I've got my popcorn ready...
 

We'll all have a good laugh about this stuff when we're pulled out of our incubation chambers and realize that the world has already gone to hell and the machines are using us as batteries.
 

TT,

Do you believe that averting climate catastrophe is, by itself, justification for establishing a government?

In other words, if there were no governments and everyone was able to get along fine without them (ie, they weren't being established for any other purposes prior, legitimate or not), could we expect to see you writing a "Declaration of Carbon Independence" and perhaps penning a long document that begins "We the people, in order to live in a more carbon-neutral environment..."?

The reason I ask is because I am curious if you seek to use the government to solve this problem because it already exists and thus you see it as expedient and practical to do so, or if in fact you believe that 'by rights' a government should be created and used for the purpose of averting climate catastrophe?

I look forward to your thoughts
 

Taylor,

I have read a lot of TT's comments on the issue, and while I am not entirely in agreement with his diagnosis, I am under the strong impression that his argument is in fact that Government is a main contributor to the problem, and that the best solution to the problem is a genuine free-market, private-property system.

It is this aspect of his argument that has convinced me he's on to something. I may have misunderstood him, of course, and I am certain he will correct me if I am wrong.

However, I agree with TT that the knee-jerk reaction by many libertarians to dismiss a priori ANY arguments of the tree-huggers is not very well justified.

After all, much of industry is in cahoots with governments around the world, and just because it is called 'business' does not make it automatically moral.

The real question is whether environmental damage is a symptom of market failure or government failure. I am inclined towards the latter.
 

To be absolutely clear:

I am convinced that all so-called 'market failure' is really a result of government policy.

Just to prevent a debate on Pareto optimality, subjective value, and all that jazz. I'm with Rothbard on this one.
 

Well, first of all, you're returning to your MO for global warming, which is to lie about what I say. I've *never* promoted global warming alarmism. The only thing I've been alarmed about is how you handle the issue, especially when you condition on the mainstream science being correct.

Exhibit A: Even when you accept the consensus for purposes of argument, your reaction is to reclassify the human GW victims as not being scarce! See, when an oil pipeline blows up, something has become more scarce. But when people are flooded out of their land ... um, what's the loss again?

Now, I've certain done some pro-state things in my life, but I don't think I've *ever* gone so far as to deny the scarcity of human beings that governments have murdered. But when a nasty gas tax might come up, suddenly Fazlar the Bengali is superabundant.

Next, whenever you write about any attempt to curtail CO2 emissions, your entire response is the trivial point that "that would impose costs on the economy". Um, yeah. But that ignores the entire reason an opposing position exists in the first place: because excessive CO2 would *also* cost the economy.

This kind of rhetoric is like arguing against abortion laws on the grounds that they "restrict women's choice". Um, yeah, but how about some acknowledgement of the existence of the opposing side? Is that too much to ask these days.

And even when you talk of an ideal libertarian world, you act like it would be some unthinkable monstrosity for people to have to pay a sliver of the cost of fossil fuels as compensation to those it hurts. For you, the only market compatible solution is all-or-nothing, forcing you into the absurd position of claiming that the "market solution" to AGW is for the victims to pray that some rich guy will pay for some expensive geo-engineering solution developed in non-governmental labs. That's like saying the market solution to rape is, "might want to get that checked out".

There, that about sums up why I think your brain shuts off when you talk about the environment.
 

No one knows what s*las is talking about that is why we are always soooo _stupid_ to miss his point. He is so clear.

I thought s*las' argument is that Bob is a murderer?
 

Bob, thanks for the questions and observations.

First, thanks for calling me an "extreme libertarian"; I`m flattered that you`ve apparently accepted that I am trying to approach this issue from a libertarian viewpoint. I don`t think the "Alarmist" peg is conducive to discussion but, yes, I AM alarmed.

Second, thanks to your link to an article on the efforts of Rob Bradley and his funders to influence the climate debate, which also noted that Bradley has banned from his MasterResource blog as a result of my complaints that he is not "promoting 'free markets' in energy, but ... protecting the interests of his fossil fuel funders." Bradley`s actions speak more loudly than his words. I`d ask readers to look further at my remarks on the comment thread.

Third, while I`m trying to be principled, I`m not sure I follow your Rosa Parks analogy: I`ve been kicked off of Bradley`s coal/utility bus, and I`m not in favor of cap-and-trade anyway (I favor a mix of deregulatory, tax and other policies and agree with Exxon that a carbon tax (especially if rebated) is far preferable to cap & trade).

As for your numbered points, let me note:

(1) OF COURSE I think that "the latest, peer-reviewed arguments and data to enter the discussion."
My point was simply that what we`re witnessing here, in the rush by "skeptics", from the Heartland Institute, Watts Up, Bradley`s MasterResource, and your blog, this paper (which was noly made publicly available sometime in the last month) is NOT anything like "standard practice". Rather, this paper is both being eagerly swallowed whole by "careful" "skeptics" AND is being deliberately thrown into immediate political use before anyone - particularly lay commentators - has even had a chance to READ it.

I posted more thoughts on WHY - based on comments that I tried to make to Chip Knappenberger at Rob Bradley`s blog, but which Bradley deleted - are here.

(2) Bob, I`m not sure if this is the point you are making, but none of the serious scientists, such as Lindzen, Pielke Sr., and Christy assert that human activities have made no serious contribution to climate change; Pielke Jr. puts GHGs at about 30% and believes that albedo changes from soot and agriculture have been almost as important.

[more]
 

[cont.]

Bob, my point is simply that we don`t feel the impact of GHG emissions immediately, but over a multi-decadal period (actually, long feedbacks take over centuries), and we are still rapidly ramping up GHG emissions (mostly in the developing world). There is tremendous inertia in this system, and we still have the pedal to the metal (glued down, with no steering or brakes, and little in the way of roadmap or headlights).

Our little climate "experiment" is not reversible and hardly conservative.

And so that's why emissions need to be capped--ideally by the market, but if not possible then by governments--before it's too late."

In my view, given inertia and what we`re already experiencing, it is ALREADY too late to avoid serious impacts. But there is likely to be more to come that can be avoided, and the risks of damage to our only nest are high. I would like to see a wide range of policy changes - from freeing power markets to greater competition, giving consumers better power pricing information, ending tax hurdles to amortizaton and investment, changes to environmental laws that remove regulations (and "rights to pollute" up to federal standards) but expose power generators to citizen`s suits, and ending massive government ownership of energy resources, but I am not opposed to governments acting in part as our proxies to negotiate international Coasean deals (like ranchers discussing range management, or fishermen a shared fishery).

