The Humanist Association of Orange County is a chapter of the American Humanist Association.
Please visit our website at http://www.ochumanists.org

HAOC Board
President: Pete Anderson
Vice President: Dave Silva
Treasurer:.Harry Becker
Secretary: Jerry Parks
Member at large: Benito Franqui 

February Meeting - by Charles Rulon
March 15, 2004
To the Humanist Association of Orange County:

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity (back in February) to share with you some information on natural selection, the fallibility of the human brain and extinction concerns.

I just received your March newsletter in which you list eight brief "sobering statistics" attributed to me from this February lecture. These "quotes" purportedly "show that the odds are heavily against the survival of our civilization - or even our species!" Unfortunately, most of these comments attributed to me were either incorrect, or very misleading and/or irrelevant to the extinction issue.

For example, I never said that "the development of biological weapons is now accessible to college students," since obviously over 99% of college students do not have the knowledge, or facilities for such weapon production. I was referring only to graduate students in high-tech universities going for advanced degrees in microbiology and genetic engineering - which still is still scary enough.

I also never made the blanket statement that "people are more willing to kill themselves than to learn the multiplication table", since obviously most people aren't. What I said in context was that the human species tends to be attracted to charismatic leaders. I quoted Somerset Maugham in context as saying: "Man [referring to those young men who will follow charismatic leaders into one deadly battle or crusade after another] has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than to learn the multiplication table."

In addition, when I talked about the human brain having evolutionary design weaknesses or flaws for coping with today's world (not mentioned in the March newsletter), I never said, as claimed, that the appendix and male nipples were "design errors", because they're not. The appendix is a vestigial structure that was useful in our ancestors, but causes problems in many humans today. But it's not a "design error". Neither are nipples in male mammals. Furthermore, our species is obviously not threatened with extinction because males have nipples and an appendix. The quote was both incorrect and irrelevant to the extinction issue.

Furthermore, although I might have said something like "scientists (e.g. Eugenie Scott) must be careful when they state their beliefs", this was only in the context of their claiming to know whether or not God exists when it comes to evolution. In any event, this is also not relevant to the imminent threat of human extinction.

Another "sobering statistic" not relevant to the survival issues facing humankind today are the causes of mass extinctions over the last 500 million years: "... meteorites, volcanic eruptions, ice ages, maybe even black holes." Also not relevant is the fact that "during the history of life on planet Earth, species extinctions are the rule." So is the fact that "parasites are the rule."

In summary, I find it disconcerting that my presentation back in February was briefly
characterized by the above careless half-truths, misquotes and irrelevancies. I personally hope that
none of my colleagues see these "sobering statistics", since they paint a picture of my being incompetent and
simple-minded. To avoid future bad feelings, I strongly suggest that you ask each speaker to e-mail a
brief summary of his or her talk for inclusion in your followup newsletter. I would have been glad to do so.

- Charles Rulon

March Meeting:

A Brief History of Utilitarianism 
- by Dave Silva

Most Humanists are utilitarians, although many feel pragmatism or objectivism more accurately reflect their views. Back in 1933, when Humanist Manifesto I  was written, the ideas contained in it didn't just come out of thin air; some of humanity's most brilliant minds had worked hard to devise philosophies that were universally fair and practical. 

Not surprisingly, we have to go back to the Greeks to find the ideas that started Humanism. Thales of Miletus, born about 624 BCE, proposed a rational explanation for the natural world. Around 300 BCE, Epicurus said that life wasn't preordained, that much of life is subject to chance. He believed in living a simply life, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Although he was a hedonist Epicurus didn't believe in the wanton pursuit of pleasure. It would be nearly 2,000 years before some of his ideas were adopted into utilitarian theory.

