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

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#61

Post by acituan » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #43

The choice of the word universal is a bit ironic, as the nature of the (physical) universe prevents such a thing from being possible. Unified morality, like a unified concept of what is “human”, is a temporary consequence of centralization in a single location. Right now, that’s Earth. But good luck maintaining a uniform conception of right and wrong when it takes a few decades to get to the next civilization. For th…

> The choice of the word universal is a bit ironic, as the nature of the (physical) universe prevents such a thing from being possible.

It might look improbable or unlikely, but I don't see how it is impossible.

Unity in the underlying organizing principles (logos) of the universe, the idea of pantheistic view of a "god" as "the one" is at least as old as neoplatonism. However far from achieving a full grasp, all life forms find approximating to reality to be highly adaptive and valuable. As such, there could as well be a continuity between our moral values and general structural functional organization of the universe. Even though we are hopelessly unable to compute our way towards it, we could have been incrementally approximating it (while also occasionally deceiving ourselves). One could say the evolution of consciousness was adaptive towards processing these calculations, but by no means a requisite to have some contact with and understanding of a part of reality.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#62

Post by MisterBastahrd » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #54

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 aggrie…

There can't be a closure to that issue unless the ringleaders face punishment.

They won't.

So there won't be.

The same politicians who pilloried Hillary Clinton for 2 years over the Benghazi incident want nothing to do with an investigation of the events of Jan 6th. They know who their political base is.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#63

Post by keiferski » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #61

keiferski wrote: post #43

The choice of the word universal is a bit ironic, as the nature of the (physical) universe prevents such a thing from being possible. Unified morality, like a unified concept of what is “human”, is a temporary consequence of centralization in a single location. Right now, that’s Earth. But good luck maintaining a uniform conception of right and wrong when it takes a few decades to get to the next civilization. For th…

> The choice of the word universal is a bit ironic, as the nature of the (physical) universe prevents such a thing from being possible. It might look improbable or unlikely, but I don't see how it is impossible . Unity in the underlying organizing principles (logos) of the universe, the idea of pantheistic view of a "god" as "the one" is at least as old as neoplatonism. However far from achieving a full grasp, all li…

Correct, and I should have used the word unified here as I did later in my comment. It is possible that certain civilizations, without coming into any contact with each other, would arrive at similar moral conclusions based on observing nature.

But I still don’t think this is sustainable once we factor in evolution and adaptations to different environments.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#64

Post by stablenode » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #60

stablenode wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@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.

That's a novel argument. I believe what Rand was ultimately concerned with was a morality that is rational and objective; the idea being that one only needs to rely on one's own reason in order to judge what is moral and what is not. As to universality of moral doctrines, if I was feeling malicious, I'd say that the Catholic church was there first (that's what 'Catholic' means, after all). Some rather remarkable moral notions have historically been 'universally accepted', as you say.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#65

Post by logicchop » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

thomascgalvin wrote: post #53

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…

Just commenting about your first point (disproportionate arrests of black people for drugs). I looked at your link. I read it. Did you read it? The end summarizes its own alternative (non-prejudicial) explanation for the gap.

In a post about an article wanting to secure a "universal morality" I would be wary relying on statistical data that has an abundance of plausible explanations, especially when it's meant to be deployed against something on the scale of 'our very moral existence.' If the issue were "tribalism" you would expect minority groups to be persecuted to some extent greater than the non-minority group. But in the US, there are other minority groups besides blacks, and they tend to have a lower incarceration rate than whites. I'm not sure how to square that with "tribalism."

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#66

Post by mmcgaha » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #60

stablenode wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@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.

I am pretty sure that we all agree that humans will never have a complete universal morality because we put so many things into the bucket of morality that could not be addressed by a universal morality. There are people who find it immoral marry between races so no logical system could ever resolve their specific belief. Logically though, we could propose a set of core axioms that everyone could agree on and then build up a system from the axioms. This is what Rand attempts to do so from her logical system you can at least define some moral arguments as universal.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#67

Post by mmcgaha » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

yboris wrote: post #25

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"?

It is easy enough read the wikipedia entry on Objectivism and I could never do justice to the topic in a forum post so I will leave that for you to research.

I do find it interesting that most people who agree with Rand are less like her than the people who disagree with her. I am sure if you spend some time researching her (not reading opinions) you will find yourself wondering how Ronald Reagan could ever agree with her. Yet here we are.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#68

Post by deltron3030 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

Universal morality would require the same reality for everybody, quite utopian..

Tribes are shaped by a common reality, friends and enemies, and the common reality of those who stormed the Capitol was created by the conspiracy scene they followed and participated in.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#69

Post by BobbyJo » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

slver wrote: post #15

BobbyJo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't get how that's tribalism but with everyone in the same tribe.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#70

Post by BobbyJo » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #37

slver wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the contrary I think splitting society on trivial lines is exactly what we need to encourage. It’s healthy and beneficial. Not everyone has to care about the same sports, the same hobbies, the same tv shows or even the same politics. Two people can support different football teams, but still serve in the same army side by side, or work for the same company. They can support different politics and even be friends.…

There's a balance in there that needs to be struck on practical grounds. You don't get groups without in-group bias. You don't get in-group bias without prejudice. Getting rid of groups/tribes/whatever is obviously impossible, but the more you temper how much human identity is derived from them, the more you reduce the downstream negative (and positive) effects.

They aren't all good, and they aren't all bad, like everything else. You can't have all the good without the bad unfortunately.