Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

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

#11

Post by js2 »

Andyfilms wrote: post #9
js2 wrote: post #8

> 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…

I suspect what the author is getting attempting to do is to get us to examine the criteria that determines suffering itself. Some aspects are universal--hunger, pain, disease--but once those needs are met, emotional suffering becomes manifest to take it's place. And emotional suffering is subjective; I suffer because I lack the time to explore my true passions, my friend suffers because they are unable to form lastin…

That's a good point about emotional suffering and I hadn't really thought of it. I was definitely thinking of the basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy.

Echo chambers are self-sorting into tribes, so I think the essay addresses that.

There's another point which is that self-examination is a form of critical thinking and people looking to maintain power in any given society often don't want a whole lot of self-examination and critical thought... that sort of thing could lead to revolution or is at least de-stabalizing. The essay mentions the gay marriage issue, but a few years later and in America we're now arguing about, for example, teaching a more wholistic view of America's history.

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

#12

Post by hairofadog »

> “They fight not because they are fundamentally selfish but because they have incompatible visions of what a moral society should be.”

Agree. I think much of the conflict in the world today comes from the fact that people on the left end of the political spectrum value empathy, while people on the right value loyalty. It's difficult to find a common morality when your hierarchy of values is misaligned.

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

#13

Post by galaxyLogic »

hairofadog wrote: post #12

> “They fight not because they are fundamentally selfish but because they have incompatible visions of what a moral society should be.” Agree. I think much of the conflict in the world today comes from the fact that people on the left end of the political spectrum value empathy, while people on the right value loyalty. It's difficult to find a common morality when your hierarchy of values is misaligned.

> people on the right value loyalty

But loyalty to whom? To your group or tribe of course. The group as a whole can be highly immoral raping and killing other groups. So loyalty does not mean morality, even though as you suggest it may be the case that "right values loyalty".

Left values empathy? Surely yes, but I would rather say the left values equality of all human beings. Empathy follows from understanding that we are all the same, and should therefore have equality in our dealings with the society.

Loyalty is selfishness. You help those who have helped you in the past you don't care about those who have not helped you in the past. Loyalty is mob-mentality

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

#14

Post by FooBarWidget »

justicezyx wrote: post #10

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...

Almost. China believes US is the bully, but I've never heard of anybody believing the US unfairly gained.

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

#15

Post by baix777 »

js2 wrote: post #8

> 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…

The flaw with the golden rule is that what is hateful varies by person, and what people like also varies.

A better rule is to treat people like they want to be treated. But this rule also has issues with people wanting something that isn't healthy for them.

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

#17

Post by metrokoi »

This is the problem with hypotheticals, they are never an accurate representation of human psychology just like a ball ignoring air resistance. The two problems are not the same, the human brain KNOWS that pushing a large man onto tracks is not guaranteed to save the people on the trolley, even if a researcher tells them it will. The subconscious recognition of that uncertainty will affect the result. Flipping a switch is a guaranteed outcome, one which cannot be swayed by subconscious thought.

In addition, one could also throw themselves on to the track in the second problem, and if you decide to push the large man on to the track you will also have to weigh the guilt of knowing you may have been able to stop it by sacrificing yourself.

This is just one example, but it shows how such research is flawed. The human brain isn't designed to think in terms of guaranteed outcomes, and a researcher cannot assume that two decision are equal just because they say they are.

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

#18

Post by 082349872349872 »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #14
justicezyx wrote: post #10

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...

Almost. China believes US is the bully, but I've never heard of anybody believing the US unfairly gained.

Can you recommend any sources (selfishly I'll say preferably in a european language) for relatively mainstream chinese viewpoints?

One might hope HN would provide a non-siloed venue including (one would guess, self-selecting for relatively pro-western) chinese geeks, but as far as I've seen, those who openly identify as such are discouraged.

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

#19

Post by hrktb »

js2 wrote: post #8

> 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…

The Golden Rule is too simple to be universal.

We'd hate to be treated ourselves as we treat our kids, what helps someone could handicap others. We all have different modes of behaviour, included how we treat pain, harshness and transparency.

Empathy would be a facet among many others for any moral system.

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

#20

Post by ewindal »

js2 wrote: post #8

> 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…

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

Which makes some people arrive at antinatalism. Suffering is too subjective to be a useful metric.

Post reply on HN