Ethics (General Discussion)

[spartan231490]

It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews."

He wasn't saying that. He was saying that we can't determine what will result from any action, therefore consequentialist ethics (utilitarianism is a sub-group within consequentialist ethical theory) are flawed. You can only judge actions by their inherent morality. I disagree with that, but you still can't argue a straw man. (I'm sure it was unintentional, but nonetheless.)

by that logic all ethics are flawed, since actions have no inherent morality that we can judge. Each culture, and even each individual has a different belief in what is morally right, so you can't be sure who is correct. If you can't judge ethics consequentially because you can't be 100% sure of the outcome, then you can't judge ethics inherently because you can't be 100% sure whose inherent ethics are correct. 100% certainty is non-existent in the realm of ethics, it's all comparatives and judgement calls, and no one can be certain they are right, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.

Also, he never mentioned anything about inherent morality, he just said that you couldn't be certain of the outcome so you can't judge anything by the outcome, which is logically flawed to begin with. None of us can be sure that we will live to see tomorrow, but we still act on the assumption that we will, because the alternative is unlivable.

Also, I'm not sure who you were talking to about straw-man, mine is not a straw man, it is hyperbole. Some would probably still whine about that, but as I also put the logical argument behind it in my post, and was just using hyperbole as an extreme example, I don't really care.

 

[Unesh52]

snip

We covered epistemology first, actually, though we didn't cover transcendental idealism. I may look into that.

I understand your argument about there being no universal morality. Assuming we are one, not terribly special species among billions on a speck of iron floating in the middle of the vast, vast, vast emptiness that is space, and that our entire history is a fraction of a fraction of the history of our planet, which itself is only a fraction of the history of the universe, then there is prima facie doubt that there are specific, natural laws governing what we should be doing with our short, unimportant lives. However, that doubt is not present if you believe we are specially created by a sentient being which directly communicates such rules to us. Would you be willing to broaden your conclusion such that those who do believe that are still insane? If so, on what premise do you justify that?

 

[spartan231490]

snip

Benefiting the group is only good because it benefits every individual within the group.

...unless you're the individual who has been conscripted into slavery "for the good of all." Then you're not seeing any of that benefit, are you? His point is that "the most good" can leave some people in horrible situations.

Not necessarily, yeah it sucks to be the individual who was conscripted to whatever for the good of all, but I doubt you object to murderers being locked away. When a person shows through their own conscious actions that they are a risk to the public good, then it is perfectly justifiable to punish them. No civilization on Earth has ever entertained the possibility that is isn't, and if they did they weren't around long.

And there is also the reverse, any risk to one, without being predicated on the actions of that one, is a threat to all, and therefore there is a great amount of good in eliminating that threat.

Let's take the torture example that the guy I was quoting use, torture one to save millions. It's not the greatest good because by allowing the torture of one, you are allowing the torture of any, which is a risk to the safety and freedom of every single individual within the domain of the torturer.

The good thing, is to eliminate that risk, and not allow torture. Individual rights benefit every single person who has and ever will have those rights, including untold future generations, this means that infringing upon individual rights must generate an insane amount of good to be considered right by utilitarian ethics.

Note: I am perfectly in favor of torture, if it is based on the actions of the individual to be tortured. In other words, if that person has been found guilty by due process of law, and if the situation was found to be severe enough to warrant it(also by due process of law) then I have no problem with them being tortured in order to provide more information on the subject upon which they were convicted. For example, I see nothing wrong with torturing serial killers to force them to reveal the locations of the bodies. Or, If someone is found guilty of conspiracy to commit treason, I find it acceptable to torture them to find the names and locations of the other conspirators.

Subscribing to ethics from an emotional/moral standpoint at the very least bears the distinction of being arguable. If you boil ethics down to the mathematics of "most good," then you gut the ethics of any identifiable qualities, and I can guarantee you lack the faculties to perform such math.

You're saying that what is going to result from any given action isn't arguable? I can argue very well what would happen if I, say, slapped my roommate. He would feel pain and confusion, and, if I convinced him that I did it out of malice, would result in indignation. Inductive arguments may not be absolute, but they are still useful.

Also, what other form of ethics is there other than emotional/moral? Legal? The law is not a good judge of morality.

