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

Are we cut out for universal morality?

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 137 posts

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#51

Post by pessimizer »

slver wrote: post #19
moreira wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

> By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now.

Because you're saying that we need to unite and expel the "negative," but you're either suggesting that we don't use any criteria for that, or you're using a special definition of "religion and politics" that doesn't encompass all forms of human organization and ranges of perceptions of our environment.

I suppose this is just another suggestion that we use rational, objective criteria, like the ones the person making the suggestion uses (when they're at their self-assessed best.) Once we're using those criteria, uniting to eradicate the "other" is fully rationalized, er, rational.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#52

Post by PeterisP »

yboris wrote: post #24
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.

Utilitarianism is orthogonal to animal rights - it analyzes and describes behavior and action with respect to some utility function, but the utility function itself is essentially arbitrary and while utilitarianism can be used to model a balance between "human utility" and "animal utility", utilitarianism itself is just as suited for a "circle of concern" that explicitly includes only the utility of humans, or perhaps even just the utility of a specific subset of humans.

The utility function is not up for grabs; it has to be axiomatically assumed and utilitarianism does not state whose utility matters and how much.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#53

Post by thomascgalvin »

logicchop wrote: post #30

"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…

> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism."

The laws may not be tribalistic, but their enforcement certainly is.

Take, for example, drugs. This report from the U.S. Department of Justice[1] indicates that arrests for the selling of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 33%, and arrests for possession of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 26%.

The same is true of voter suppression laws. For example, the closure of voting places in minority communities, which lead to people of color waiting, on average, 29% longer to vote than white people[2].

The January insurrection is also a perfectly valid example of tribalism. A majority of Republicans falsely believe that this crime was perpetrated by Democrats, Antifa, or even the Capitol Police themselves[3]. We cannot have a serious discussion about the morality of armed insurrection when tribalism causes such a large number of people to reject reality wholesale.

[1]: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf [3]: https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-d...

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#54

Post by howmayiannoyyou »

I must invoke John Stuart Mill when it comes to morality and politics. With 138 capitol & metro police injured, there's no doubt some number of protestors should face justice for their harm to others. That is where the accountability will hopefully end. In almost every other respect the January 6th 2021 was a quintessentially American expression of liberty with overwhelming historical precedent.

Time and again aggrieved citizens on both sides have try to be heard by delaying political fait accompli. From city counsels to county seats, state legislatures to native reservations, the US capital to foreign embassies... naive believers, the agitated, sometimes driven by agent provocateurs have risked prison and worse to remind representatives that victory in a vote doesn't erase diversity of belief; and that governance is more effective when the aggrieved are sincerely heard.

Tribalism (on both sides) is all earmuffs and blindfolds that results in shortsighted public policy, and devaluation of different thoughts & tastes.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#55

Post by plank_time »

kodah wrote: post #36
plank_time wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My experience with morality is that it's definition varies from person to person even in like-groups. The illustration you and GP have painted is the same political struggle we've always had, just now painted inside morality instead of secular laws. It is wild to see secular people debating a new wave of American moralism, as if that time period wasn't bad enough the first go-around.

Agreed. There will always be people splitting hairs and vehemently thinking their views are “more correct” and “more morally correct”. That’s why I think this entire article is a waste of time. The idea of “universal morality” is fiction because everyone thinks differently.

The best course of action is never to try to find a single “universal” truth but to accept a plurality of “truths”. That’s the only way we can survive as a species.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#56

Post by pessimizer »

slver wrote: post #41
DizzyDoo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't intent to say we need to "crush" people into changing, rather the definition of our tribes should change. You know, when a president says "we gotta unite the nation" in a speech, that's kinda what they're trying to do. Except just saying "oh yeah, let's unite" falls quite short of achieving that goal. But no, it's not about coercing and crushing anyone.

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

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#57

Post by slver »

pessimizer wrote: post #51
slver wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

> By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now. Because you're saying that we need to unite and expel the "negative," but you're either suggesting that we don't use any criteria for that, or you're using a special definition of "religion and politics" that doesn't encompass all forms of human organization and ranges of perceptions of our environment. I suppose this is jus…

You know, I think the "rational" approach is completely hopeless actually. You need a rational frame, but you can't inspire people by telling them how it's rational to do what you want them to do.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#58

Post by DangitBobby »

pmoriarty wrote: post #12
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…

After millennia, humans still hate each other on no other basis than skin pigmentation despite our brains being hard-wired to be socially cooperative with other members of our species to boost chances of survival. I have heard arguments against animal rights where the key argument was that humans are intellectually superior and thus it is our right to treat animals however it conveniences us. As smart as some people are, most people are not very sophisticated, especially when it comes to morality, which people mainly wield as a matter of convenience to themselves. My faith in humanity has declined the more I've seen what it's capable of.

Tellingly (to me), despite some non-negligible percentage of the population becoming more sensitive to the plight of animals, the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#59

Post by pessimizer »

gnarbarian wrote: post #40

This is only a problem for cultural relativists. Morals always exist within a cultural framework of expected behaviors. If we can agree that some behaviors are wrong (the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia for example) We can say unequivocally the west is a morally superior culture to Saudi Arabia on that point. Dominant cultures always impose laws on subordinated cultures. In the 19th century the answer to this prob…

> If we can agree that some behaviors are wrong (the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia for example) We can say unequivocally the west is a morally superior culture to Saudi Arabia on that point.

I guess "we" is "the west." I imagine a Saudi cleric is describing a porn clip he saw on the internet to his flock, explaining how cultural relativity = the abuse of women, and that imposing the world caliphate is the greatest act of mercy imaginable.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#60

Post by PeterisP »

stablenode wrote: post #42
yboris wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

@yboris. Your account says that you are an 'Effective Altruist'. In a nutshell, Ayn Rand believes that altruism is immoral and argues why. Given your eloquently put understanding of her philosophy, I doubt that you are interested in digging deeper. But in case I'm wrong, everything is summarised in a short interview with Mike Wallace ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHl2PqwRcY0 ).

The fact that there's substantial disagreement for and against these principles is an argument that whatever morality Ayn Rand is arguing for, that morality isn't universal, it would not be universally accepted.
Post reply on HN