I certainly opposed cap & trade green energy / clean coal subsidies, but as a fallback would (like Exxon, Margon Thorning and Jim　Hansen) favor carbon taxes - particularly if fully rebated per capita.

Thanks for the engagement (and for keeping me up WAY past my bedtime).
 

Oops, one last thing, Bob: should I feel "slighted" or pleased that you are trying not to suggest that my critisms (or is it my body mass) are not "weighty"?

I can assure you that, like you and Gene, I AM trying to lose weight, but otherwise I always fight above my weight class (but not with you - you ain`t heavy, you`re my brother).

And while I think your views on natural resource issues (and religious issues) are mistaken, otherwise I`m a fan.a
 

Silas, if you think people will be flooded because of human activities, that's an alarming prediction. So to say it again, it's not (contrary to what some might infer, from your posts) that I say, "Yes Silas, thousands of poor people across the globe will lose their homes to rising sea levels but US GDP is more important than that."

Rather, I'm saying, "I don't think the evidence is anywhere near conclusive that industrial activities will cause that to happen to people, and even if it did, I don't think the US cap and trade movement will significantly alter global emissions in the coming decades."

Tom: If Lindzen/Choi's estimate of climate sensitivity is correct, then that means the temperature rise of the 20th century is due more to natural causes than human activities, right? So I don't understand your position here. You keep assuming that the warming temperature is largely due to GHG emissions, and that even if we stopped them tomorrow, the previous emissions' effects are still "in the pipeline" and will cause further ravages down the road. But that's the very thing under discussion, which Lindzen/Choi says is 1/6 what the "consensus" said it was.
 

I am at a loss to see how, even if the sea level rose to the levels the alarmists are talking about, how people couldn't see this and compensate.

First, I don't think what is being talking about is as dire as some people say. It bothers me that so many push some of this as doomsday.

Second, it's not like all of this water will suddenly appear in the next hour or even tomorrow. The kinds of things being talked about takes years to happen, and in that time people will change their behavior to suit the new situation.

Life isn't static, it adapts to new situations. Why are the warming alarmists so intent on not recognizing this?
 

Silas, if you think people will be flooded because of human activities, that's an alarming prediction.

So show me where I made it, liar.

So to say it again, it's not (contrary to what some might infer, from your posts) that I say, "Yes Silas, thousands of poor people across the globe will lose their homes to rising sea levels but US GDP is more important than that."

Right, you're careful about maintaining plausible deniability while suggesting people make exactly this tradeoff *if* they are in fact faced with it.

Rather, I'm saying, "I don't think the evidence is anywhere near conclusive that industrial activities will cause that to happen to people, and even if it did, I don't think the US cap and trade movement will significantly alter global emissions in the coming decades."

No, liar, you've said a lot more than that, starting from the link I gave before. Your position went *well* beyond "I don't think that's going to happen", and into "If it does happen, there's no change in scarcity of anything". *That* was where you went off the deep end, among other serious problems with the op-ed. It's an appalling misunderstanding of scarcity, and far beyond standard libertarian concerns about government screwing things up.

And if that part in quotes really were your position, you would be thinking about ways to get around the "unilateral disarmament" problem you love to bring up, rather than using it as your latest excuse du jour for why there should never be any well-defined rights in scarce atmospheric resources whatsoever.

(And before you say it, one trick to avoid being called a liar is to, well, not lie. You still haven't apologized for misrepresenting my position on geo-engineering, which you did over a year ago. What the heck gives?)
 

Bob wrote: "Silas, if you think people will be flooded because of human activities, that's an alarming prediction."

Silas answered, "So show me where I made it, liar."

Silas,

This is a new revelation to me. You mean that you don't think there is a decent chance that anybody is going to be flooded out of their land because of human activities?

Did anybody else think that? Seriously, TokyoTom, did you realize Silas never thought Third Worlders were in danger of being flooded?

I'm not being sarcastic. This stuns me to hear you say that, Silas.
 

For those who are new to all this and want to see what cemented in my mind the idea that Silas really is worried about millions of people being flooded, see this post. It's true, I just now re-read it, and Silas never says, "I predict that millions of people will be flooded." But I think any reasonable person who clicks through and reads that link will totally understand why I thought Silas believed that.
 

"Do you believe that averting climate catastrophe is, by itself, justification for establishing a government?"

No, Taylor, I don`t see that a looming climate catastrophe (or other apparent catastrophe) by itslef would justify the formation of a state. Absent governments, other voluntary responses would no doubt arise, and more quickly than when hampered by governments and rent-seeking.

"I am curious if you seek to use the government to solve this problem because it already exists and thus you see it as expedient and practical to do so"

My view is quite a bit more subtle. First, the fact of the matter is that we HAVE a gvernment; even if we didn`t, we`d have to deal with the governments of other peoples on an issue such as this. Theoretically, in negotiations with others around the world regarding the atmospher and climate, we might very well end up creating forms of government. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore that states exist; the question is in part whether we can put them to any good use, and in part how do we avoid making them worse.

Then again, our government has already helped screw up issue in any number of ways. In my view, the focus should be as much on UNDOING what has been counterproductive and what libertarians have never suppported. Those who don`t want to see MORE government should not be closing their minds to the fact of the status quo, and ought to see in concern about climate change and resources issues an OPPORTUNITY to undo existing damage.

See my point?

But in all this, libertarians never strive to be positive change agents, but instead have been almost wholly co-opted by rent-seekers who benefit from rights to pollute for free and barriers to entry under the staus quo.
 

Bob, what`s at issue is NOT whether the effects of previous emissions are still "in the pipeline" - there is much information that the effects of forcings are manifested not immediately, but over centruies and millenia, as oceans and ecosystems respond (viz., it is agreed that the "pipeline" is VERY long).

What is a issue on the "sensitivity" discussion is restricted to shorter order temperature responses over a few decades, and the degree to which the warming manifested so far can be attributed to GHGs.

This discussion ignores both the actual temperature and climate responses over the past century (and there are many very startling changes) in favor of a discussion of averages, and the longer term response issues.

As the GHGs actually have a forcing effect (though its size is disputed), no one is really arguing that GHGs have NOT contributed to warming over the past century - even as scientists recognize that such forcing is overlaid on a naturally fluctuating climate system, so it is impossible to make any precise attribution.

As an aside, I note that none of the "skeptics" trumpeting Lindzen`s lates paper troubles themselves to note that Lindzen only argued for a sensitivity of 0.5 C (1/6 of 3C) in the TROPICS, and noted that adjustments for temperate zones would roughly half the negative feedback sees for clouds. Thus, what we hear from everyone, uncorrected by Lindzen, is a very rushed strawman.
 

