Establishing Secular Morality

[Bradskii]

No, altruism in the sense we are discussing are altruistic acts that are more than simply acts that creates in the actor an expectation of a future reciprocal act. Altruistic acts measure the immediate costs and benefits in terms of reproductive fitness or expected number of offspring. Behaving altruistically, one reduces the number of offspring he is likely to produce himself, but boosts the number that others are likely to produce.

Altruism in the evolutionary sense doesn't necessarily consider immediate benefits. It's not, as noted below 'identical to the everyday concept'.That's why I mentioned the neighbours who helped each other. The altruistic acts weren't immediately repaid. But helping each other formed an alliance that didn't exist before. And the guy that refused to help was effectively ostracised. It should be obvious that being part of a group is evolutionary beneficial as opposed to having to go it alone.

And if you were quoting Stanford it would be a good idea to state that and give a link in case people might think you were lifting someone else's work. Allow the me to quote the next line: Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

'So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept.'

But further on:

'Why might a social behaviour reduce an animal's short-term fitness but boost its lifetime fitness? This could arise in cases of ‘directed reciprocation’, where the beneficiary of the behaviour returns the favour at some point in the future. By performing the behaviour, and suffering the short-term cost, the animal thus ensures (or raises the chance) that it will receive return benefits in the future.'

This is exactly what I was talking about. And brave soldiers sacrificing themselves for others? Well, we are not compelled to follow our evolutionary instincts. We are socially conditioned to admire courage and sacrifice. It grants one a certain stature. No-one wants to be thought a coward. In extreme situations, especially considering the camaraderie of fighting men, that sacrifice is taken to the extreme.

 

[o_mlly]

And brave soldiers sacrificing themselves for others? Well, we are not compelled to follow our evolutionary instincts.

Begs the question.

Evolved behaviors that can only become instinctive behaviors in subsequent generations if those genes are replicated in subsequent generations. Which, of course, is impossible if the behavior in question substantially reduces or eliminates the possibility of those subsequent generations ever coming into existence.

Your subsequent quotes simply confirm my assertion that evolution can only explain selfish behaviors, eg., "... the animal thus ensures (or raises the chance) that it will receive return benefits in the future".

So, evolution theory does not explain the capability that human beings possess for altruistic acts. The person the evangelist quoted in John 15:13 does.

BTW: I did not cite Stanford as I humanized the concept making it applicable to this thread. "Bugs" have no moral code.

 

[Bradskii]

Evolved behaviors that can only become instinctive behaviors in subsequent generations if those genes are replicated in subsequent generations. Which, of course, is impossible if the behavior in question substantially reduces or eliminates the possibility of those subsequent generations ever coming into existence.

And that was explained. There's a benefit in being part of a group as opposed to being alone. It increases fitness.

Your subsequent quotes simply confirm my assertion that evolution can only explain selfish behaviors, eg., "... the animal thus ensures (or raises the chance) that it will receive return benefits in the future".

You can call it selfish if you like. It's a common term in evolution. But it's not selfish in that we think 'What's in it for me if I do this.' I didn't help the neighbour because I thought he might help me fix the fence. I was being 'neighbourly'. Which is an evolved characteristic. I think your position is that you should do something for others simply because it's the right thing to do. Not because it's instinctive. Whereas there really isn't a difference. Some people are genetically inclined to do good for others. Some aren't.

BTW: I did not cite Stanford as I humanized the concept making it applicable to this thread.

Ah, so it was a direct cut and paste. You just changed 'it' to 'he'. Please include a link next time so I can see the quote in context. And don't confuse what we term a moral code with evolutionary terms. It's a categorical mistake to do so.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?

It is not. In fact, I always try to see from the perspective of others. Sometimes this leaves me in a moral subjectivist relativism.

But I do try to base my sense of right and wrong on love, empathy, kindness and compassion. I hope other would do so as well. but they obviously do not. many are rule based. I think the word for that is 'deontological".

On another thread I stated that since we are a pluralistic culture we need to promote values and virtues that are universally admired.

 

[o_mlly]

And that was explained. There's a benefit in being part of a group as opposed to being alone. It increases fitness.