A long, and accurately named, "Dark Age" befell western philosophy, under the stifling influence of the Church. What few philosophers were allowed to be heard during this period were Arabic, and had little influence on Europe, or they were Christian. At last, the Dutch Humanist, Erasmus, in 1524, defended the moral freedom of the individual and satirized the religious and political institutions of his time.
Humanist ethical values started to come together as well thought out systems in England, and to a lesser degree France, during the late 17th century, and the 18th and 19th centuries. These philosophers greatly influenced American philosophers like Paine, Jefferson, Charles Sanders Pierce and John Dewey. In 1690, John Locke published "Concerning Human Understand" and "Two Treatises of Civil Government", which argued for democracy and against the rule of kings and advocated the sort of individual freedoms that are contained in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Locke's friend Anthony Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, in 1699, set out a list of practical rules for living that he claimed arose from the nature of all humans without regard to religious considerations. In 1748, David Hume wrote that skepticism is the only defensible world view and a great many other things that upset religious believers.

The father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, devised an ethical system based on the utility of a particular action with the greatest happiness of all people as its goal. He published "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation", in 1789.  Bentham sought to reform the British prison system and constantly questioned the institutions of his day. Scottish philosopher James Mill, who was a close friend of Bentham, further argued that since each individual acts in self-interest, any collection of people must therefore act in the interest of the whole. His son, John Stuart Mill seemed destined to be a great philosopher, being home schooled by his father and Bentham he applied his brilliant intellect to refining and improving the theory of utilitarianism. By making clear distinctions about what happiness and pleasure really mean he moved utilitarianism away from the hedonistic foundations that Bentham had originally used, and which were much criticized by moralists of the day. Also, in "On Liberty" (1859) Mill argued for the broadest possible freedom of human thought and expression. J.S. Mill didn't regard all pleasures as being of equal value placing the arts and sciences above trivial pursuits. Mill expressed the opinion that it was better to be Socrates discontented than a fool contented.

Since J.S. Mill's classical version of utilitarianism as expounded in "Utilitarianism" (1861), various philosophers have added their interpretation of what utilitarianism should be. Henry Sidwick (1838-1900) argued that even in utilitarianism there always will be moral conflict that can't be resolved. G. E. Moore, in the early 1900's, regarded aesthetic enjoyment and friendship as the highest ethical values, so the term ideal utilitarianism. The dictionary defines utilitarianism as "Normative theory that human conduct is right or wrong because of its tendency to produce favorable, or unfavorable, consequences for the people who are affected by it." Act- utilitarianism asks, "How much pleasure, or pain, would result if I did this now?" Rule-utilitarianism asks, "What pleasure, or pain, would result if everyone were always to do this?" The modem Australian ethicist Peter Singer writes, "According to preference utilitarianism, an action contrary to the preference of any being is, unless this preference is outweighed by contrary preferences, wrong. Killing a person who prefers to continue living is therefore wrong, other things being equal.

Karl Popper coined the term negative utilitarianism, arguing that we should try to reduce pain and misery instead of increasing pleasure. This never caught on.

J.J.C. Smart defends Act-utilitarianism over rule-utilitarianism, "... the rule- utilitarian presumably advocates his principle because he is ultimately concerned with human happiness: why then should he advocate abiding by a rule when he knows it will not in the present case be most beneficial to abide by it? The reply that in most cases it is most beneficial to abide by it seem irrelevant. "
Utilitarianism has the practical advantage of, as the word implies, being useful in making decisions about ethical problems that arise in our lives. It seems natural to prefer pleasure instead of pain and joy over sorrow. A benevolent attitude toward other humans is essential for the utilitarian; he must accept them as equals in their inherent right to just treatment if he is to claim it for himself. In choosing an ethical system you should examine its strengths and weaknesses and compare it to other systems. A major strength of utilitarianism is that it is based purely on human need and human values; it requires no supernatural beliefs.
A frequent criticism of utilitarianism is that it is self centered and hedonistic. Utilitarianism requires a benevolent attitude toward one's fellow man. Being concerned only with your own happiness doesn't maximize happiness in society, so being the agent of utilitarian values would not be consistent with purely selfish acts.

