Are we cut out for universal morality? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#11

Post by Enginerrrd » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

slver wrote: post #4

The premise is quite weird, because we're not "cut out". We've evolved, and still evolving. The best thing evolution did to us is to make a lot of our behaviors learned. So how we perceive morality is something we can learn, and we can pass onto generations, basically recreating the concept of evolution through culture, at a much faster pace. The article claims we need to give up tribalism to get there. I disagree. T…

>We need to stick with tribalism, but make everyone part of the same tribe.

That sounds completely psychotic to me.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#12

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #5

Any sufficiently universal morality must include the impact our actions/inactions have on animals (or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality). We are nowhere near such a concept, and almost assuredly never will be.

We're moving closer to it.

Vegetarianism and veganism used to be much more fringe just a few decades ago than they are now.

Animal right groups and laws didn't exist until relatively recently as well.

Understanding and valuing ecology and every species role in it as well is relatively new (at least among non-indigenous people) and making a difference in how we treat animals as well.

There's also a lot of research in to how animals view and understand the world, how they communicate, how much they understand and feel, and how they differ (or don't) from humans. That's also opening people's eyes.

I'm usually pretty pessimistic, but on this issue I am cautiously optimistic that we are moving in the right direction.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#13

Post by slver » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

Enginerrrd wrote: post #11

slver wrote: post #4

The premise is quite weird, because we're not "cut out". We've evolved, and still evolving. The best thing evolution did to us is to make a lot of our behaviors learned. So how we perceive morality is something we can learn, and we can pass onto generations, basically recreating the concept of evolution through culture, at a much faster pace. The article claims we need to give up tribalism to get there. I disagree. T…

>We need to stick with tribalism, but make everyone part of the same tribe. That sounds completely psychotic to me.

Well in this case we can make the aliens I'm talking to part of the other tribe. Down with the aliens.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#14

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

Hard to even approach answering this question without some kind of workable definition of "objective" and "universal" and "morality." What does a person mean when they say all these words together? My best guess would be something like, "All people would agree that any action recommended by this morality are right, and any action prohibited by this morality are wrong, and this morality either recommends or prohibits all possible actions." To me, the answer to this question is pretty obvious: there is no possible moral system that matches this definition.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#15

Post by slver » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #9

slver wrote: post #4

The premise is quite weird, because we're not "cut out". We've evolved, and still evolving. The best thing evolution did to us is to make a lot of our behaviors learned. So how we perceive morality is something we can learn, and we can pass onto generations, basically recreating the concept of evolution through culture, at a much faster pace. The article claims we need to give up tribalism to get there. I disagree. T…

> We need to stick with tribalism, but make everyone part of the same tribe. How is that different than giving up tribalism?

Because you still have things you're for and against. But they shouldn't be aligned along trivial lines like sports, religion and politics. And yeah I know calling these "trivial" sounds odd, but they really are.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#16

Post by sportslife » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

slver wrote: post #4

The premise is quite weird, because we're not "cut out". We've evolved, and still evolving. The best thing evolution did to us is to make a lot of our behaviors learned. So how we perceive morality is something we can learn, and we can pass onto generations, basically recreating the concept of evolution through culture, at a much faster pace. The article claims we need to give up tribalism to get there. I disagree. T…

As much as I think global unity would be nice, it reminds me of hearing that cows once their herd reaches a certain size split off into two herds [1]. If I'm remembering correctly, a mathematician, biologist and cattle farmer all saw reasons it might be good for the cows. I wouldn't be surprised if the same forces acting on the cows are acting on us.

[1] https://www.stitcher.com/show/odd-lots/episode/52-what-math-...

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#17

Post by agumonkey » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

Tribal relativisme is often a strong attractor and can overcome extrinsic universality

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#18

Post by bumby » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #5

Any sufficiently universal morality must include the impact our actions/inactions have on animals (or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality). We are nowhere near such a concept, and almost assuredly never will be.

Why does the distinction stop with the human convention of the animal kingdom?

Is it immoral to make a plant species extinct? Is morality rooted in subjective experience?

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#19

Post by slver » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

moreira wrote: post #10

slver wrote: post #4

The premise is quite weird, because we're not "cut out". We've evolved, and still evolving. The best thing evolution did to us is to make a lot of our behaviors learned. So how we perceive morality is something we can learn, and we can pass onto generations, basically recreating the concept of evolution through culture, at a much faster pace. The article claims we need to give up tribalism to get there. I disagree. T…

Tribalism necessitates an “other”. If we discovered intelligent life on other planets and were suddenly given that “other”, I imagine humans would very quickly all come together as the same tribe. Minor differences between humans (including nationality) would stop mattering in less than a lifetime.

Yes it needs "other". We can however define this "other" intelligently to encircle the negative phenomena of society and define the rest as the society we are. And hopefully it doesn't split even parents and children or husbands and wives like it does right now, based in silly things like sports, religion and politics. By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now. But that's kind of the problem.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#20

Post by Fern_Blossom » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

>From this perspective, your moral judgments about the insurrection, or about some racist or sexist policy, are viewed as objects of study rather than as candidates for truth or falsity. The scientist is not here engaging with philosophical issues about the potential accuracy of moral claims. The scientist instead approaches your judgments simply as psychological facts about you, causally traceable to various influences—just as with the thoughts and feelings that led to the social injustices you’re responding to.

Am I the only one terrified of this? This type of "study" has been abused very well in the past, phrenology being just one decent parallel. People have believed bad science in the past as "good" science. There's zero reason to imagine we're immune to it in this day. Some asshat out there is going to "prove" something about a demographic and use this as a means to enforce action. Just going to throw it out there, if they already dislike a demographic, they're going to prove how they should get arbitrary punishments or re-education because, "the science says so". It takes one shitty paper to fuck things up for a long time, cough cough anti-vaxxers cough cough. An average population is dumb as hell. It's even worse if they're convinced if something was scientifically proven, even though it wasn't. Take all the bad media reports on random papers released. That chocolate diet one fucking flooded the media even though it was total trash (yes, I know it was a hoax paper to prove the media is a dumpster fire). Just imagine the political party that doesn't like you get's ahold of this narrative. Fuck it, while we're at it, is it then better for your preferred party to wield the weapon first? Does that make it morally right for anyone to wield it or just who you approve of because you're perfect at deciding someone's character?