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

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#21

Post by kwhitefoot » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:33 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.

Unless those aliens were some kind of threat I don't think most people would care on jot and would certainly not cease looking at people from across the river, round the corner, of different colour, height, car type, wealth, etc., as inferior.

We are each members of many tribes not just one.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#22

Post by OrvalWintermute » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

The article says we need to abandon tribalism yet the article is replete with tribal narrative.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#23

Post by warent » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

sportslife wrote: post #16

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-...

I see where you're coming from, and I'm not offended by being compared to cows... that being said, this connection seems very tenuous. This is really comparing apples to oranges here

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#24

Post by yboris » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:36 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.

Utilitarianism is almost 300 years old and includes animals in its "circle of concern". Many people care about animal rights, and once people stop eating meat (because meat alternatives will eventually win out with price) there will be a major shift in perspective - meat eaters will be looked upon as we currently look on slave owners: doing something seriously morally wrong.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#25

Post by yboris » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

mmcgaha wrote: post #6

I know she is divisive, but Ayn Rand lays out a pretty good model for universal morality.

My understanding of her philosophy is "let the strong win, fuck the rest". Could you elaborate on what you think is her "universal morality"?

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#26

Post by loudtieblahblah » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:38 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.

Absolutely.

IMHO, the best outcomes come from moral, economic, political systems competing with each other.

Show me an instance of purity and a lack of competition of ideas that ever turned out well. It always turns out tyrannical, hypocritical, and oppressive. Always.

Diversity of thought, as taboo as it might be to say today, is more important than what people tend to think of when thinking of diversity.

But it can't be so diverse than millions of people are all going their rabid individualistic path. It needs to be a competition and inter-influence of tribes

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#27

Post by plank_time » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:38 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.

It depends on who defines morality, which invalidates the concept of a “universal” morality. If the definer of the morality decides that human lives are the most important and it would be immoral to hold animals and plants above humans, it would produce a completely different end result.

Or they may determine that all you mention plus natural formations like lakes and mountains and rock formations deserve protection and equal protection.

That’s why this entire article is a waste of time to me.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#28

Post by throwawaybchr » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

Not possible when so many Gaslight others with narratives like January 6th coup. Countries where coups have happened are laughing at the soft west. Never seen a coup where the media is filming a man in a Viking hat

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#29

Post by DizzyDoo » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

slver wrote: post #13

Enginerrrd wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think what Enginerrrd is calling psychotic is that there's no way to, as you say, "make someone part of the same tribe" without employing a great deal of force to coerce (and crush) people.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#30

Post by logicchop » Mon, May 31, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

"If objective ethical values exist, we'll have to give up tribalism to realize them."

I didn't see a definition of "tribalism" in the article. I see references to the "January insurrection" and vague references to other "far-right" things.

If you go back to Plato's Euthyphro, you see the character Euthyphro on his way to testify against his own father for mistreating a criminal. This is a very early "moral" moment in our intellectual history; it was practically inconceivable that a son would take such a position against his own father. I'd feel comfortable calling it "anti-tribalist," and it isn't so obvious whether Euthyphro is pursuing the right course.

If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." Given the vagueness of the authors target, I suspect what he'd rather say is that we have to give up things like nations, borders, ethnic identities, sex-based sport leagues, and so on. If he bothered to spell out in detail what he means by "tribalism," and not simply let the reader's imagination carry the burden of supplying the target, I suspect his proposal wouldn't have made it out of his own mouth.