Something better than doubt
Tim Bulkeley posed an important question in response to my doubts about doubt:
“How is doubt (which you did not define) related to asking for argument and/or evidence? For I’d say that even for such an outrageously obvious statement as the one you offered it is good to ask for the arguments and evidence that support it. To ask “why?”. In such a case the answer ought to be easy, but that’s the point, until I ask I do not know.”
This question brings us to a really important distinction. Let’s go back to the “outrageously obvious statement” that I said we shouldn’t doubt:
“It is wrong to inflict suffering on others simply because doing so is pleasurable to the perpetrator.”
Let’s call this the “Wrong to inflict suffering on others for pleasure principle” (henceforth WISOFPP; pronounced wiz-awf-Puh!!). Although I don’t think we should doubt WISOFPP, that doesn’t mean we cannot think critically about it. Certainly we should do that.
Ernest Sosa makes an important distinction between what he calls “animal knowledge” and “reflective knowledge”. (I’m working on memory as to how Sosa uses these terms. I could be off a bit. But so far as I can remember this is how he draws the distinctions. If I’m wrong, then this is how I’m drawing the distinctions.) So-called animal knowledge is a result of the immediate deliverances of our senses. It doesn’t involve any critical reflection. It is just there. I would propose that WISOFPP is this type of knowledge. We intuitively know WISOFPP.
Because we know WISOFPP, and because it is among the most secure things we know, a properly functioning human being will not set out to doubt WISOFPP.
But a properly functioning human being can reflect on how s/he knows WISOFPP. That is a wholly legitimate and important enterprise. And doing it can help us reclaim WISOFPP at a deeper level, thereby adding a reflective dimension to this immediately known “animal knowledge”.
So while it is good to seek to know how we know WISOFPP it is not good to doubt that we know WISOFPP.
Of course, it is also possible that a person may find themselves doubting WISOFPP. If they do it may be because they are not functioning properly. Or it may be because they got the short end of the stick in Philosophy 101. Regardless, I would appreciate them letting me know that they doubt WISOFPP, especially if they happen to (a) move in next door, (b) offer to babysit or dog sit or (c) are candidating for the role of pastor at my church.
Tim said “until I ask I do not know.” In light of what I said you might be able to see this is partially true. Prior to critical reflection I do know in one way, but when I ask how I know I can then come to know in an additional reflective way.
Tags: animal knowledge, doubt, Ernst Sosa, faith, reason, reflective knowledge
22 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Tim Bulkeley says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 10:11pm
Thanks, that’s nice and clear
though I still want to push back a bit. There are lots of statements that most people around me claim are, like WISOFPP obvious and intuitively known. That God, and therefore we, should hate gays is a nice example (I think). Clearly we should ask for evidence or argument to support such intuitive claims. And examine it and counter evidence… Though in the case of WISOFPP you might indeed be wise to restrict some activities during the testing period 
Tim Bulkeley says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 10:13pm
PS, and of course there will be a sliding scale, and WISOFPP being questioned by almost nobody will not be as urgently in need of doubting as “God hates gays and so should we”, which is quite widely questioned.
pete says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 10:40pm
Tim,
Other than some less-than self-reflective so-called “Christians” who poke at the sins they themselves don’t have problems with, but express charity for the sins that they do have problems with…………
Do you think that reflective orthodox Christianity would poist that “God HATES gays”?
While scripture is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin, it is also clear that pride, drunkenness, gossip, slander, and (from the LORD himself) looking at a member of the OPPOSITE gender with LUST in their eyes/heart et. al are also sins.
Since scripture (Paul) is also quite clear that “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), if God “hated gays”, then God naturally hates everyone.
Now that would be a huge contradiction, and in fact a heresy to the true community of the redeemed, under cutting the love of God for humanity.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
(John 3:16)
“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)
*and the icing on the cake for those who would profess to be Christian, yet hate a persons who is homosexual (also a synonym for “a person who sins”)
“If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.”
(1 John 4:20)
I hope that removes any “doubt” a person has that God does not “hate” a person who sins through homosexuality, in any different manner that any/all person(s) who sin(s) through any other means.
However, all Christians need to get on the same page, or run the risk of being judged themselves.
