an argument. <
I think the connection is the idea that pre-reflective (i.e., instinctual) pro-social behavior of the type we would call “ethical” evolved in social primates in part thanks to the ability to feel empathy. That seems a very reasonable scenario, and link, to me. Of course, as Asma points out, such natural capacity for empathy is very limited, and one simply cannot construe a modern ethical system on its basis. But it is not by chance, I think, that we regard non-empathic people as borderline sociopaths, prone to unethical behavior.
> Presumably, the special way you would treat your father in such a case is something you would advocate for all fathers and sons in a similar situation; that is, in your special treatment you're acting according to a universal ethic that is in a fact of a piece with whatever ethic your father has violated. I'm not sure I'm explaining this too well, but the idea here is that a distinction between a personal ethics and a universal ethics doesn't make sense. <
I disagree. The two-level approach reflects the difference between individual-based and society-based perspectives. Even if I think it is right for me to be partial to my father (up to a point), I wouldn’t expect the laws of the land to be so constructed. There is a difference between looking at the ethical precepts that should guide your actions and the ethical universals that should be the foundations for our laws.