 

[Unesh52]

by that logic all ethics are flawed, since actions have no inherent morality that we can judge.

Also, he never mentioned anything about inherent morality...

Also, I'm not sure who you were talking to about straw-man, mine is not a straw man, it is hyperbole.

I agree with your ethical view, first of all. Just want to make that clear.

He didn't directly say anything about inherent morality, no, but when he talked about slavery and cannibalism as being "decidedly unethical," the implication is that these things are inherently bad. I just inferred the rest of his argument from that part of his post.

What you said was:

It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews."

No part of what he said should have led you to the conclusion that he would allow the holocaust. He doesn't assert that judging morality is impossible -- he asserts that determining consequences of out actions is impossible. What you were arguing against was different from what he was arguing for -- it was a straw man.

 

[spartan231490]

by that logic all ethics are flawed, since actions have no inherent morality that we can judge.

Also, he never mentioned anything about inherent morality...

Also, I'm not sure who you were talking to about straw-man, mine is not a straw man, it is hyperbole.

I agree with your ethical view, first of all. Just want to make that clear.

He didn't directly say anything about inherent morality, no, but when he talked about slavery and cannibalism as being "decidedly unethical," the implication is that these things are inherently bad. I just inferred the rest of his argument from that part of his post.

What you said was:

It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews."

No part of what he said should have led you to the conclusion that he would allow the holocaust. He doesn't assert that judging morality is impossible -- he asserts that determining consequences of out actions is impossible. What you were arguing against was different from what he was arguing for -- it was a straw man.

By his logic, he does assert that judging morality is impossible. He asserts that determining consequences is impossible, so you shouldn't base your ethics on that. but you can't determine whose ethics are inherently right either soby the same logic, you shouldn't base your ethics on that. If you can't base ethics on consequences, and you can't judge ethics on what is inherently right, then you can't judge ethics at all.

I wasn't implying that he would allow the holocaust, I was in fact implying that he wouldn't and that by his logic he should have, because he couldn't know it was bad by predicting it's consequences, and at least some people believed it was justified, and just because they are in the minority doesn't make them wrong, so you can't know that it was inherently wrong either. I was trying to point out that all ethics are subjective but that doesn't mean that you can't tell right from wrong. What I was saying, is that if you are capable of knowing that the holocaust was bad, then you are capable of making ethical judgments.

In all fairness, it was a horrible example to pick, but I was running late for a class so I just used the first one that came to mind. Perhaps the better example would have been something like child "molestation." Many cultures exist where it is believed to be perfectly normal and not wrong at all for adults to have sexual contact with children in certain contexts. With two conflicting opinions on the inherent morality of this, and with no way to judge it by future consequences, it is impossible by his logic to make ethical judgement on this subject. Nor would it be difficult to find conflicting opinions on the morality of just about any subject.

 

[Giest4life]

snip

We covered epistemology first, actually, though we didn't cover transcendental idealism. I may look into that.

I understand your argument about there being no universal morality. Assuming we are one, not terribly special species among billions on a speck of iron floating in the middle of the vast, vast, vast emptiness that is space, and that our entire history is a fraction of a fraction of the history of our planet, which itself is only a fraction of the history of the universe, then there is prima facie doubt that there are specific, natural laws governing what we should be doing with our short, unimportant lives. However, that doubt is not present if you believe we are specially created by a sentient being which directly communicates such rules to us. Would you be willing to broaden your conclusion such that those who do believe that are still insane? If so, on what premise do you justify that?

Spoiler: A little background for my argument. It'll be helpful you read it, though.

I won't be surprised if Kantian take on knowledge is the last topic you cover, or if it immediately follows Hume. See, epistemology was specifically created as a response to the metaphysical dilemma after the enlightenment. Truth's like the geocentric universe and God were held as, well, indisputable Truths, but the advent of the scientific method pushed God into the metaphysical realm--and there He belongs.

Epistemology seeks to find knowledge by way of rational thought. The Metaphysics of God assumes that God is the source of all knowledge, and consequently, there is no reason to doubt anything. Unfortunately for theists, metaphysics is a double edged sword. Here are is a famous example of metaphysics working against universal morality: Why does there have to be one God? If there can be one causa sui (cause in itself), what is there to stop multiple, independent causes? There could be a near infinite number of deities, and each point in space and time could have its own governing moral principle.