No one argues that a group in a hostile environment is more likely to survive. The question is how such a group could ever evolve to be. Evolution theory, random variations with natural selection, does not explain how the "selfish" gene could develop into a "selfless" gene. In a world dominated by selfish "taker" genes, how is it possible that the random unselfish "giver" gene, not only survives the "takers", but is also able to replicate? Natural selection (survival of the fittest) would not allow it.

You can call it selfish if you like. It's a common term in evolution. But it's not selfish in that we think 'What's in it for me if I do this.' I didn't help the neighbour because I thought he might help me fix the fence. I was being 'neighbourly'. Which is an evolved characteristic. I think your position is that you should do something for others simply because it's the right thing to do. Not because it's instinctive. Whereas there really isn't a difference. Some people are genetically inclined to do good for others. Some aren't.

Nope. In order to be an evolved behavior, the random genes which initiated some altruistic behavior must successfully replicate themselves which is impossible as their altruistic behaviors are exactly that which prevents their replicating. One cannot presume, as you do, the truth of the question under examination as a premise. As I posted that argument begs the question. Something or Someone else must be involved in the explanation. Christians know the answer.

Ah, so it was a direct cut and paste. You just changed 'it' to 'he'. Please include a link next time so I can see the quote in context. And don't confuse what we term a moral code with evolutionary terms. It's a categorical mistake to do so.

So it was a "direct cut and paste ... " until it wasn't, is that what you're trying to claim? What I asserted was not claimed in the piece, so the idea is, as far as I know, original.

Now, on the other hand, your posts merely parrot much of what Dawkins and Harris and other atheists have published yet I don't see one attribution. Please include a link to their works so I can see where your ideas come from.

 

[partinobodycular]

Nope. In order to be an evolved behavior, the random genes which initiated some altruistic behavior must successfully replicate themselves which is impossible as their altruistic behaviors are exactly that which prevents their replicating.

Sorry o_mlly, but that's nonsense. It simply demonstrates that you don't understand the process of evolution... here's hoping that someone here will have the patience to educate you.

Good luck

 

[Bradskii]

No one argues that a group in a hostile environment is more likely to survive. The question is how such a group could ever evolve to be. Evolution theory, random variations with natural selection, does not explain how the "selfish" gene could develop into a "selfless" gene. In a world dominated by selfish "taker" genes, how is it possible that the random unselfish "giver" gene, not only survives the "takers", but is also able to replicate? Natural selection (survival of the fittest) would not allow it.

Individually, being selfish is often the best practice. But in a group situation where there is give and take, if the interactions are reasonably frequent and you can punish the free loaders in some way, then altruistic behaviour trumps selfish behaviour. Game theory confirms this. A group will survive and even prosper (all things being equal) even if there are some selfish members. Those who reciprocate, if there sufficient numbers, will ensure that the group does well even if the selfish ones get an ocassional free ride. So all genes get to replicate.

However, if there is a surfeit of selfish members then there is little group cooperation, the system collapses and the group dissolves. And it's every gene for itself again.

Rinse and repeat enough times and it's the groups with a majority of those who reciprocate which will be the fittest.

Nope. In order to be an evolved behavior, the random genes which initiated some altruistic behavior must successfully replicate themselves which is impossible as their altruistic behaviors are exactly that which prevents their replicating.

See above. In a group situation altruism trumps selfishness. Interesting article here: Game Theory, Evolutionary Stable Strategies and the Evolution of Biological Interactions

'Reciprocal altruism relies on organisms interacting multiple times, and game theory provides a framework for the evolution of reciprocal altruism via the prisoners' dilemma described earlier. The iterated prisoners' dilemma typically involves repeated interactions between small numbers of prisoners; however, altruism has been shown to evolve even in large groups through a combination of direct and indirect altruistic reciprocity. Direct reciprocity occurs when the same two individuals interact repeatedly, while indirect reciprocity is when subsequent interactions are between different partners. In sum, while altruistic behavior may temporarily reduce the fitness of the individual, reciprocal altruism increases fitness over the lifetime of the individual.'