Bob, I think you prove my accusation here: you almost never bother to actually read the actual point I'm trying to make, but instead simply pattern-match it to the nearest standard argument you've heard. Or better yet, the nearest "team". ("Uh oh, Silas looks like he's on the socialist 'team' now, start anti-socialism diatribe.")

Simply because I make sort-of-the-same arguments as people on the 'bad' team, automatically you act like you don't have to read my posts before responding to them. It's like, the idea that you might have missed something important never once occurs to you.

Even in the post you link to as evidence, you don't seem to have read it. The point was that even when you make a good case why governmental action is not justified now, you reveal a wretched *basis* for that position, which has terrible implications for all kinds of situations.

Go alllllll the way back to my original criticism of your op-ed that started this feud. Read it for your first time. Where is my criticism of you for rejection of global warming alarmism? Nowhere. Because that's not the freaking point of my criticism.

I criticize what you say when you condition on the science being valid. And you later agreed that I was absolutely right that there can be a free market property right in a clean resource, which spawns a market in emissions rights.

Now, can you stop spending mental energies on whether I'm a traitor to your tribe, and start doing what I've asked along: check whether your arguments meet your *own* standards?
 

Silas,

Didn't I already say that I was (unintentionally) misleading in that op ed from more than a year ago? If not, I'll say it again for the record:

I was writing that article at a time when most people still really didn't understand what "cap and trade" was. I did not then, and I do not now, think that there will be dire consequences for our grandchildren from current CO2 emissions. So in that frame of mind, I was saying that assigning permits to emit CO2 would not reflect true scarcity, anymore than the gov't charging people to sneeze.

Now you are right, in the article I also made it sound as if every point I was making, was conditioned on the IPCC being right, just for the sake of argument. So I contradicted myself by flipping back and forth. I apologize for the confusion.

Finally, I do NOT agree with you because I say that EVEN IF the IPCC were totally correct, it would not follow that assigning property rights to CO2 emissions is what "the market" would do in a worldwide ancap society where the free market scientists become convinced of manmade global warming. So although I concede that I should not have said "this isn't a reflection of scarcity," I do not concede that in such a hypothetical case, "Cap and trade would be a market solution."

I strongly object to this trend where "market solution" means anything other than direct order from DC. Like, what's going on Afghanistan right now is a "market solution" to terrorism, because after all the government didn't draft those soldiers.
 

Bob, why is it that I have the feeling that by addressing Silas, you`ve effectively "moved the goalposts" so that you`ve avoided responding to me? ;)
 

"Even when you accept the consensus for purposes of argument, your reaction is to reclassify the human GW victims as not being scarce! "

Silas, this must be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.
 

"which also noted that Bradley has banned from his MasterResource blog as a result of my complaints"

Suuuuure, Tom, sure, all of us blog owners keep banning you and deleting your comments not because hou an asocial weenie, but because we are all conspiring to stifle your point of view.

Are you taking those meds, Tom?
 

"In my view, given inertia and what we`re already experiencing, it is ALREADY too late to avoid serious impacts."

So what, Tom? As you assert, right and wrong are all just subjective opinion, so, if I can profit from these impacts, why should I care? By your own principles, the fate f those poor schucks in Sri Lanka should mean nothing to me.
 

Gene, wow, I have to say that I feel very honored to be stalked by such an illustrious philosopher! Thanks!

I am scratching my head as to why you bother, though; you`ve already exhaustively addressed all of my points and, after all, I have proven "about as interested in honest engagement as the Pope is in scheduling an abortion".

"As you assert, right and wrong are all just subjective opinion": but ahh, I see you`re wrestling with a demon of your own imaginings rather than with my positions. Now I understand. However, perhaps you`d care to pursue this line with people you haven`t banned, on one of Bob`s dedicated threads, or even somewhere on your blog? You are also welcome to visit this thread at my blog.

Yes, I`ve been banned by the likes of RedState, Freepers (Free Republic), and NewsBusters, essentially because they didn`t want to hear me arguing about principles they`d abandoned. Nothing as exciting as conspiracies, I`m afraid; just run-of-the-mill echo chamber stuff.

The case of MasterResource is similar, but a further wrinkle was that Rob Bradley didn`t like me pointing out his lack of interest in problem-solving or that he is working for rent-seekers (coal).

I`m proud to say that I`ve been commenting, blogging and getting along fine for 3+ years with the opinionated community at LvMI.

"Asocial weenie"? Another colorful term by someone who came "mewling" to this blog on another thread. There`s only been one such character who`s deleted my comments or closed out a blog thread on me; perhaps you know him?

By your own principles, the fate f those poor schucks in Sri Lanka should mean nothing to me.

Again you misunderstand my principles. But the glory of the world, of course, is that you get to base your behavior on your own principles (and objective truths as you perceive them), not mine, as well as on any moral pressure you might feel from the broader community in which you dwell.
 

@Bob:

Didn't I already say that I was (unintentionally) misleading in that op ed from more than a year ago?

Nope, you didn't. Not where any readers of your original op-ed would actually see your admission of misleading them. Sorry, but it's not good enough to whisper "I goofed" once you've misled people into believing garbage.

I was writing that article at a time when most people still really didn't understand what "cap and trade" was. I did not then, and I do not now, think that there will be dire consequences for our grandchildren from current CO2 emissions. So in that frame of mind, I was saying that assigning permits to emit CO2 would not reflect true scarcity, anymore than the gov't charging people to sneeze.

In other words, you assume away the very reason an opposing side exists in the first place, and then majestically declare, "aha! The opposing side has no reason to impose their policy!"

Do I even need to tell you why that doesn't work? Do I need to do the abortion analogy again?

The way it's supposed to work is that, you either show why the opposing side's basis is wrong, OR you show why their policy is a bad idea, given their basis. You don't get to assume away the existence of opposing arguments. That doesn't meet your standards (or so I thought).

Now you are right, in the article I also made it sound as if every point I was making, was conditioned on the IPCC being right, just for the sake of argument. So I contradicted myself by flipping back and forth. I apologize for the confusion.

First of all, don't apologize to me; apologize to your audience. Second of all, "flipping around" was not what I criticized. It's that you clearly try to make it look like *no change in scarcity whatsoever* results from excessive emissions of CO2 (which you clearly contrasted with a terrorist attack on a pipeline), even though that amounts to saying that anyone negatively affected, and any property destroyed thereby, just doesn't count as scarce. (Hey Gene: that means he called human beings non-scarce.)