There are a lot more examples like that. In metaphysics, there are no impossibilities.

 

[Stickfigure]

Subscribing to ethics from an emotional/moral standpoint at the very least bears the distinction of being arguable. If you boil ethics down to the mathematics of "most good," then you gut the ethics of any identifiable qualities, and I can guarantee you lack the faculties to perform such math.

You're saying that what is going to result from any given action isn't arguable? I can argue very well what would happen if I, say, slapped my roommate. He would feel pain and confusion, and, if I convinced him that I did it out of malice, would result in indignation. Inductive arguments may not be absolute, but they are still useful.

I'm not saying that inductive reasoning doesn't have its place. I'm saying that wholesale adherence to act or rule utilitarianism is an unfeasible ethical lifestyle, because no one is capable of living such a lifestyle.

Yes, certain results are inevitable: slap your roommate, he gets angry and suffers a small injury. Utilitarianism is fine in that respect. But then, almost any ethical creed works in small situations. Hell, most of them have the same answers in small-scale situations. The test of a particular ethical structure is when presented a dilemma that operates on a grander scale. And Utilitarianism in all its form and glory cannot operate on such scales, because it relies on data we can't possibly hope to possess. (it's probably worth noting that when I say "scale" I'm referring to the either the magnitude of the decision, not necessarily the number of people it will effect)

In addition, so much of this is relative and subjective that utilitarianism also lacks any sense of consistency. A utilitarian ethic relies on the judgement of an individual/group of individuals to decide what's "best" for the majority. Sometimes it's cut-and-dry, but rarely, and often making such a decision on the behalf of pleasing the majority is ultimately futile.

Moreover, I seriously doubt one's ability to adhere to utilitarianism when tested, because it still doesn't take into account the individual. To wit, most people would probably put a great number of people at risk for the sake of, say, saving their loved ones from imminent peril.

 

[Crazy]

Ethics is a matter of perception.

 

[Stickfigure]

I disagree. The most good is subjective, but there's nothing wrong with that. We can all do only the best we can. It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews." If you say that you are incapable of making judgments for good or bad, then you are incapable, you can't say that you're incapable of judging good or bad, except when you want to. You can't have it both ways.
And if you can't tell what is good or bad, you can't tell what is ethical, and there is no point in even believing in ethics. There is no point acting ethically, because you can't judge it. That is fatalistic logic and I refuse to ascribe to it.

Further, the most good doesn't ignore the individual, because a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Benefiting the group is only good because it benefits every individual within the group. Valuing individual rights doesn't ignore the core of utilitarianism, because valuing individual rights will allow all individuals to benefit from those rights, bringing about a high amount of good. That is good by utilitarian ethics.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with good being subjective. However, there are many other ethical structures better-conceived than Utilitarianism to draw the conclusion that "genocide be bad." Hell, utilitarian ethics can justify that genocide. In fact, how about this:

Currently the United States of America is in a financial crisis. A large portion of their citizens have no employment, or very underwhelming employment, live in crushing debt, and are incapable of surviving without taking on further debt. 2% have enough money to eclipse the financial holdings of these 98% several times over. In fact, many of those 2% are the one to which the 98% are indebted. These 2% are unwilling to share the wealth unto even their last breath. By utilitarianism, the ethical thing to do would be simply kill these 2%, take their wealth and divide it up amongst the other 98%. You've benefited the majority, caused a very minimal amount of blowback, and ensured the financial survival of the greater bulk of your populace.

(Side note: I'd like to point out that this is for the sake of argument. I honestly believe that the wealthy ought to be able to shoulder a bit more of the financial burden for the nation that has given them so much of their wealth, but that's a political argument for another forum post)

Anyway, do we kill the 2% then? Do we forcibly take all their holdings, making them impoverished(and dead, don't forget dead), for the sake of saving the hundreds of millions of people who benefit?

You see, in the end, pure utilitarianism has some very giant flaws and gaps in logic, because one cannot possibly adhere to them without incurring greater consequences. I'm not saying that it doesn't have its place, but to argue that one believes in utilitarianism is disingenuous at best and woefully uninformed at worst.