Another criticism is why should people feel compelled to be utilitarian? If they don't think maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is a worthy goal. If they can find something better they should follow that. However, the strength of utilitarianism is that it is a simple rule that is a useful guide in nearly every ethical situation, furthermore we routinely use utilitarian - principles in making our daily decisions whether we realize it or not. This is certainly not true of the Ten Commandments, Hammurabi's Code, the Koran or anything else except perhaps the Golden Rule. Juan Bernal in a presentation here pointed out even the Golden rule has exceptions and limits. J. S. Mill thought that the Golden Rule could be deduced from rule utilitarianism. It should be recognized that most laws are based on the principle of utility. We set up laws to further the happiness for the majority in society unless it is affected by religious moral values: Even minority rights can be justified under the principle of utility.
Here is a common example of using utility: A man has $150 extra he can spend on something. He considers taking the family to Disneyland because he can get some discount tickets and it would be fun mostly for his two boys but to a lesser degree fun for his wife and himself. Also, he considers putting the money into a college fund for both boys. Another idea is that he could buy the oldest boy a bike, which he knows would cause the younger boy jealousy and resentment and that neither would be happy if he got them both used bikes. So he is calculating what would be best not just for the day and not just for him and that is the way people commonly use utilitarian principles. I suppose that somewhere in the bible the father might find something that he could apply to the situation, but the Ten Commandments or even the Golden Rule would seem of little practical value.

It isn't always simple to determine what is the right thing to do when calculating the utilitarian consequences of our actions. We may cause pain and suffering from our inaction when the right action is needed. Also, by influencing others to do the wrong action we bear responsibility.

You can, of course use rules of thumb in cases that are simple and without any apparent conflict. Williams argues that following certain rules has utility not because they are always right, but because adhering to certain rules give us comfort and a sense of order. An example would be jaywalking. Even when it is perfectly safe to do so jaywalking really bothers some individuals. Children need certain rules because they can't evaluate situations with maturity. Smart also says, "The utilitarian's ultimate moral principle expresses benevolence, not the sentiment of altruism, the agent counting himself neither more or less than any other person." I think this is of special meaning to the Humanist who is often unjustly criticized for not accepting that he is a part of something larger than himself. As humans we are all special as individuals but our rights aren't superior to others and being a part of humanity is obviously much larger than ourselves. Having said that, Socrates should be judged more important than a fool because, by utilitarian standards, Socrates has a broad beneficial effect on the lives of others.

If we are applying for a job we want to get the job instead of the other guy even though he may need it as much or more than we do. That doesn't mean we should lie on the job application because that corrupts a system that is designed to be a fair playing field. A utilitarian would ask what would be the result if everyone lied on job applications?

One thing that Bentham, Mill and Moore would agree on is that the rightness of an action should be judged solely by consequences brought about by that action. That brings us to the problem of predicting the impact of future events. Generally speaking, we can't apply math formulas to predict how much good, or harm, will result from af course of action. I would say that this country would be better off with a single payer health care system. How much better off, I don't know. There are obviously too many variables. My HMO Health Net would undoubtedly disagree with me. However, if it is argued that that we shouldn't bother to act because there is too much indeterminism in the universe and we can never know the consequences of our acts, then we can say that, as far as we know the indeterminism may cancel out and that all that we really require to act is the probability of a favorable result.

Some similar ethical philosophies to Utility have developed in fairly recent times. Ayn Rand created objectivism as a rational philosophy with an emphasis on hedonism and individual liberty. This has become the foundation of libertarian political philosophy. With a few exceptions it rejects the notion that the individual should relinquish his happiness for the common good. It also argues that nearly all taxes are an infringement upon liberty.

In the 19th century Pragmatism was developed by an American philosopher, Charles Sanders Pierce, Pragmatism attempts to explain
meaning and truth in terms of the application of ideas or beliefs to actions that have practical outcomes. William James and John Dewey were important in the development of pragmatism. I'm not a philosopher, but it appears to me that pragmatism is basically a different way of looking at utility to reach a conclusion.