[cont'd]
 

[cont'd]

Finally, I do NOT agree with you because I say that EVEN IF the IPCC were totally correct, it would not follow that assigning property rights to CO2 emissions is what "the market" would do in a worldwide ancap society where the free market scientists become convinced of manmade global warming. So although I concede that I should not have said "this isn't a reflection of scarcity," I do not concede that in such a hypothetical case, "Cap and trade would be a market solution."

So, any plans to tell us what you actually mean by "market solution"? Because if you mean "something that a 100% pure free market would do", it's a non-standard definition, an so by the normal meaning of the term, you're wrong. The standard meaning is, "solution involving assignment of tradeable property rights in a resource deemed scarce".

But let's take your definition seriously for a minute: when the federal government (i.e. a coercive, tax run judcial system monopolist) announced it would use its military to protect settlers who homesteaded western land over a certain period and thereby recognize their property rights in the land, would you call that a "market solution" to the problem of how to allocate scarce western lands? Or do you call it a socialist scheme dreamed up by bureaucrats whose decisions on homesteading periods, claim requirements, abandonment criteria, etc. don't actually reflect scarcity? You know, like how you treat cap-and-trade?


I strongly object to this trend where "market solution" means anything other than direct order from DC. Like, what's going on Afghanistan right now is a "market solution" to terrorism, because after all the government didn't draft those soldiers.

Well then, go pat yourself on the back for your noble efforts to protect the language. While you're at it, see if you can spare a moment to prevent "free market" means "government-sanctioned overuse of scarce resources lacking well-defined property rights". Wait, your principles aren't worth the forgone income from doing so, are they?
 

Bob wrote:

"Didn't I already say that I was (unintentionally) misleading in that op ed from more than a year ago?"

Silas replied: Nope, you didn't. Not where any readers of your original op-ed would actually see your admission of misleading them. Sorry, but it's not good enough to whisper "I goofed" once you've misled people into believing garbage.

So when you say, "Nope you didn't," really what you mean is, "Yes you did, but it wasn't featured prominently enough to my satisfaction."

Right? I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. You want to know why I don't "give it 110%" when I argue with you, it's because I concede points on certain things when you point them out, and then a month later you are back to accusing me of ignoring you on that very same point.

Where did I "whisper" this (again, more than a year ago I believe)? Was it on your blog or Crash Landing or Mises? I honestly don't remember, but I know for a fact I already admitted to you that that one sentence from about 18 months ago in an op ed was misleading.

I am being dead serious here Silas: If I devote an entire post on Free Advice to that issue, with no snark or anything, and admit I was misleading, will you drop this particular issue from now on? You can continue to accuse me of selling out hypothetical third worlders (because--news to me--I learned in this post that you actually don't think they are in danger either) for low gas prices. But if I make such a post, then I have your word you will no longer accuse me of "writing gross economic errors and refusing to apologize for them"?
 

TT: "Again you misunderstand my principles."

Tom, this is a pretty good illustration of why I got tired of that other thread. I will now say, for the third time, that I am not saying you actually think it is merely a subjective matter whether or not millions die in a man-made tsunami, etc. In fact, you correctly think that such a thing is objectively wrong. For the third time, I will say that what I am saying in posts like this is not what I think your views are, but what by logic you ought to think, given your rejection of objective moral truths. I am pointing out that you're position is inconsistent, and therefore incoherent: You claim not to believe in objective moral truth, and yet you make arguments that depend on the existence of what you deny.

And, no, Tom, I'm not "stalking" you -- notice that we are talking on Bob's blog, which I come to to hear what Bob has to say, but, at which, I foolishly sometimes am unable to resist commenting on others' comments that I find here.
 

Bob: I didn't equate "no you didn't" with "yes you did". I said, you didn't do it in the same forum where you erred. It's just that, you know, you have to be able to read the next sentence to get the full meaning.

Is my complaint really that hard for you to understand? Normal, well-adjusted people understand that if the New York Times mistakenly calls Richard Jewell a murderer, they don't get to admit the error in a small ad in the classifieds. They admit the error, if not on the front page, at least in the same section as the screw-up.

So, try to think this through: you've done two bad things: first, you didn't admit the error at all. That has since been corrected (though you've hedged it enough and done enough semantic gymnastics to make your mea culpa meaningless to anyone with a sense of honor, but whatever).

Separately from that, you have failed to place the correction in the same forum as the op-ed where you made it, the IER blog (and wherever else). Do you "get" why it needs to be there, too? Is it that hard to understand?

How about the other basic error? Do you understand why it's not valid to assume away all reasons to believe the opposing position and then criticize the opposing position on the grounds that it has no reason? Like you do pretty much every time you talk about CO2 restrictions?

How about scarcity? Does it make any sense to you yet? Do you understand why it's an instance of scarcity when my emission of CO2 for my benefit causes someone else to lose their land? Because I've not yet seen any sign of you understanding this.

How about my position on geo-engineering? Will I ever get even a private email apology?

Is it starting to make sense why I might be frustrated, disappointed, and yes, ashamed of you on this issue? Are the gears turning?
 

How about scarcity? Does it make any sense to you yet? Do you understand why it's an instance of scarcity when my emission of CO2 for my benefit causes someone else to lose their land? Because I've not yet seen any sign of you understanding this.

Silas, in this very thread I have admitted to you that it is an example of scarcity, if we assume that the IPCC is right. And then I offered to make it a full blog post in its own right.

I am not going to post a correction on the IER blog for one sentence of an op ed from 18 months ago that I think is a true statement, but which was misleading because it wouldn't be true in the hypothetical alternate universe that I had earlier conceded for the sake of argument.

I really can't discuss this anymore with you Silas. In this very thread I once again conceded the point about scarcity, and now you demand once again that I concede it. This is pointless.

And perhaps you are making other valid points that I am ignoring, but I don't have the energy to continue when you keep demanding that I do something I just did 2 comments ago.
 

Bob, you said, for weaselish, unrelated reasons, that you shouldn't have said denied scarcity in one situation. That's simply not the same thing as showing actual understanding of the scarcity issue, which you had a chance to do way back when.

And when you take into context your other recent statements on the issue, it's even clearer that you don't get scarcity. Heck, you refused to even admit the existence of parallels between tradeable fishing quotas and carbon cap-and-trade, on the grounds that the latter has enforcement difficulties, which you concluded after a few seconds of armchair theorizing.

I am not going to post a correction on the IER blog for one sentence of an op ed from 18 months ago that I think is a true statement, but which was misleading because it wouldn't be true in the hypothetical alternate universe that I had earlier conceded for the sake of argument.