 

[spartan231490]

I disagree. The most good is subjective, but there's nothing wrong with that. We can all do only the best we can. It's better to try and fail than to sit back and say "I'm not capable of judging good or bad, so I'm going to let Hitler kill 12 million Jews." If you say that you are incapable of making judgments for good or bad, then you are incapable, you can't say that you're incapable of judging good or bad, except when you want to. You can't have it both ways.
And if you can't tell what is good or bad, you can't tell what is ethical, and there is no point in even believing in ethics. There is no point acting ethically, because you can't judge it. That is fatalistic logic and I refuse to ascribe to it.

Further, the most good doesn't ignore the individual, because a group is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Benefiting the group is only good because it benefits every individual within the group. Valuing individual rights doesn't ignore the core of utilitarianism, because valuing individual rights will allow all individuals to benefit from those rights, bringing about a high amount of good. That is good by utilitarian ethics.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with good being subjective. However, there are many other ethical structures better-conceived than Utilitarianism to draw the conclusion that "genocide be bad." Hell, utilitarian ethics can justify that genocide. In fact, how about this:

Currently the United States of America is in a financial crisis. A large portion of their citizens have no employment, or very underwhelming employment, live in crushing debt, and are incapable of surviving without taking on further debt. 2% have enough money to eclipse the financial holdings of these 98% several times over. In fact, many of those 2% are the one to which the 98% are indebted. These 2% are unwilling to share the wealth unto even their last breath. By utilitarianism, the ethical thing to do would be simply kill these 2%, take their wealth and divide it up amongst the other 98%. You've benefited the majority, caused a very minimal amount of blowback, and ensured the financial survival of the greater bulk of your populace.

(Side note: I'd like to point out that this is for the sake of argument. I honestly believe that the wealthy ought to be able to shoulder a bit more of the financial burden for the nation that has given them so much of their wealth, but that's a political argument for another forum post)

Anyway, do we kill the 2% then? Do we forcibly take all their holdings, making them impoverished(and dead, don't forget dead), for the sake of saving the hundreds of millions of people who benefit?

You see, in the end, pure utilitarianism has some very giant flaws and gaps in logic, because one cannot possibly adhere to them without incurring greater consequences. I'm not saying that it doesn't have its place, but to argue that one believes in utilitarianism is disingenuous at best and woefully uninformed at worst.

You are wrong. Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily justify anything, it depends upon the values you consider within the utilitarian viewpoint. On your 2% example, you are infringing upon the freedom of all people in the country, even those people not born yet, to be in the top 2% of wealthy. That is not good. Also, there are many easier and more "good" methods that utilitarianism would point to first, no matter what values you hold. You are also assuming that that would fix anything, despite the fact that it doesn't address the underlying cause of the current economic crisis.

Again, wrong. I do hold Utilitarian beliefs, it doesn't have flaws or gaps in logic, you can adhere to it without incurring greater consequences. The conclusions you draw from utilitarianism depend on the values you hold, just like any other ethical system. Pure utilitarianism is nothing than saying that something is more good if it benefits more people or if it harms fewer. There is no logical flaw or gap in this, it's common sense. Every single example you pointed out as a flaw in utilitarianism is a flaw in it's execution, where the consequences are not fully considered, not a flaw in the system itself.

 

[Unesh52]

Awww, a moral relativist in his intro to philosophy 101 class. That's adorable!

I stopped reading. Fuck off.

Ethics is a matter of perception.

Not sure if trollestia...

______________________________________

He asserts that determining consequences is impossible, so you shouldn't base your ethics on that.

This is what he's saying.

but you can't determine whose ethics are inherently right either

This is what you are saying. He didn't say that. So it is not

By his logic

it's by your logic, based on both his and your different assumptions. Stop putting words in his mouth.

Furthermore, the fact that people have differing opinions about morality does not invalidate the view that things are inherently wrong or right (deontology), rather than because their consequences are wrong (consequentialism). It only invalidates the view that personal opinion is a source for absolute ethical rules. You're trying really hard, I can see that, but you're arguing against ghosts - at length - and I'm getting tired of trying to reign in your replies to drive them toward the point.

One more thing:

I was trying to point out that all ethics are subjective but that doesn't mean that you can't tell right from wrong.