So it was a "direct cut and paste ... " until it wasn't, is that what you're trying to claim?

No. I didn't claim anything. I said you copied that section from Stanford and changed two words from 'It' to 'he'.

Now, on the other hand, your posts merely parrot much of what Dawkins and Harris and other atheists have published yet I don't see one attribution. Please include a link to their works so I can see where your ideas come from.

Good grief, That's a nonsensical request (which is no more than a deflection from your cut and paste). I've been reading about this subject for very many years. I'm not going to link to every book or article I've ever read. And if I did mention one or two then you aren't going to study them in detail and neither should you be expected to. If I quote someone's work then I will link to it. As I did in this post. If I make a claim and you want me to support it then I shall do so. But in the meantime, if you want something on reciprocal altruism then the guy you need to read is here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjXk87VysyBAxXlsVYBHcekBiMQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2UD3YJB8TOWY1w-JkSi7PN

And a good source for evolutionary psychology, which will include it, will be Cosmides and Tooby: Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

 

[stevevw]

I'm not trying to re-hash my old thread so I thought I would try and do it more directly through questions and get your guys actual opinions & reasoning rather than writing a bunch of posts that amount to epistemological essays. Don't get me wrong, I'll still object and expect you guys to do the same for mine and other people's arguments; but this time I'll try and do it with more of a leaning towards discussion.
Try to keep mocking to a minimum, it serves nobody and only degrades your own arguments. Therein, it's ok to say "I don't know" or "good point" to one another; but in the same token it's ok to doggedly pursue your point or points if you think the other person is missing it or are mistaken. It's ok if the thread narrows down or veers off a bit into other topics like subjective morality, subjective truth (it doesn't exist ) and other areas but just try not to derail it entirely and keep it within the parameters of what the thread is about as much as you can. Now to the thread:

1. Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?
2. How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?
3. How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?
4. What's your standard that allows you to evaluate and impart value (i.e. it's true compassion is good & it's true torturing innocent people is bad)?
5. Why is this standard authoritative over another person's?

I'll just post a couple of examples to avoid some early arguments & mistakes:

"Evolution determines why anything we think is good, is good; therefore, that which propagates our genes the best, is that which is good"
This is to suffer the same problem of lacking a justification for an authoritative standard which confers values independent of a person's belief (i.e. #2 & #5). To simplify the previous statement; a society that succeeds through rape and considers rape good would have the same justification for the truthfulness of its morals as you would if you exist in a society that succeeds through compassion and sees rape as abhorrent. To make comparisons between the actions of rape and compassion is to ascribe value through the use of an authoritative standard that exists independent of the opposing societies beliefs about what is good (a standard that fails to be established in a secular paradigm).

"Evolution has determined what we think is moral"
The existence of the morals brought about by evolution is not a justification for why I (or anyone) need to follow them (i.e. #1, #5).

"Why not just treat each other how we ourselves want to be treated?"
All Christians agree with this in accordance with Christian Theistic Theology & Epistemology. Yahweh is why truth is considered the truth within our framework of belief; He alone is self-existent and is the unmoved mover that is the justification for the existence & sustained existence of any thing, including immaterial morals. Notwithstanding evil, which is characterised as that which is not of Yahweh and therein by nature/necessity was created and is sustained by His creatures through rebellion & disobedience. The problem is the secular framework; within it morals are not inherently true so please don't treat them as such. Within a secular paradigm specific morals and their reasons to follow them need to be established as real and true (i.e. #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5).

If you want to dig down into specific reasoning or see it extrapolated, here are a some good posts from the old thread that also include the opposing views. For consent reasons I'll link only my posts but they are in nature responses so they include the opponents response too:
The old thread
Subjective morality (Main)
Subjective morality (peripheral 1)
Subjective morality (peripheral 2)
Subjective morality (peripheral 3)
Subjective truth doesn't exist
It's ok to dust off your sandals and move on

Edit: For clarity's sake; any appeal to an authoritative use of morality either through disagreement (saying a certain moral stance is wrong) or agreement (affirming the truth of the presuppositions used to establish a moral stance) is to require a transcendent justification (i.e. one that is independent of either parties' beliefs) for the propositions' truthfulness. Either through an appeal to a standard by which to evaluate specific behaviours or to the truth of the presuppositions used to establish any kind of moral reasoning. Hence the thread title of "Establishing" and the use of the word 'transcendent'.