Oh, what a crock! I made these very same criticisms you now admit have merit on the very same day you posted them. Now you're saying that because you've been able to hem and haw and dodge eye contact and b/s everyone and bend the language for 18 months, until you finally were dragged kicking and screaming to admit it... *sigh*, it's just so long ago, it's ... it's old hat, you know, what's done is done. Let's ... let's just forget about the whole thing, it was, it was in the past.

Would you tolerate this garbage from the politicians you criticize every day? No, but you figured that a paycheck beats accurately representing libertarianism and economics any day of the week.

Misleading people is misleading people, and you knew exactly what you were doing at the time: getting people to think that, huh-huh, this whole thing about tradeable rights in scarce resources is sooooo stupid ... when it makes gas more expensive.
 

1. "I'm not "stalking" you -- notice that we are talking on Bob's blog, which I come to to hear what Bob has to say, but, at which, I foolishly sometimes am unable to resist commenting on others' comments"

Oh, it`s The World According to Gene Callahan again (otherwise known to old codgers as as "The DEVIL Made Me Buy This Dress" defense). Gene just HAPPENED to run across a post by Bob called "TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts?", just happened to look at the comments that Bob invited, and JUST COULD NOT resist making a purely personal attack on me:

"[y]ou [are] an asocial weenie"

"Are you taking those meds, Tom?"

In T.W.A.G.C., unsubstantive personal attacks like these are both irresistible AND fully justified, precisely because GC has convinced himself that, if I`m not offensive myself, then I`m stupid, which is essentially the same thing as being offensive because I`ve had the gall to be stupid in His August Presence.

For H.A.P., the fact that another blogger has found my comments disruptive is, ispo facto, proof that I AM stupid, offensive, asocial and a WEENIE(!). Confirmation bias, coupled with senior "wisdom-seeker" status, means (a) G.C. has no need to investigate, as it is impossible to be wrong, and (b) therefore never having to say you`re sorry (it`s like love in that regard).

[FWIW, I`ve already provided links for those interested in my "Banned by Rob Bradley" status; a more general description of my overall point that Bradley found unacceptable is here:

Overlooked by those warmed by climate rhetoric ("alarmist" or "denialist") - the fact that our most important commons have NO property rights rules]
 

[cont.]
2. "For the third time, I will say that what I am saying in posts like this is not what I think your views are, but what by logic you ought to think, given your rejection of objective moral truths. I am pointing out that you're position is inconsistent, and therefore incoherent; You claim not to believe in objective moral truth, and yet you make arguments that depend on the existence of what you deny."

A few comments (if you`ll excuse the continued threadjack, Bob):

- Just WHY does GC find it essential to hijack unrelated blog posts by his friends to talk about issues that he has previously so clearly, and so rudely, made clear on his own blog (as well as on other dedicated posts by Bob) that he has no interest in discussing further?

- If this is the THIRD time that GC insists he`s explained about MY logical inconsistency, it`s not too hard to look and find the first two.

-- #1: After he had posted a string of obviously childish comments about MY intellectual maturity, and deleted my response, he then added a sarcastic point that I must be denying the existence of algoriths. G.C. then CLOSED the post, preventing me from responding.

-- #2 When Bob kindly reopened the discussion at his own blog, G.C. restated his point about my supposed inconsistency, adding sarcastic comments about my lack of understanding about how "philosophical discussions" take place. Too bad he just didn`t notice that I DID respond to his point several times.

G.C. continues to lead by example on how philosophers discuss; so far it seems to be based on offering sweeping propositions one is unwilling to defend, responding to inquirers not with elucidations but personal attacks, and when they respond substantively to ignore such responses in favor of more calumny. Sorry, Gene, I guess I just don`t have it in me to be a "philosopher"!
 

[cont.]
- I have not so much "claim[ed] not to believe in objective moral truth" as to note that G.C. has singularly failed to explain what he means by his statement or to offer any support to for. Proof of this is not only in GC`s threads, but in the fact that Bob felt the need to re-open the subject himself.

- If I "make arguments that depend on the existence of what [I] deny", then G.C. has failed to show it.

First, I have made it clear that not only to I believe that the material universe (of matter and energy) objectively exists, but that I believe that it has an underlying structure that we can strive to understand (and express mathematically) even as our understanding (and descriptions) of it will always be incomplete. Thus, an algorithm may or may not be an accurate description of the structure of the universe. In any case, the objective existence of a poorly-understood structure to the universe offers no support for the proposition that there is a moral order to the universe.

Further, G.C.　has argued that there is an object moral structure to the universe; I have argued that man has an exquisite inherited moral sense, and that we inherited this moral sense via evolution over eons because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced intra-group cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons.

Accepting that man has a moral nature which is genetically based (but that is expressed differently in each individual and culture, and that is largely applied to in-group transactions but applied much more lightly in interactions with those outside our groups) does NOT depend on arguments that there is any universal moral order, applicable outside of man to all of Creation (or to such of Creation as may be conscious).

Sorry, but my arguments simply do NOT "depend on the existence of what [I] deny" - including arguments over whether or not G.C. has "behaved badly", or arguments that man ought not to engage in actions that directly or indirectly harm others. Such things may be measured and tested based strictly on a study of human nature (which is objectively different from other animals and has an objective genetic base).

I trust this is enough for readers who may have wandered this far along G.C.`s threadjack, but those interested in further discussion are welcome at my blog.

Apologies to those who have no interest in this topic, or in my "mewling" about G.C.`s sticks and lack of stones.
 

"I have argued that man has an exquisite inherited moral sense, and that we inherited this moral sense via evolution over eons because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced intra-group cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons."

And so what? Either "enhanced intra-group cooperation" and "reducing tragedies of the commons" are objectively good things (and you've given up moral subjectivism), or you've gotten precisely nowhere.

Let's say in the remote Amazon some group has evolved so that THEIR "exquisite moral sense" requires the smashing in of the infant's skulls of whatever other tribe they meet. Then, through some fluke, they wind up in Tokyo and go on a skull-smashing rampage. Hey, well, that's just the way their moral sense evolved, hey? You, by your own premises, are in absolutely no position to tell them what they are doing is wrong. In fact, since obviously my behaviour is a result of my evolutionary past, then if I am being "rude" to you, well, that's just MY "exquisite moral sense," isn't it? Who are you to go saying my moral sense is wrong and yours is right, when clearly both are the product of the same evolutionary process!

So, although I realize that you do not understand that you pre-suppose that which you deny, you do. (In fact, we should suspect that anyone making such an error will pretty much always fail to recognize that they are making it, since no one can consciously embrace incoherence.)
 

What would it even mean to say something is "wrong" other than to say, "I disapprove"? It seems odd to object that someone cannot call an action "wrong" when the topic under discussion is intimately related to whole issue of what that word even means.