Tim Bulkeley says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 8:21pm
Pete, sorry I did not see your first comment earlier, of course I don’t. That’s why I chose that example. In some circles people do. Therefore such “obvious”, “instinctive” etc… claims should be (when we have free space to do so) subjected to testing. Unless, not being a philosopher, I have misunderstood skepticism it therefore seems to me that (like reasonable faith) skepticism is a “good thing”. Both of them “reasonable” and both at appropriate times and places. The interesting discussion, to me, is the one below that gets into that, not the knock down jollity about whether or not one or both of faith and skepticism is /are unqualified “good things”.
clamat says:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 10:58pm
Randal,
If WISOFPP is “animal knowledge [which is] a result of the immediate deliverances of our senses” and “doesn’t involve any critical reflection,” where does philosophy enter into it?
How does undoubtable “animal knowledge” differ in any meaningful way from WLC’s ultima facie justified belief? “Personal witness of the Holy Spirit is direct knowledge that trumps any and all evidence to the contrary. But I’ll explore the question of how I know Jesus is Lord, so I can ‘add a reflective dimension’ to my ‘immediately known’ knowledge.”
As Tim notes, the tabloids are rife with examples of people who “just intuitively know” plenty of monstrous things. Your advice to them seems to be the same as Craig’s: Never, ever question your monstrous knowledge, but simply “seek to know how you know” it. This is very disturbing.
pete says:
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 12:42am
Sorry to jump in on what you addressed to Randal, but I couldn’t resist:
Clamat’s queston:
If WISOFPP is “animal knowledge [which is] a result of the immediate deliverances of our senses” and “doesn’t involve any critical reflection,” where does philosophy enter into it?
How does undoubtable “animal knowledge” differ in any meaningful way from WLC’s ultima facie justified belief?”
Pete’s answer to WISOFPP/animal knowledge vs. WLC/Holy Spirit:
No difference. As I am sure that Clamat believes that WISOFPP is undoubtedly wrong, Clamat has agreed that WLC’s appeal to the testimony of the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly true.
(sorry… feel free to take a shot right back. I deserve it
)
clamat says:
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 5:07pm
I’d be happy to take a shot – had yours come anywhere near the mark.
Wait, I guess that counts, doesn’t it?
pete says:
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 8:10pm
Yah it counts….. that was a good one!
randal says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 5:44pm
“How does undoubtable “animal knowledge” differ in any meaningful way from WLC’s ultima facie justified belief?”
How did you even link the two in the first place? So-called “animal knowledge” refers to immediate, properly basic knowledge. If it is knowledge then it is by definition a correct truth claim. An “ultima facie justified belief”could be true but it could also be false. The point is simply that no defeater could be adequate to undermine one’s justification in believing it.
“the tabloids are rife with examples of people who “just intuitively know” plenty of monstrous things.”
Are you trying to grapple with an argument against moral axioms here? Maybe it works like this: “because people can have fallible moral intuitions we ought to reject our moral intuitions”. That’s about as dumb as saying “because cars break down we should all start walking”.
Now that’s disturbing.
clamat says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 7:37pm
Randal,
Normally you are more careful to avoid casually tossing about obvious strawmen.
The OP posits that certain moral intuitions “resulting from the immediate deliverance of our senses” are not subject to doubt. They are so “secure” that only an “[im]properly functioning” human being could doubt” them, and all that’s left is to “add a reflective dimension” to this undoubtable “knowledge.” WLC, on the other hand, posits direct revelation for which there “simply no defeater.”
Simple: They don’t appear to differ in any meaningful way.
But now you suggest acknowledge that “people can have fallible moral intuitions[.]” You’re backpedaling from your original post, which you should, but acknowledge it at least. That people can have fallible moral intuitions was my main point. Stated axiomatically: Because people can have fallible moral intuitions we cannot “just know” that any particular moral intuition is correct. No matter how strongly felt, or by how many people.
Knowledge resulting from the immediate deliverance of our senses is, by definition, a correct truth claim? Ridiculous. I hear a rustling in the bushes – ergo I know it’s a tiger!!!! Wrong. I know I hear a rustling in the bushes, nothing more.
randal says:
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 10:41pm
Your WLC analogy simply fails. Craig is talking about a doxastic process which he claims is indefeasible and thus its deliverances are certain. I never claimed that about moral intuition. And since I never claimed that to begin with, I never “backpedaled”. That is the creation of your own imagination.
clamat says:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 4:41pm
I don’t think so. Your OP and Craig both contend that some beliefs, based on nothing more than sensory input (that Craig relies on an internal sense is of no consequence) are justified in and of themselves, not to be doubted. Some things we just know, e.g., Holy Spirit, animal knowledge. There is no qualitative difference.
