Hypothesis #1: The only thing that has ever actually mattered is the way humans behave towards each other and towards other living things.

Hypothesis #2: Truth matters as an end in itself.

I'm inclined to believe both of these hypotheses but I also suspect they conflict. "Truth" is tricky to define, but here it can mean pretty much anything but a pragmatist conception of truth. The pragmatists basically claim that "true" means "whatever it is best for us to believe", which is consistent with H1. The problem is that only philosophical pragmatists accept this definition of truth. Everybody else, from young earth creationist to Marxist revolutionary to Dawkinsian fundamentalist, either has a stronger conception of truth or tries to avoiding talking about it at all.

Are H1 and H2 incompatible, and if so which should be rejected?

In what way should humans behave toward each other? Perhaps the should behave in consistency with #2. That seems reasonable to me... Can you give an example of a conflict?

Yes. Let's say conclusive scientific evidence turns up which indicates that some groups of people of sub-saharan african descent are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than people of other races. Even if this was true, it would not be grounds to discriminate against black people, but if it became public knowledge then it would be seized upon by persons with a racist political agenda and used to justify discrimination. If you are a geneticist who passionately believes in H1, are you going to spend time arguing with human rights activists who think you are a racist?

Hypothesis 1 is bollocks to me in every conceivable way.

There is one way in which I find Hypothesis 2 interesting, but only as it pertains to the question of love. I would call it a 'tragic tradeoff' the question what is more important, being truthful (in less problematic terms, being factual) or acting out of love. Telling the person you love something that would harm them, but that is true..

My answer to this is vague; everything done out of love is beyond good and evil, but I love truth.

I would agree to the second hypothesis as long as you never claim to actually posses the truth.

I don't get the first one.Since when has how humans behaved towards one another ever mattered to most people?

UndercoverElephant wrote:The pragmatists basically claim that "true" means "whatever it is best for us to believe", which is consistent with H1.

Pragmatist theories of truth:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#PraTheTru

Peirce on truth:
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/truth.html

UndercoverElephant wrote:Yes. Let's say conclusive scientific evidence turns up which indicates that some groups of people of sub-saharan african descent are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than people of other races. Even if this was true, it would not be grounds to discriminate against black people, but if it became public knowledge then it would be seized upon by persons with a racist political agenda and used to justify discrimination. If you are a geneticist who passionately believes in H1, are you going to spend time arguing with human rights activists who think you are a racist?

I fail to see a conflict as I think it would be discriminatory not to acknowledge inferior intelligence. The individuals should be free to apply themselves wherever, but when allocating services they should be tailored to the group. Same as handicapped people.

Try again?

As I say - I am puzzled by how you think people should behave towards each other. H1 seems superfluous.

Human behavior is not predictable. The same individual will behave differently based on very small changes.

Animavore wrote:I would agree to the second hypothesis as long as you never claim to actually posses the truth.

I don't get the first one.Since when has how humans behaved towards one another ever mattered to most people?

I am not talking about what matters to most people. Perhaps I should have said "should matter."

Steve wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Yes. Let's say conclusive scientific evidence turns up which indicates that some groups of people of sub-saharan african descent are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than people of other races. Even if this was true, it would not be grounds to discriminate against black people, but if it became public knowledge then it would be seized upon by persons with a racist political agenda and used to justify discrimination. If you are a geneticist who passionately believes in H1, are you going to spend time arguing with human rights activists who think you are a racist?

I fail to see a conflict as I think it would be discriminatory not to acknowledge inferior intelligence. The individuals should be free to apply themselves wherever, but when allocating services they should be tailored to the group. Same as handicapped people.

Try again?

I don't think I have to. In the real world, information of this sort would be (ab)used by people and everybody knows what sort of people I mean and how they would be likely to abuse it.

As I say - I am puzzled by how you think people should behave towards each other. H1 seems superfluous.

I am not making any specific claims about ethics here. I am making a general point that human rights and ecology matter a lot. You don't think the way humans treat other humans and other living things matters? If this doesn't matter then what does?

UndercoverElephant wrote:In the real world, information of this sort would be (ab)used by people and everybody knows what sort of people I mean and how they would be likely to abuse it.

I would question your assumptions. The world is not perfect, yet in a sense it is. The pain and suffering is there to point the way. Which is perfect. That is the ecology of the spiritual perspective called karma. It is constantly correcting itself.