I would like to see both sides articulate their positions more clearly.
 

Well, while I disapprove of eating peas with a knife, I certainly do not think it is morally wrong to do so!

You seem to be taking up the positivist position of 70 or 80 years ago, that moral statements are just emotional utterances. This position has been almost entirely abandoned in modern philosophy, since it has been noticed that people present moral arguments, and that these arguments often convince others. This fact alone is taken to show there is something objective at stake. If you tell me "I don't like olives," I don't (unless I am foolish) try to argue with you that you really ought to like them. But if you tell me you like slavery, I do argue with you about the rightness of slavery.
 

Though I appreciate Gene`s more productive (those still sarcastic) remarks I am reluctant to continue this threadjack, and think these issues deserve a more targetted airing.

Accordingly, I have responded at my blog, and clipped revelant substantive remarks for context.

Anonymous, I have articulated my view in a number of posts, all linked above.
 

Bob, your whispered, half-hearted mea culpa was noted by yours truly here, and at your LvMI post.

May I recommend that you take a chance at making your retraction more public? If it doesn`t get Silas off your back on that point, you`ll have a clearer conscience, the benefit of which should not be underestimated. You`ll also further enhance your reputation as a straightshooter and a mensch.
 

"You seem to be taking up the positivist position of 70 or 80 years ago"

Shucks. How does he dare to subscribe to ideas more than a decade old? Doesn't he know that ideas spoil with time?

"This position has been almost entirely abandoned in modern philosophy"

Ah, let's just agree with whatever the contemporary consensus seems to be.

"This position has been almost entirely abandoned in modern philosophy, since it has been noticed that people present moral arguments, and that these arguments often convince others. "

People also use aesthetic arguments, and these arguments often convince others.

What's next? Rawlsian "all reasonable people can agree" self-innoculation?

" If you tell me "I don't like olives," I don't (unless I am foolish) try to argue with you that you really ought to like them. But if you tell me you like slavery, I do argue with you about the rightness of slavery."

Ah, so because you consider one, but not the other, to be a moral question, one but not the other is a moral question. And because you decide so, it is objectively true.

What if somebody comes along and considers the eating of olives a moral problem? What if somebody came along and considered the eating of dogs a moral problem?
 

Well, James, if I took up phlogiston theory, wouldn't you be within your rights to point out that physicists abandoned that theory a long time ago? Especially when, as with positivism, the theory was abandoned due to crushing arguments that weigh against it?

(And, James, science does, in fact, proceed by "majority opinion," in the long run.)
 

"People also use aesthetic arguments, and these arguments often convince others. "

Right, James, and that is a good reason to think that some works of art are objectively better than others.

"Ah, so because you consider one, but not the other, to be a moral question, one but not the other is a moral question."

Whoa, you've sure got me here! It's only my personal whim that considers keeping slaves to be a moral problem, and not eating olives to be morally neutral.
 

I guess we should abandon Austrian economics then. "Science" has long since moved on. No?

"It's only my personal whim that considers keeping slaves to be a moral problem, and not eating olives to be morally neutral."

Yes. Precisely. Too bad you don't really understand that.
 

"Right, James, and that is a good reason to think that some works of art are objectively better than others."

Gene, on top of it all, you are a philistine.
 

"It's only my personal whim that considers keeping slaves to be a moral problem, and not eating olives to be morally neutral."

'Yes. Precisely. Too bad you don't really understand that.'

James, you may use words in whatever odd and idiosyncratic way you like -- just don't expect others to take you seriously when you do so.

I do wonder, though, why you bother with this whole "libertarian" nonsense, when it is only your personal whims that are involved?
 

philistine: a person regarded as smugly narrow and conventional in views and tastes, lacking in and indifferent to cultural and aesthetic values

It ain't me whose is "indifferent to cultural and aesthetic values" -- you are denying such values even exist!
 

By the way, James, it on;y makes sense to call someone a philistine if there are objective artistic standards -- otherwise, what's wrong with going along with conventional tastes? The point of the insult has always been to say, 'This philistine likes Tom Clancy while ignoring Joyce;, i.e., Joyce is really better, but Clancy is popular, so the philistine likes Clancy.
 

Gene,

you say:

"I do wonder, though, why you bother with this whole "libertarian" nonsense, when it is only your personal whims that are involved?"

Are you really this daft, or are you trying to get my goat? I’m amazed how you can manage to be quite sophisticated in some of your views, and yet so simpleminded in others. Your question presupposes the necessity of objective morality or standards. I think it’s called begging the question in philo speak.

Maybe small bite size pieces will make it easier for you to digest:

- There are no objective moral values
- Morality is a social phenomenon. Isolated individuals do not require it.
- Basic morality is non-negotiable. You either accept the premise of a particular moral argument, or you do not.
- To convince another person in an argument about morality requires a common set of basic assumptions.
- Two individuals with completely different sets of basic assumptions will find it impossible to debate morality successfully (if success is defined as convincing the other person)

One of the consequences of this is that fundamental disagreements about morality are generally solved violently. The morality of the survivor triumphs.

Whether you are a utilitarian or a libertarian does not boil down to an argument about objective moral values build into the universe, but on your personal preferences. I PREFER a libertarian social order over the alternatives, and as a result I advocate it. I PREFER to bring about a libertarian social order by peaceful means, and as a result I eschew aggression. I think as an Austrian economist, the concept of PREFERENCE should ring a bell.

It’s as simple as that, and no amount of contemporary sophistry will change this. This argument is as old as philosophy itself. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fine-minded Cro Magnon men already debated this over their campfires or while drawing their art in the caves of southern France. To think that the post-positivists had some kind of brilliant, never thought before, new insight into this debate is laughable.



“By the way, James, it on;y makes sense to call someone a philistine if there are objective artistic standards -- otherwise, what's wrong with going along with conventional tastes?”

Who says Joyce is better? By what standard? Please provide an objective standard for making such a claim. You’re really quite a silly man.

If you said Joyce’s sentences are longer than those of Clancy, we probably have no argument. We could count the words in them, or we could measure their lengths. But ‘better’? I suggest that if there was a measure of artistic quality, we should call it the Arqual. By how many Arqual is Joyce better than Clancy? How do you define the Arqual, by the way?

And if morality is objective, how do we measure that? Let’s say the measure of moral quality is the Morqual. By how many Morquals is Rothbardian ethics superior to Randian ethics? And, how do you define a Morqual?
 

"James, you may use words in whatever odd and idiosyncratic way you like -- just don't expect others to take you seriously when you do so."

When you say 'others', you probably mean people like yourself and those who agree with you. My ego is tough enough to survive not being taken seriously by those. After all, I don't take them seriously, either.