In conclusion, Utility as an ethical standard works for me because it is simply, universal and fair. Another virtue is that it encourages people to solve real problems in a rational and systematic way. We have far too much lazy thinking as it stands. There is and old adage in chess that if you are searching for a move and you find a good move then before making that move you should look for a better move. By rigorously thinking about problems we can find better solutions.
Let's take an example. You are the Mayor in a French village during WW2 and the Nazis believe you are hiding an American pilot. They tell you they will kill one villager a day until the pilot is turned over to them. What do you do and why do you do it?

Let's take another hypothetical situation. You suspect a famous TV personality named Mary Stuart is selling her shares of ‘Uncloned’ stock because of insider information. However, exposing her to the authorities will cause harm to innocent stockholders, and will cause Mary Stuart Inc. to suffer severe financial losses. It will also cost the government 30 times what Mary made on her stock to prosecute the case. What do you do?

April Meeting - Earth Day 2004  
with Dr. Gary Herbertson

Dr. Herbertson was on the five person non-governmental organizations (NGO) committee which organized the NGO’s participation at the United Nations Environmental Conference held in Stockholm, Sweden. The NGO’s elected him to represent them in the follow-up creation of the United Nations environment program. He was given an office to do so in Geneva, Switzerland.

Immediately following the vote of the governments of the world to create the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), Dr. Herbertson was appointed to head the UNEP non-governmental organizations section. In 1992, he organized and led the non-governmental organizations’ opening event at the United Nations Earth Summit, held in Brazil.

He has also served as director of Earth Day International, and is presently a board member of the Unity and Diversity World Council and the Unity Foundation.

Dr. Herbertson has the title of Senior Advisor of the Institute for Global Solutions with offices on The Queen Mary, Long Beach, California.

The Institute for Global Solutions is organizing a television series, “Solutions for Our Planet”, and television legend Walter Cronkite has agreed to be the host. 

Media Myth Lecture 

Students for Science & Skepticism at UCI proudly present Benjamin Radford, managing editor of the science magazine The Skeptical Inquirer.  He will lecture on "Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us" at 7 pm on Monday, April 19, in the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall.  This lecture is free and open to the public.  For more information: please see: 
www.clubs.uci.edu/sss or e-mail sss@uci.edu .

 A Never-Ending Story

(  by a charter HAOC member )

Hiding low in Tigris reeds a Nineveh mother

clutches sobbing babes,

watches the Babylonian capital even Nin

couldn't protect, burn.

She cries out above the fury.

Trapped in Babel's lower temple,

amid the fragrance of Nebuchadnezzar's honeysuckle and myrrh

an old woman shrieks in despair to Marduk.

Even Sirrush at Ishtar's Gate could not stop

Xerxes' hordes.

Her death breath carries a defiant cry.

Six thousand years later a Kurd grandfather

holds aloft his death wrapped kin

and shouts profanities to the hot desert sun.

Quote ( contributed by Gene Barmore )

"We need to spend less time attacking religion generally, and devote our attention to those aspects of organized religion that impact negatively on us. I am really not interested in convincing my neighbor he is stupid for praying to an imaginary man in the sky as long as my neighbor does not interfere with MY right to MY beliefs...." - -- Mel Lipman, in his talk to HAOC last August.

On The Nature of Science and Reality
( The following discussion might have taken place at a Friday get-together in a cozy restaurant-- such as Gourmet Pie, in Cypress, CA -- between Chuck Rulon, Paul Ricci and Lyle Speegle. )

Chuck: How can anyone possibly deny that science not only speaks to the nature of reality but that its methodology is the only way reality can be described?

Lyle: Science does not describe reality but is simply the way we experience our world as humans. We have no right to conclude that this kind of experience reflects the way the world really is, that is, reality in itself.

Paul: Now wait a minute, Lyle. There is no way to make judgments about reality except through human experience. What other kinds of efforts would be relevant to deciphering reality other than various kinds of human experiences?

Lyle: But you both assume that reality is heterogeneous, made up of different kinds of structures, rather than homogeneous, made of just one kind of structure surrounded by what appears to be various interdependent structures, but that's only an illusion of sorts.