Please try your best to treat each other and the arguments with charity. God bless .
"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."-Proverbs 27:17

I think there has always been a fundemental conflict between proving morality because people tend to want to use scientific empiraclism and as mentioned by Human we cannot get an ought from an is. But I think we can bypass this by explaining moral truths or facts are a different kind of 'is' that exists in the world.

Just like there are laws of physics that we can observe like gravity {you will fall down) we can find moral laws in that if you act badly there will be certain outcomes. So we can find evidence for morality in our lived experience. In that way moral laws have always been there but for various reasons we did not see them or did not acknowledge them.

We are moral and rational beings so we can intuitively know what something is morally wrong. We don't need a test tube to know this, at least intitially. WE often don't have time, we just react to situations like they are wrong. Sometimes over react. We also act like morals are objective despite what we say which seems to show there is a deeper belief in that we actually live them out.

Research also shows that we are moral beings perhaps even from birth. WE sense the presence of others and can feel their suffering. This makes sense in that most religions core moral belief is based on the Golden Rule. It seems just the fact of being around others brings morality out in us. Our moral sense causes us to look for ways to act morally towards others which giving us a guilt trip when we misbehave. This sense seems tyo transcend cultures and individual views on morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Just like there are laws of physics that we can observe like gravity {you will fall down) we can find moral laws in that if you act badly there will be certain outcomes.

Sam Harris would be proud of you. Watching this will be a bit shorter than reading his book The Moral Landscape*:

Sam Harris: La scienza può rispondere alle domande dell'etica

Si pensa comunemente che la scienza non possa rispondere alle domande sul bene e il male, su ciò che giusto e ciò che è sbagliato. Ma Sam Harris sostiene che la scienza può -- e dovrebbe -- essere un'autorità riguardo alle questioni morali, plasmando i valori umani e definendo ciò che...

www.ted.com

What else is there? If you cause harm then it's immoral. Which gives the lie to the statement that you can't get an ought from an is. Is it harmful? Well you ought not to do it.

I can't see why that isn't (or shouldn't be) universally accepted as a provisional maxim. But I appreciate the problem in reaching agreement as to what constitutes harm and what greater ultimate benefit might be attained by a harmful act. So do we lie or steal to save a life? Do we torture one person to save thousands? Do we kill thousands to end a war and save millions?

Is that a trolley I can hear in the distance?

*Here's a link for @o_mlly. He was keen on knowing what I've read and watched over the years: https://www.amazon.com.au/Moral-Lan...ocphy=9071837&hvtargid=pla-519012863957&psc=1

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sam Harris would be proud of you. Watching this will be a bit shorter than reading his book The Moral Landscape*:

Sam Harris: La scienza può rispondere alle domande dell'etica

Si pensa comunemente che la scienza non possa rispondere alle domande sul bene e il male, su ciò che giusto e ciò che è sbagliato. Ma Sam Harris sostiene che la scienza può -- e dovrebbe -- essere un'autorità riguardo alle questioni morali, plasmando i valori umani e definendo ciò che...

www.ted.com

What else is there? If you cause harm then it's immoral. Which gives the lie to the statement that you can't get an ought from an is. Is it harmful? Well you ought not to do it.

I can't see why that isn't (or shouldn't be) universally accepted as a provisional maxim. But I appreciate the problem in reaching agreement as to what constitutes harm and what greater ultimate benefit might be attained by a harmful act. So do we lie or steal to save a life? Do we torture one person to save thousands? Do we kill thousands to end a war and save millions?

Is that a trolley I can hear in the distance?

*Here's a link for @o_mlly. He was keen on knowing what I've read and watched over the years: The Moral Landscape : Harris, Sam: Amazon.com.au: Books

... it's efficacy as a maxim is questionable. It'd be better to call it a moral heuristic rather than a maxim, I think.