To illustrate the point: when I talk economics, I don't expect a Keynesian to take me seriously. I would be worried if he did. So, to come back to here: if somebody like you, who clearly has given the matter a lot of thought, says silly things like you do, I don't care what he thinks about me.

My audience is the rest of the people who read this and is trying to make up their mind.
 

"I’m amazed how you can manage to be quite sophisticated in some of your views, and yet so simpleminded in others."

You, at least, are consistent in this regard.

"One of the consequences of this is that fundamental disagreements about morality are generally solved violently."

Empirically nonsense. For instance, the huge fundamental disagreement between pagan and Christian morals was resolved largely peacefully, by widespread, voluntary conversion. (Of course there were exceptions.)

"It’s as simple as that, and no amount of contemporary sophistry will change this."

You do realize that your position is the position of the Sophists, don't you? I mean just literally, historically speaking, the name for the position you are taking is sophistry?

"To think that the post-positivists had some kind of brilliant, never thought before, new insight into this debate is laughable."

Good work -- you've can avoid learning anything because anything that might shake your views is "laughable."

2 + 2 objectively equals four, James. What is the "measure" of how true that statement is? Is it 12 arithmoids?
 

Gene,

It seems the only thing you are really good at is trading insults. Otherwise, lame.

Responding to may argument that:

"One of the consequences of this is that fundamental disagreements about morality are generally solved violently."

You say: ‘Empirically nonsense. For instance, the huge fundamental disagreement between pagan and Christian morals was resolved largely peacefully, by widespread, voluntary conversion. (Of course there were exceptions.)”

I am not aware that pagans and Christians had a fundamental disagreement on morality, for one. Also, you seem to have missed the important point of ‘GENERALLY’. Nothing I said rules out the possibility of people changing their minds voluntarily.

So, nice try. Better luck next time.

You respond “2 + 2 objectively equals four, James. What is the "measure" of how true that statement is? Is it 12 arithmoids?”” to my argument that:

“And if morality is objective, how do we measure that? Let’s say the measure of moral quality is the Morqual. By how many Morquals is Rothbardian ethics superior to Randian ethics? And, how do you define a Morqual?”

You can COUNT these things. One, two, three, four.... all the way up to twelve. They already come in units. In units of one. My point exactly.

Now, let’s try that with artistic merit. One artistic merit point, two artistic merit points........

Nice try. Still no luck.
 

"I am not aware that pagans and Christians had a fundamental disagreement on morality, for one."

Ignorance, the best defense!

"Also, you seem to have missed the important point of ‘GENERALLY’."

Nope. I showed you a case not of one or two people changing their minds voluntarily, but of massive numbers. Same thing with Buddhism in the east. A deafesor for 'generally'.

"You can COUNT these things. One, two, three, four.... all the way up to twelve. They already come in units. In units of one. My point exactly."

You've completely missed the point of what I was saying. Now, I don't mind taking the time to explain the argument here, but I have the feeling you have no interest in trying to get it. If I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll try to come at it in a different way so you can see what I'm getting at.
 

You say:

"You do realize that your position is the position of the Sophists, don't you? I mean just literally, historically speaking, the name for the position you are taking is sophistry?"

Fair point, Gene. And it is unsurprising that since you are wont to adopt the latest philosophical fad as the final truth, you would be a sophist in the modern sense.
 

Gene, you are a master at dodging:

to my argument that "I am not aware that pagans and Christians had a fundamental disagreement on morality, for one."

you responud that "Ignorance, the best defense!"

So - what were the fundamental, incompatible moral differences between pagans and Christians?

Or Buddhists and Christians?
 

You say: "You've completely missed the point of what I was saying."

There was one? Apart from “Lo and behold the Cleverness of Gene Callahan”?
 

OK, James, I didn't think you had any actual interest in what I was saying. You have confirmed that.

(Just by the way of good-bye: no, sophistry is not the following of the latest philosophical fad. It is the position that there are no moral or ethical truths.)
 

Again, Gene, you are being daft.

my little joke about modern fads and sophistry shouldn't have escaped you if you were really as with the program as you pretend to be. The current meaning of the term sophistry is somewhat different from the historic. While I am happy to concede that my position is in line with the orginal meaning of the word, your behaviour is in line with the way the word is used today - beautifully illustrated by your 'parting shot'.
 

Gene didn`t seem interested enough in his "there is an objective moral order to the universe" thesis to reply to my response: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/09/10/more-from-gene-callahan-are-external-quot-objective-moral-truths-quot-needed-in-order-for-a-community-to-enforce-shared-rules.aspx

But since Mohammed doesn`t seem interested in coming to the mountain, here is my response (apologies, Bob):

I have been chasing both Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy to try to get them to spell out what they mean when they assert that there is an "objective moral order" in the universe; until recently Bob has been by far the most congenial, as well as evidencing more interest in discussing the subject, but he has just thrown in the towel for the time being, after conceding that "to say morality is objective doesn't necessarily mean that 'the same rules' apply to everybody" and that he has no good answers my questions as to whether the objective moral order applies to all creatures and to all men regardless of age, gender and mental development.

On the other hand, I have agreed that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have argued that our moral sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation and conflict with out-groups. Similar arguments have been made

- by Bruce Yandle,

- by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American Anthropology Assn.) in his book "Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity" (which I have discussed here) and

- by David Sloan Wilson in his book "Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society".

However, Bob did point to a related post by Gene Callahan in which Gene essentially argued that the "objective" moral truths rules that are embedded in the structure of the universe apply only to those creatures able to perceive the rules. In other words, not to ants - and perhaps not to other life forms or to humans whose age and mental development leave them incapable of perceiving the rules.
 

2. My further comments:

Ironically, it is Gene who is pre-supposing what my presuppositions and my objectives are.

First, I can argue (though I haven`t made such a case) that it would be wrong if millions die in a man-made tsunami, without "think[ing] that such a thing is objectively wrong," based on a moral code external to man. Rather, I can simply rely on my own values and those of the communities of which I am a member.

Likewise, I need not (and do not) make any arguments that either "enhanced intra-group cooperation" and "reducing tragedies of the commons" are "objectively good things"; I need merely to observe scientifically that man, like his cousin critters, has evolved, that he has a moral sense akin to, but more more highly developed than, patterns of reciprocal behavior in other animals (while more genetically identical communities of social insects cooperate even more closely), and to suppose that this moral sense of right and wrong and the related predilection towards the social development of norms and rules were evolutionarily ADVANTAGEOUS, by enhancing group cohesion while moderating internal frictions and behaviors that were costly to the group as a whole, better enabling the group to take advantage of resources in the environment and respond to challenges, including challenges by out-groups.

