Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

A good read and even more relevant today than when it was written in 2013. I like that Wright does not suggest the world's moral ills could be solved if only everyone would convert to his chosen school of utilitarianism.

The argument eventually concludes that the answer is bias neutralization through metacognition aka self awareness. However, Wright acknowledges the extreme time, effort, and desire necessary to overcome one's biases.

Although I can't force others to be less biased, I can work on becoming less biased myself.

Libertarianism seems to follow pretty directly from individualism, which most people reject. (I actually support it.)

Individualism is directly comparable to utilitarianism.

The rational people in our society should be debating individualism vs. collectivism vs. utilitarianism (possibly vs. others).

That is in lieu of discussing the higher-level political instantiations of these things (e.g. libertarianism vs. socialism, etc.).

What political system you want depends (at least) on what moral system you favor.

> Maybe we’re approaching a point where we can actually harness this knowledge, make radical progress in how we treat one another, and become a species worthy of the title Homo sapiens.

These moral arguments always imply that we can pronounce the way things ought to be and that it's just a matter of finding a way to make everyone conform to the "correct" vision for humanity.

But there's a danger in homogeneous crops, flocks, and societies. Having everyone pulling in the same direction will surely have unintended consequences that may well do more harm than good when the final tally is taken.

> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use?

The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

> It’s true that Greene is a utilitarian—believing (to oversimplify a bit) that what’s moral is what maximizes overall human happiness.

I prefer this formulation: what's moral is what minimizes overall human suffering, now and in the foreseeable future.

> The rift was mended by putting the boys in non-zero-sum situations—giving them a common peril, such as a disruption in the water supply, that they could best confront together.

It's tragic that Covid19 hasn't united us. How did we end up fighting over wearing masks? (This question is rhetorical.)

> Self-doubt can be the first step to moral improvement.

I mean yeah, but: “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” — Bertrand Russell

This entire essay is premised on people wanting to get better. On having some degree of curiosity and willingness for self-examination. I don't see a lot of that in the world.

It's no better example of the us and China ideology conflicts at play right now...

Both sides believed the other cheated bullied and unfairly gained from themselves...