Ray Ingles says:
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 12:36pm
There’s a whole BDSM community that could have problems with that. Consent of the sufferee might have a bearing. But anyway…
I’d rather classify it as instinctive knowledge. Like being startled by loud noises, avoiding fire, etc.
There’s generally a very good reason for instincts, but they are not foolproof. If situations change, instincts can be mismatched to their environment. (Insects evolved to navigate by starlight, ‘keep the light you see at the same angle to your eyes’. Once humans discovered fire and electric lights, that instinct had new situations where it didn’t work so hot.
I’d characterize this as working to figure out the reason for the instinct. ‘Startle at loud noises’ and ‘avoid contact with fire’ are fairly obvious.
WISOFPP isn’t too hard to justify with some basic game theory, though.
Jag Levak says:
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 10:34pm
““It is wrong to inflict suffering on others simply because doing so is pleasurable to the perpetrator.”…Although I don’t think we should doubt WISOFPP, that doesn’t mean we cannot think critically about it. Certainly we should do that.”
It is certain that we should do that, because it is certain that we are fallible beings–one of the few things which we can know for sure. This means the reason we should think critically about it is to address considerations of doubt. Does this proposition reflect a truth? How can it be determined to be true? Do we have a conduit to this truth? How reliable is it? True in what sense?
In this case, it appears we are talking about a cognitive/emotional truth–a truth which is confined to a mental domain, so considerations of whether we have a conduit to this truth are no more problematic than establishing that other, similar minds exist. But just because a default doubt can be addressed easily in a particular case does not mean that it was improper to approach the proposition with doubt in the first place. And clearly, there are other doubts we can and should have regarding this proposition which are not so easy to answer.
Like do we even know what it means, and whether there might be more than one acceptable interpretation? Does “wrong” mean ill-advised–something we should strive to avoid–or does it describe an offense which requires prevention and remedy? Who qualifies as “others”? Only humans, or any intelligent, sentient life form? Should fishing, sport hunting, and bullfighting count as “wrongs” under this principle? What all qualifies as pleasure? Would inflicting suffering to satisfy a craving for revenge count as pleasure? What about inflicting pain to fulfill a desire for retributive punishment?
Define pleasure too narrowly, and you risk making the category of permissible instances of inflicting suffering too broad. Define pleasure too broadly and you’ll condemn instances, such as professional boxing perhaps, which most people would think should be permissible. And the Biblical Old Testament god is clearly described as having inflicted suffering, and presumably an omnipotent god does everything he does because it is his preference to do so, so how would that god escape condemnation under this principle?
In order to have no doubts about this principle, I would have to feel certainty that it corresponds to some absolute truth that has no exception, that such truth is exactly represented by the correct interpretation of the wording, that my interpretation agrees completely with the correct interpretation, and that I know the full extent to which the principle should be applied. And I see nothing which would warrant a feeling of certainty about any of those.
I’m not sure in what all senses Shermer meant that doubt is good, but I think doubt should be the reasonable default, in recognition of all the ways we are prone to error. And morally, I think it should be the default restraint in all matters of conduct which could involve other minds, which means no matter how obvious something may seem, we should keep alive the recognition that we could be mistaken. It seems we humans are at our most susceptible to going horribly wrong when we allow ourselves to become convinced that we cannot possibly be wrong.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 1:38am
But can we be in any way possibly wrong in asserting that WISOFPP is morally wrong?
Do we need to give WISOFPP a second thought?
Do we need to give a Mac Truck speeding right at us a second thought…. or do we jump out of the way without a second thought?
(my hope is that WISOFPP becomes a universally recognized acronym
)
Jag Levak says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 6:49am
“But can we be in any way possibly wrong in asserting that WISOFPP is morally wrong?”
Well, let’s look at that. Consider this question: Is sport hunting morally wrong according to the WISOFP Principle?
Now, the point of this exercise isn’t the question. The point is a consideration of whether humans would always be in total agreement on the answer. Do you think everyone would always and everywhere have the same opinion regarding whether or not the WISOFP principle should apply, and whether or not sport hunting should be considered a moral wrong? Because if it is possible for any of us to arrive at different and conflicting answers, then I think that should count as robust evidence that error is possible regarding the principle.