If you mean "right" and "wrong" in an absolute sense, then yes it does, actually.

 

[jthm]

Awww, a moral relativist in his intro to philosophy 101 class. That's adorable!

I stopped reading. Fuck off.

You really should've kept going, but whatever; Don't read the response from someone with a degree in your course.

You won't make much of a philosophy student if you stop reading every time you hit something you don't like. With that pattern, if Nietzsche doesn't make you stop being a phil student, Kierkegaard will.

 

[MGlBlaze]

I suppose I am mostly of Egalitarian views; everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not result in the harm of another person's property or... well, person. Though it does get a lot more complicated.

Some scrutiny should be brought to people that do things that will or are likely to result in harm coming to themselves. Is it incidental to some other goal, is it the goal for whatever reason, and are they in a state of mind where they can make the decision in an informed (though perhaps odd) way, or are they unstable and require help?

Things also get complicated when things need to be weighed up. It isn't a perfect world, and sometimes no matter what you do someone is going to be harmed in some way; if so, what will be their loss? What will be the gain for other people, and how many others? Maximise benefits while minimising loss.

Also, I believe no-one should be killed unless there is no other choice; i.e. the situation does not allow for non-lethal options (which are almost always preferable) and require immediate action as opposed to being able to fall back and plan for or wait until a better opportunity comes up. The second exception would be if someone is simply far too dangerous to be left alive, though these examples are very rare. The reason for this is two fold;
1) If someone is still alive, they still have the opportunity to learn and change given a suitable punishment. Don't send people to prison for minor things, but make sure they don't get off the hook, for example. A few hundred hours community/unpaid work service and/or a stern talking to from a reasonable police officer can do a surprising amount of stuff.
2) Death is an easy escape. I don't know if there is an afterlife, and to be frank I don't care. If someone won't learn from something they did or they commit a serious offence against the rights of other people, they should at least be made to suffer for it somehow.

I suppose I could go on and on about the various nuances to my morality given x, y, z or whatever circumstances, but I would possibly be here all week. x_x

Edit;

Awww, a moral relativist in his intro to philosophy 101 class. That's adorable!

I stopped reading. Fuck off.

You really should've kept going, but whatever; Don't read the response from someone with a degree in your course.

You won't make much of a philosophy student if you stop reading every time you hit something you don't like. With that pattern, if Nietzsche doesn't make you stop being a phil student, Kierkegaard will.

"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us", eh?

That's one of my favourites. I hope I quoted it right.

 

[Talshere]

Ethics is informed largely by those around us and their practices. The Gentry had better blood and the right to rule in Europe. These things were accepted not just by those who benefited but by the people whom where hit hardest by their iron rules. If a lord had a man whipped for brushing past him. It wasn't "wrong" it was to severe. No one questioned the lords right to do such a thing. Therefore it was ethically correct. Ethics therefore are the views of the individual and the masses who apply them, specifically on the grounds of how we treat other human beings. For a more broad interpretation we have to move to morals which can apply to other species and abstractly.

 

[Unesh52]

You really should've kept going, but whatever; Don't read the response from someone with a degree in your course.

Buddy, there are a lot of people in this thread worth talking to. I can talk to plenty of faculty members here at my school. I can crack a book and explore these ideas there. And indeed I'm taking a course on the subject. I can't listen to every idea from every person, and it's my prerogative to discriminate between the responses I choose read based on how much of a jerk the person presenting it is.

I've given ample thought to my position, considered alternatives, and I'm aware of some of the flaws with this view. If you want to argue against my point or present one of your own, you can do it without being a patronizing bag of dicks.

How is it a problem for an absolutist morality? Presumably the morality may just not agree with what the man did or with his personal set of values. Or perhaps there is some kind of rule within that changes things, like him not having any responsibility towards the well being of the other kids.

I was thinking along the lines of "if it can be wrong for one person to save the guy's son instead of the two kids, but right for another person (the dad), then the same action is right from one perspective and wrong from another." An absolute ethical system must be the same from every perspective. However, if you just rephrase it like, "Saving one's own children is more moral than saving non-relatives," then you've retained consistency between perspectives, so it can still be part of absolutism. Guess I was wrong then.

 

[spartan231490]

Awww, a moral relativist in his intro to philosophy 101 class. That's adorable!

