Sal Cordova mentioned Pascal’s Wager on the Randi thread, and I was surprised to find that there has never been a thread on that topic here at TSZ. Hence this OP.
Pascal was a brilliant guy, but his famous Wager is an irrational mess. (Religion can have that effect on otherwise bright people.) In the comments, let’s explain the Wager’s shortcomings to Sal.
To start things off, here is Wikipedia’s statement of the argument, using Pascal’s words:
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
6. But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.
Have at it.
Most of us are. Sadly, a few are not, and they form the small subset of human beings referred to as “psychopaths”. Although interestingly, there is some evidence that it can develop, even in adulthood. The brain is a very plastic organ.
Good question, I was only thinking of single people. I’d say it depends on why being married or in a relationship makes them say no. If they actually want to have sex, but say no because they will be stoned if they say yes and get caught, then it’s not a moral issue, but one of protecting oneself. If they actually want to have sex but say no for the reason that they don’t want to hurt their partner, then I think we’re closer to a moral aspect, but I’m unsure if it doesn’t start to blend into a preference issue at that point. Because, if consideration towards your partner is very important to you, then you actually _don’t_ want to sleep with anyone else (i.e., you don’t have to morally wrestle with it). A cheater, i.e. someone who doesn’t care about their partner’s feelings, might say “I’m already married”, but that would be an empty statement, not something that stems from their conscience. What their real reason for saying that is probably hasn’t to do with morals.
May be. I´m not questioning that. What I´m trying to say is that the golde rule alone can´t be the base of a moral system and every one add something to explain why the answer to my example is no are making my point.
You need to define what is moral dilema or just matter of preferences .
keiths needs to add the concept of empathy.
EL the analysis of the position of other others.
The statement of the golden rule is a mandate to accede to every request. Jesus give three very tough examples that if not taken in context would be a problem (read Luke 6:30).
Just in case there are others comments readers that, like hotshoe, do not understand what is a thought experiment, an hypothetical situation, pushig an argument I would like to state that:
I´m not promoting nor free sex neither any liberlization in sexual behaivior.
I´m not looking for sex with EL.
I´m very happy that she answer no and that she is faithful with her partner.
Yeah, and you look like slime for confronting Elizabeth directly and personally with a sexual question that was never appropriate. You act like slime in public and then you don’t apologize. I absolutely understand what you call a “thought experiment”. But what you apparently will never understand is that any decent man would have reworded his own thought experiment to avoid spewing slime on the host of this website. You didn’t stop to think how your act would feel to the one you were harassing. Or else you just didn’t care how anyone but yourself feels.
Your little statement about how you don’t want to harass a woman for sex is too little, too late.
Don’t stand too close to anyone, Blas, if you rub off on them, they won’t like it.
Blas:
I’m not adding anything.
The problem is that you and William have been interpreting the Golden Rule pedantically and literally instead of learning what people actually mean by it.
As I told William earlier in the thread:
I think the Bible speaks to that very issue.
Also I asked you how you can interpret the golden rule not literally withouy adding anything?
petrushka said the same I said the bible explains how, but then you are following the golden rule according the bible. you are adding the bible.
No, it is not. It is you, Blas, who is adding additional ‘context’ from Luke 6. That is NOT what the Golden Rule says. But I do now understand your basis for misinterpreting the Golden Rule.
One thing that puzzles me about right-wing Christians (particularly in the USA) is that they seem mind-blowingly bad at following Christ’s unambiguous instructions. So here’s a test of your worthiness, Blas:
Please go away.
Mung: Hilarious. keiths believes he’s been wired for empathy.
Elizabeth Liddle: Most of us are.
And that’s to his credit?
Sure, he’s *intending* others to hear: “Look at me! See how “moral” I am!” but what he’s really saying is, “I deserve no credit at all when I happen to behave in a moral manner.”
Meanwhile.
keiths:
Mung:
Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith.
And also:
keiths:
Mung:
Keiths seems to know he’s been wired for empathy. But how does he know that?
Elizabeth seems to agree. But how does she know that?
Perhaps they have both been wired to believe silly things that are not true.
If both keiths and Elizabeth have been wired for empathy, does that mean empathy is objective? Or do they both just share the same illusion?
If they have both been wired to believe things that are not true what difference would it make?
And probably more important she can´t blame psychopaths that kill people for not be wired to empathy. That was a matter of chance.
Who do you blame for psychopaths that kill people? Presumably nothing happens that your deity does not want to happen.
In my view, when we blame someone, we are holding them responsible for their actions. Similarly when we give someone credit.
The fact that people are “wired” for empathy (or not) does not mean we should not hold them responsible for their actions, not least because doing so may actually fix the wiring.
I personally don’t find “blame” a very useful concept. I’m much more interested in how we can best help people behave better. Holding them responsible for their actions is a good start. Same applies to ourselves.
Here’s the actual comment that got mangled in Mung’s Mungish retelling:
Elizabeth,
Then be wire or not for empathy is not a point, we can be wired as we want.
keiths,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mung_%28computer_term%29
“Mung or munge is computer jargon for a series of changes to a piece of data, which are often well defined and individually reversible, but which transform the original item into an unrecognizable form. The changes may be destructive, e.g. by corrupting a computer file, or simply concealing, e.g. changes to an email address to disguise it from spambots.”
Blas,
How on earth does that work? I could want to be wired as a psychopath, when I wasn’t? Why? I’m already ‘wired’ to abhor harm. I envisage myself reaching in and doing a bit of soldering. There. I’m wired differently now. That was easy. Now to kill someone.