At any rate, I think you are approaching the question backwards. In cases where we merely don’t happen to know of a scenario in which proposition X might be true, that isn’t enough to establish that it is impossible for it to be true. There are many things which we once could not envision how they could be true, which later turned out to be true, or became true. So really, the only thing which can overturn a presumption of “possible” is a robust demonstration of “impossible”. Which means the better question to ask is whether we have good reason to suppose that we would be infallible in asserting WISOFPP. Absent some robust demonstration of how we could not possibly be wrong in a given instance, I see no reason to budge from the default presumption that we are capable of being wrong.
pete says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 6:41pm
I don’t wilfully inflict suffering on animals.
I try and kill them with one shot. And then eat them.
I wish I didn’t need external amino acids to survive, but I do.
(tangent)
clamat says:
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 4:51pm
How can one know one is right if one refuses to entertain the possibility one might be wrong?
Without more, WISOFPP is just a naked assertion. But “homosexuality is bad” is a naked assertion. “Jews are evil” is a naked assertion. “Eating meat is immoral.” Is a naked assertion. Without something more, the only difference between these statements is simply the number of people who would endorse them without thinking.
But since when is morality a popularity contest? (Full disclosure: I don’t believe in an objective morality, and think it kind of is a popularity contest, so I’m sort of arguing against myself here.)
No, if you want to conclude whether a particular action is moral or not it must be evaluated against more fundamental moral principles. WISOFPP can be broken down into two components: ISOFPP is an action, not a moral principle. “W” isn’t a moral principle, either, it’s a conclusion.
This nails it. Something can only be said to be objectively Moral if it can be demonstrated to everyone who considers the problem that application of agreed-upon moral principles lead to only one conclusion. This is exactly the opposite of “animal” or “instinctive” knowledge of morality. The very fact that we’ve devoted a string of posts to the question whether WISOFPP is actually a moral principle we know “instinctively” suggests that it is not.
Anyway, I think the whole notion of “instinctive” morality is highly dubious. When one hears a rustle in the bushes one’s instinctive belief is indeed “aiyeee, tiger!!!” But 99.99999999999999% of the time that instinctive belief is totally wrong, as further examination and analysis of the evidence usually makes clear.
pete says:
Monday, September 19, 2011 at 4:50am
“Anyway, I think the whole notion of “instinctive” morality is highly dubious. When one hears a rustle in the bushes one’s instinctive belief is indeed “aiyeee, tiger!!!” But 99.99999999999999% of the time that instinctive belief is totally wrong, as further examination and analysis of the evidence usually makes clear.”
I don’t know of too many tigers lurking in bushes in North America…..
But you raise a correct point on reflex.
Going back to our reflexive instincts, they serve to keep us alive.
WISOFPP and other similar axions serve to keep humans morally and intrinsically worthy.
There’s nothing wrong with epistemically reflecting on the “Mack Truck” moral dilema after you have jumped out of the way.
clamat says:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 4:29pm
True, but the theme of the post was intuitive “knowledge.” The tiger example, and the Mack Truck example, demonstrates that instinct is not knowledge. Similarly, WISOFPP may be a worthy axiom, but without more it does not qualify as knowledge in any meaningful sense of the term.
pete says:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 11:11pm
Then what does qualify as knowledge in any meaningful sense of the term?
I know both tacitly and propositionally that WISOFPP is always wrong.
You may know both tacitly and propositionally that ECT is always wrong.
The French have two words for “Know”:
1) Connaitre – Understand (propositional knowledge
2) Savoir – “know” akin to “I know you” (tacit knowledge)
Can either one be discerned on an absolute reductionist model?
If it can, until we get there, is the word “knowledge” useless?
The concept becomes absurd
pete says:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 11:16pm
The Mack Truck example is knowledge
a) I quickly process the visual stimuli of the chrome grill accelerating towards me with the word “MACK” emblazoned on the front.
b) I quickly process the audio stimuli of air horns and Truck Driver Surly yelling to the effect of “get the “truck” out of the way”
c) I quickly process the internal thought of “jump”
d) I transfer all empirical stimuli to my brain, which then “knows” to activiate my limbic system, at which point I jump.
e) I then see the truck continuing down the road, devoid of any of my body parts trailing behind.
f) I know I did the right thing, and could live to tell about it.