I stopped reading. Fuck off.

Ethics is a matter of perception.

Not sure if trollestia...

______________________________________

He asserts that determining consequences is impossible, so you shouldn't base your ethics on that.

This is what he's saying.

but you can't determine whose ethics are inherently right either

This is what you are saying. He didn't say that. So it is not

By his logic

it's by your logic, based on both his and your different assumptions. Stop putting words in his mouth.

Furthermore, the fact that people have differing opinions about morality does not invalidate the view that things are inherently wrong or right (deontology), rather than because their consequences are wrong (consequentialism). It only invalidates the view that personal opinion is a source for absolute ethical rules. You're trying really hard, I can see that, but you're arguing against ghosts - at length - and I'm getting tired of trying to reign in your replies to drive them toward the point.

One more thing:

I was trying to point out that all ethics are subjective but that doesn't mean that you can't tell right from wrong.

If you mean "right" and "wrong" in an absolute sense, then yes it does, actually.

<----This is me giving up. Refuse to see logic all you want, I'm done.

 

[Unesh52]

<----This is me giving up. Refuse to see logic all you want, I'm done.

Well at least this one was short. Fucking A, this thread has driven me twice as crazy as I thought it would and for completely different reasons than I'd imagined.

 

[Stickfigure]

You are wrong. Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily justify anything, it depends upon the values you consider within the utilitarian viewpoint. On your 2% example, you are infringing upon the freedom of all people in the country, even those people not born yet, to be in the top 2% of wealthy. That is not good. Also, there are many easier and more "good" methods that utilitarianism would point to first, no matter what values you hold. You are also assuming that that would fix anything, despite the fact that it doesn't address the underlying cause of the current economic crisis.

Again, wrong. I do hold Utilitarian beliefs, it doesn't have flaws or gaps in logic, you can adhere to it without incurring greater consequences. The conclusions you draw from utilitarianism depend on the values you hold, just like any other ethical system. Pure utilitarianism is nothing than saying that something is more good if it benefits more people or if it harms fewer. There is no logical flaw or gap in this, it's common sense. Every single example you pointed out as a flaw in utilitarianism is a flaw in it's execution, where the consequences are not fully considered, not a flaw in the system itself.

The question isn't whether or not there are other, better options. The form of consequentialism that is Utilitarian ethics justifies that behavior. It defines it as "right" because said sect of consequentialism bases its morality entirely on the ends, not the means. If you start taking into account motives you start fusing utilitarianism with motive consequentialism and ethical egoism. Which is fine, it's just not really utilitarianism. If you cherry-pick certain ethics and ignore others, that no longer adheres to the actual "ism" that you've chosen, it's an entirely different ethical structure.

According to your previous statements (such as: "Just because you can't be 100% sure about the consequences of an action, doesn't mean you shouldn't try."), a full understanding of the consequences of one's actions is not necessary. So your description of utilitarianism is flawed: either an understanding of the consequences are important and we are literally incapable of judging them all, or said understanding is unimportant and thus more short-sighted behavior becomes justified.

 

[jthm]

You really should've kept going, but whatever; Don't read the response from someone with a degree in your course.

Buddy, there are a lot of people in this thread worth talking to. I can talk to plenty of faculty members here at my school. I can crack a book and explore these ideas there. And indeed I'm taking a course on the subject. I can't listen to every idea from every person, and it's my prerogative to discriminate between the responses I choose read based on how much of a jerk the person presenting it is.

I've given ample thought to my position, considered alternatives, and I'm aware of some of the flaws with this view. If you want to argue against my point or present one of your own, you can do it without being a patronizing bag of dicks.

Suit yourself chief. Just one question. Philosophy translates as what? Study of knowledge? Any true student of it should be gaining as much as they can, regardless of what they think of the presenter or the manner in which they're being spoken to. Look up Richard Dawkins for proof of that.

Besides, it's much more fun for me to "be a bag of dicks." After all, I've heard your arguments before, this discussion adds nothing new for me. Might as well have a laugh or two at your expense. It's all this thread has for me.

On that note:

I've given ample thought to my position, considered alternatives, and I'm aware of some of the flaws with this view.

An undergrad who's given ample thought to anything... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, you're serious.

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!