Chuck: Come now! What kind of mysterious nonsense is this describing reality as homogeneous. More philosophical double-talk it seems to me. What can this homogeneous reality be to which you refer? And how can physical nature be any kind of illusion?

Lyle: Well, reality is clearly above and beyond what science can tell us since science deals only with the physical world which we experience.

Paul: It seems the answer to the question about whether reality is hetero-or homogeneous is clearly a philosophical question which science itself cannot answer. However, certain philosophical claims about one or the other must follow certain specified rules of philosophical procedure. In this sense, philosophy itself may well act as a filter to help prevent any nonsensical claims that are made just as science filters out nonsensical or false claims made about the physical world. One of these rules is Occam's Razor: Other things being equal, do not multiply entities (or realities) beyond what is necessary. I suspect this rule --and there are others-- is what Chuck may have in mind.

Lyle: But the claim that science is a filter of sorts is not itself a scientific claim and may be open to question. Since science cannot justify this claim, I personally believe there is a reality deeper than what science discusses. There are just too many problems presented by this simple-minded view of science as reflecting reality.

Chuck: But what other kind of reality could you possibly be referring that is outside the realm of science and how can it be justified? What kind of experience would be a greater claim to reality than the obvious methodology and results provided by science? And just what are these problems regarding science to which you refer?

Lyle: There may be other human experiences that tune us into a reality that is blind to scientific endeavors. Science isn't the only kind of filter and, as Paul has suggested, philosophy may be another kind. But why stop there, why couldn't there be other kinds of filters appropriate to other aspects of human experience?

Paul: Aha! You have forgotten about Occam's Razor already. What right have you to multiple "filters" beyond what are needed to explain this world? Filters are general methodologies used to eliminate claims that contradict the results of these methodologies. To assume there is a filter that eliminates different kinds of morality, for example, is not a filter separate from philosophy itself. I think you are inventing these "filters" to somehow denigrate the enormously successful methodology used in science and bolster some mysterious entity (entities?) of which we can have no knowledge. I suggest you are guilty of epistemological envy.

Lyle: But what makes you think the scientific filter can be used to filter out claims that have nothing to do with physical reality? And, besides, if science doesn't really represent ultimate reality, of what value is its filter?

Paul: I wish you were a bit more clear as to why science doesn't represent at least some aspect of reality; perhaps not all of it but certainly the physical aspect of reality. I may be willing to grant other aspects of reality especially those outside the realm of the purely physical such as morality, politics; value judgments in general. Also,there are many claims in metaphysics and religion that are clearly ouside the realm of science so Chuck and I could easily grant these as claims to some other aspects of reality, but they need to be verified in some way.

Chuck: What I would like to know is what kind of human experience could validate any other aspect of reality that is outside the realm of science? This still is suspect and sounds like an unverifiable mystery to me.

Paul: I would end with a point of agreement with Lyle. What the ultimate nature is of physical reality is still unknown but it is being studied and efforts to explain it are numerous. To claim that what cosmologists are working on is beside the point because reality is not a matter of what we perceive, even with all its self-correcting cautions, raises the question of what methodology can give us a better notion of reality and how we know we have found it without being deceived. There are far more deceptions in non-scientific efforts to get at reality than we find in science I would argue. Revelations, mystical experiences, human emotions and phenomenological experiences have all been contested as a better basis for knowing reality. More important, whatever methodology we use to get at reality, how do we know when we have found that reality? To what can it be compared?

Chuck: You philosophers are always getting into the never-never land of unverifiable claims, distinctions, unreal definitions, etc. I would rather forget those never ending, interminable discussions and stay with what we can determine scientifically. Have fun you two, I'm quit of here.

{P.S. The above dialogue is no guarantee that I have faithfully represented the views of my colleagues. My apologies if I am far off on what they would have really said.}
P. Ricci Feb., 2004

Lyle Speegle wrote:
Hi Paul, I agree. The issues we are discussing multiply exponentially. In this email I'll try to focus on what seems me to be a root issue, whether science is about reality. I've written a kind of dialogue on the issue, and I'll attach it.