 

[Bradskii]

... it's efficacy as a maxim is questionable. It'd be better to call it a moral heuristic rather than a maxim, I think.

Sounds OK to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds OK to me.

It sounds ok to me too. At least it does until Sam Harris puts the ol' Christopher Hitchens answer into the variable of the morality function engine.

In other words, it's all too easy to slip "religion" into the equation as a "harm" upon humanity; and then slink on over to the local church to point out just how much trauma its presence does to humanity on the whole.

This is why I think it's a questionable maxim, even as a provisional one.

 

[o_mlly]

Individually, being selfish is often the best practice. But in a group situation where there is give and take, if the interactions are reasonably frequent and you can punish the free loaders in some way, then altruistic behaviour trumps selfish behaviour.

Still begs the question.

Situation A: "life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

Situation C: "... a group situation where there is give and take, if the interactions are reasonably frequent and you can punish the free loaders in some way."

You have not explained the evolution of a transitional Situation B.

Random genes assemble to produce a "giver." However, the environment consists of those nasty "takers". Natural selection kicks in and the "giver" has all that he can give taken by the "takers", including his ability to reproduce. End of the line for that lonely giver.

Theists have an answer for Situation B. Evolution theory does not.

See above. In a group situation altruism trumps selfishness. Interesting article here: Game Theory, Evolutionary Stable Strategies and the Evolution of Biological Interactions

From the citation: "The population-level outcome at any encounter depends on the population makeup resulting from previous encounters."
In an environment that is overwhelmingly "nasty, brutish, and short", the previous encounters for the doves results in their extinction.

No. I didn't claim anything. I said you copied that section from Stanford and changed two words from 'It' to 'he'.

I changed more than two words.

Surely you must know that the Stanford site is an encyclopedia. As such, that which is not attributed is considered common knowledge.

Good grief, That's a nonsensical request ...

Oh, I see. You have an unlimited license to lift; others do not.

Replying simply to another's argument "that's nonsensical" w/o a rebuttal argument is manifestly a capitulation.

 

[o_mlly]

After 200 + posts, what principles has this thread disclosed that a secular morality could build upon as its foundation?

First: Do no harm.
Second: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Third: Kant's Categorical Imperative (KCI).

If I missed some others, then kindly post them.

What all three of these "principles" lack is content. What is harmful? What should you do or not do to others? And KCI is no more than a restatement of the Second principle.

As such, these woefully inadequate principles cannot act as a foundation for any morality, Collectively, they amount to no more than simply "Take my advice and do what you think is best for yourself."

Absent a transcendent authority to which all moral arguments can appeal, a secular morality is meaningless.

 

[Bradskii]

It sounds ok to me too. At least it does until Sam Harris puts the ol' Christopher Hitchens answer into the variable of the morality function engine.

In other words, it's all too easy to slip "religion" into the equation as a "harm" upon humanity; and then slink on over to the local church to point out just how much trauma its presence does to humanity on the whole.

This is why I think it's a questionable maxim, even as a provisional one.

The maxim can remain. But as I said, it's difficult to come to an agreement on what is harmful. Whether I throw religion into the 'harmful' basket depends on my mood mostly. Or who we are talking about. It was mostly beneficial to my parents. But not to me. And there are many where it's been harmful, not just to the person who holds to that religion but to society in general.

I'm a kinda easy come easy go sort of guy and I don't see the point of riling up people just for the sake of scoring a few forum points. Unless they're up for the argument, of course. So I was going to say we should try to keep religion out of it as the thread is looking for a means of determining a secular morality. Not to debate secular versus religions versions.

 

[Bradskii]

Still begs the question.

Situation A: "life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
Situation C: "... a group situation where there is give and take, if the interactions are reasonably frequent and you can punish the free loaders in some way."

You have not explained the evolution of a transitional Situation B.

There's one theory here: Study reveals clues to how humans became sociable.

'Primates started out as solitary foragers as by night they could survive by moving quietly on their own in the dark. However, once they switched to daytime activity, they could be seen and were more vulnerable to attack by predators unless they could show strength in numbers. This research paper provides evidence to show that this switch in activity coincided with a significant change in social behaviour as primates started to ‘gang up’ for the first time. The researchers conclude that social bonding began as a way of adapting to a new threat.'