Gene suggests one must have "objective truths" to get somewhere, but that just tells us the HE has an agenda for man; rather than particularly trying to get SOMEWHERE I`m just applyng an evolutionary approach to figure out how we got HERE.

It`s a shame I lost my previous post on this, but I think it pretty clear that our "exquisite moral sense" is both highly developed and very two-faced (highly selective would be a more gentle expression): we act one way to members of our group (based on highly developed codes and bonding rituals that became religions as our groups grew larger), but generally act as if we have little or no obligations to outsiders, to whom we might very well be downright suspicious and hostile. Why would that be? Maybe because, like the chimpanzee bands that so famously disillusioned Jane Goodall, we`ve been engaged in murderous competition with rival bands from time immemorial.

While it`s possible to argue that man`s deliberate struggle through history has been one of extending the limits of those whom we need to be decent to from a small circle to all of mankind (or further, to pets, other animals, etc.) - and there have certainly been individuals who have made conscious efforts to do so - one may also see the "progress" in this direction as being the simple consequence of Darwinian struggles between different human groups and societies, with the societies that more successfully united their own peoples, seized opportunities and vanquished other groups (through a combination of defeat, elimination and inclusion). Religions and our moral sense have clear served as both weapons and tools in this process; the gods have served on both sides of most conflicts, at least until one won, frequently by putting the heathen to the sword. Thus, "moral progress" has frequently been bought by brutal blood-soaked violence in which the victors routinely failed to pay much attention to the morality of their own conduct toward the other - as has always been our nature.

Forced change can be seen in both in the US. Civil War in the case of slavery and in this anecdoctal quote regarding British attempts to stamp out the Hindi practice of ritual immolation of the wives of a deceased husband in India:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Very seldom has such forced change been primarily motivated by a desire to bring about moral progress.
 

Persuasion and mass moral suasion can often work, as can be seen in the cases of ML King and the civil rights movement, as well as Ghandi`s efforts, particular when public opinion was mobilized. Gene has argued for this himself; while those arguing for change of course may feel united by religion and may employ appeals to the shared beliefs of others, no external "objective" moral order is needed for moral suasion to work.

Gene conjures up an Amazonian skull-smashing tribe at loose in Tokyo, but why look so far? The Japanese and the rest of the "modern" slaughters millions of unborn infants annually (and particularly females in China, India and the Middle East). The difference, of course, is that we are just doing it to ourselves, rather than having it inflicted on us by outsiders.

Gene is right to note that my rather cold-eyed observations about our remarkably self-serving moral sense might leave me in "absolutely no position to tell [Amazonian skull-smashers rampaging in Tokyo] what they are doing is wrong," but so what? Gene is simply asking the wrong question. The Japanese do not need "objective" external moral standards to deal with such behavior; they need simply to STOP it. And make no doubt about; stop it they would FIRST, and then ask questions, and perhaps later, if time and a surviving Amazonian or two permits, they might attempt a discussion on moral issues. This of course is true of every community when faced with an attack; banding together in self-defense is virtually instinctive.

Gene might posit other, stickier situations, of which we face a bottomless pit. We have our tribal need for close groups, but have on large parts of the planet blessedly stilled the slaughter of fraternal slaughter between rival societies. In larger societies, we face stresses between our attenuated bonds to others and our wish for close communities. On one front the religious bonds that united particular societies have frayed, but our urge for uniting bonds of ritual and belief remain, while on another we`ve managed to stir up more religious fundamentalism and distrust at home and abroad.

In all this, the desire for an objective set of universally binding moral rules that is floating around in the universe just waiting for everyone to become enlightened and to voluntarily submit to them is quite understandable, but obviously pie in the sky. I suggest that we try to work instead in understanding our own nature better and work at trying to persuade each other and to lessen tensions that may become murderous.



P.S. Gene`s error can be seen further in his comments about rude behavior. He thinks that taking a cultural, evolutionary view leaves one without a basis for criticism, so therefore I must unintentionally be relying on objective, external standards to criticize him. He`s got it precisely wrong - while clearly we ARE both "the product of the same evolutionary process", my appeal is not to objective external standards, but to shared COMMUNITY standards (that can be objectively described). Further, by publicly arguing my position, I hope to marshal public support of the kind that he has himself usefully pointed out.

The questions are simply whether Gene and I actually share ANY communal bonds and obligations, what those obligations are, how they apply in this instance, and whether Gene cares what anyone else thinks.

What is ironic is to see someone like Gene who so clearly wants to see a better world take the position that "objective" moral standards permit such lack of concern for how his treatment of others is perceived. But an evolutionary thinker would simply see it as more evidence for the remarkable moral flexibility that the Creator has endowed us with.
 

it on;y makes sense to call someone a philistine if there are objective artistic standards

Objective across mankind, Gene, or only for the particular group with respoect to which one is doing the judging?
 

"I have been chasing both Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy to try to get them to spell out what they mean when they assert that there is an "objective moral order" in the universe"

Or, alternatively, we've been spelling this out, but you haven't mastered the alphabet yet!

"'to say morality is objective doesn't necessarily mean that 'the same rules' apply to everybody'"

Right, Tom, of course it doesn't. To say there are objective standards of science doesn't mean that we judge all scientific discoveries without regard to the circumstances of time and place. If someone submitted to a journal today the fact that Jupiter has moons, he wold be laughed at. That doesn't mean that objectively we cannot judge that Galileo made a great discovery.

"On the other hand, I have agreed that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have argued that our moral sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution"

And, this is relevant how? We have clearly evolved our ability to see trees. Is that good evidence that trees aren't objectively real? Isn't it better evidence that they are objectively real? Similarly, if these evolved norms aid intra-group cooperation, isn't that good evidence that there is something to them?
 

I`ve been travelling, and somehow missed Gene`s response.

1. "Or, alternatively, we've been spelling this out, but you haven't mastered the alphabet yet!"

Perhaps, but I suppose I am not the only one who would be interested in finding precisely where either Gene or Bob have actually said what they mean when they assert that there is an "objective moral order" in the universe".

Then we could all embark on the project of deciphering their alphabet. For now, maybe I`m just too blind to even find an exposition of their case by either of them.

2. I respond to Gene`s following comments on a post at my blog:

- "'to say morality is objective doesn't necessarily mean that 'the same rules' apply to everybody'"

- "We have clearly evolved our ability to see trees. Is that good evidence that trees aren't objectively real? Isn't it better evidence that they are objectively real? Similarly, if these evolved norms aid intra-group cooperation, isn't that good evidence that there is something to them?"