The Trouble With Ideology
( by Jerry Parks )

Ideology can be defined as the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a political, social and economic program. Once people accept the idea that a particular ideological approach can be beneficial in certain cases, they tend to accept it as a matter of fact that it is always the right way. An ideologue who has seen an example where private enterprise was able to accomplish a project that would have taken government longer, and at a greater expense, may start to claim that private enterprise can always do things better than government. Ideology becomes a belief that is not open to question.

Even the usually rational John Stossel. who has made a number of excellent programs on ABC television, seems to have fallen into this trap, as evident in some of his assertions in his book Give Me a Break, or on his TV programs. While promoting free enterprise, he says, in effect, not to worry about the likes of Enron and WorldCom, etc. since they are just occasional aberrations and the free market will eventually weed them out. Thus no government oversight is needed. Surely a bit of proper government oversight, at minor expense, would have prevented some of the disastrous effects such operations have had on millions of individuals that lost their savings as a result. Minimal government is great, as long as it provides a safe environment for the citizens. Letting big corporations get away with underhand dealings and lying to their shareholders and the public does not fit with the concept of a safe economic environment. Stossel also is claiming that there is no overpopulation problem because all the world's population, if put into the population density of New York City, could fit in the state of Texas. As the Population Connection organization has said, that is like saying that there is no traffic problem because all the cars in USA could fit on the streets of Los Angeles. In his book Stossel maintains that Hong Kong proves that overpopulation is not a cause of poverty because it has a high average income and is densely populated. He also infers that natural resources are not necessary for a vibrant economy because Hong Kong doesn't have any! He completely ignores the fact that if it were not for the world economy Hong Kong would be in deep doo-doo. And that, over most of the world, overpopulation is clearly causing poverty and starvation.

Theodore Roosevelt, a good Republican, saw the need to control big corporations and required that simple government controls be in place to keep them from their natural tendency to use their power to financially help themselves at the expense of the general public. The ideology of the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations has resulted in efforts to remove practically all governmental oversight of big corporations. California's Governor Wilson made our electric power disaster possible as a result of his state-wide de-regulation, based on the ideology that all controls are bad. The G. H. W. Bush de-regulation of the saving and loan industry resulted in the well-known Lincoln Savings disaster, among others, while making a rich man of one of his sons who happened to be one of the directors (of a different savings bank) that were paying themselves such huge salaries that the bank folded because they had no money left to operate with!

Clearly our present political leaders seem to be making decisions based more on ideology and belief rather than on logic or reason. Bush is throwing taxpayer's money to religious organizations to use as they see fit, without any accounting, because of his belief that religious people are always honest and reliable. He rushed headlong into the Iraq war because of his belief that God had chosen him to conduct a Crusade for Christ. Ashcroft tried to overthrow Oregon's death with dignity law and California's medical marijuana laws because of his ideology, which ultimately is based on his religious beliefs.

HAOC APPLICATION FORM

NAME______________________________________________________________DATE______________

ADDRESS_____________________________________________________________________________

PHONE________________________ E-MAIL_________________________________________________

To receive three free issues of the HAOC monthly newsletter, please check here: ______
To join HAOC or renew your membership, please attach a check ( payable to HAOC ) for the proper yearly dues:
Regular = $15 Couple = $20 Student = $10 Sustaining = $35 Sponsor = $100
Please hand this application to an HAOC board member, or mail to:
   Harry Becker
   420 Sonoma Aisle
   Irvine, CA 92618

NEXT MEETING :
On Sunday, April 18, at 1:30 P.M., at the Irvine Ranch Water District building located at 15600 Sand Canyon Ave. in Irvine.

NOTICE :
The Irvine Ranch Water District neither supports nor endorses the causes and activities or organizations which use the District’s meeting rooms, which are made available as a public service.

HAOC
2609 Fernside St.
Orange, CA 92865
Your membership expiration date is shown at the end of your address label.