This counters theories that suggest that it originated with family groups then larger families and extended families. From the same link:

'These findings are significant as they throw into doubt previous theories about the evolution of primate social grouping patterns. Previous studies have suggested that complex primate social groups were composed of smaller units that stacked up rather like building blocks. Others have suggested that the bond between a mother and daughter later extended to include other related females, and it was this network of relationships that underpinned the social grouping patterns of mammals.'

So there's three for you to ponder. I find the family theory to be more persuasive. It seems more natural to me.

Random genes assemble to produce a "giver." However, the environment consists of those nasty "takers". Natural selection kicks in and the "giver" has all that he can give taken by the "takers", including his ability to reproduce. End of the line for that lonely giver.

Exactly right for that 'lonely giver' in most cases.

Theists have an answer for Situation B. Evolution theory does not.

They have a few answers. See above for three. You can decide if they are valid or not. What I would suggest didn't happen is that we formed groups because we are naturally social animals. I think that's got it backwards. We evolved as social animals because we formed groups. For whatever reason best fits one's interpretation of any given theory explaining why.

From the citation: "The population-level outcome at any encounter depends on the population makeup resulting from previous encounters."
In an environment that is overwhelmingly "nasty, brutish, and short", the previous encounters for the doves results in their extinction.

Family, extended family...if the group keeps growing and the altruistic behaviour which is all too natural at the family level extends outwards - and is itself reciprocated over frequent iterations, then the group as a whole is greater than the sum of the individuals.

Oh, I see. You have an unlimited license to lift; others do not.

If I do, I will quote the piece from whence it came. It'll be helpful for you to see the context. As above.

 

[Bradskii]

After 200 + posts, what principles has this thread disclosed that a secular morality could build upon as its foundation?

First: Do no harm.
Second: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Third: Kant's Categorical Imperative (KCI).

If I missed some others, then kindly post them.

What all three of these "principles" lack is content. What is harmful? What should you do or not do to others?

They lack content because they are general principles. Like Jesus' command to treat others as you would like to be treated. Which is another variation of the same principles you noted above.

And as this is a thread on how a secular morality might be established, an appeal to a transcendent authority as regards what constitutes harm is unfortunately not applicable. We're going to have to work out how we might do that without any input from any given deity.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And as this is a thread on how a secular morality might be established, an appeal to a transcendent authority as regards what constitutes harm is unfortunately not applicable.

We do not need a transcendent authority to recognize harm. Though I suppose some cases can be debated.

 

[Bradskii]

We do not need a transcendent authority to recognize harm. Though I suppose some cases can be debated.

I think that some people are pretty certain about what God wants. And if we do what God doesn't want then it is therefore harmful and no discussions will change that. But you're right. This is a chat about secular morality so we're going to have to do the hard lifting ourselves. And, if necessary, agree to disagree. Which will annoy the living daylights out of some people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The maxim can remain. But as I said, it's difficult to come to an agreement on what is harmful. Whether I throw religion into the 'harmful' basket depends on my mood mostly. Or who we are talking about. It was mostly beneficial to my parents. But not to me. And there are many where it's been harmful, not just to the person who holds to that religion but to society in general.

I'm a kinda easy come easy go sort of guy and I don't see the point of riling up people just for the sake of scoring a few forum points. Unless they're up for the argument, of course. So I was going to say we should try to keep religion out of it as the thread is looking for a means of determining a secular morality. Not to debate secular versus religions versions.

You've always been a sensible guy, Bradskii. You very often make a number of sensible points, and your suggestion to keep religion out of the discussion on the 'how' and 'wherefor' for establishing a secular morality also seems to be one of those points.

I guess I just have an unshakeable feeling---or maybe its a rational apprehension---that keeping religion out of the discussion won't really enable the establishment of secular morality to take hold on a more global or universal level.

Or maybe I just have the likes of Charles Taylor or Michael Ignatieff too much on the brain in all of this ...