Even if such a thing existed, absolutely not.
Are we cut out for universal morality?
111–120 of 137 posts
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Tellingly...the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. "Tellingly"? What does it tell? The scale of X (for almost all X) today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I wish when people say something is telling , they'd say what it tells them, but they usually don't. (It's like saying "Of course" or "Obviously". Rhetorically effective maybe, but doesn't help communication. They ar…
I should have said "scope", because I don't mean just by pure numbers. I mean that our current treatment of billions of animals is worse than it has ever been due to factory farming. As in, it's not just the sheer number of animals, we have somehow regressed and are more cruel to each individual animal in the name of efficiency. I think the only reason there is a higher percentage of vegetarians now is how widely publicized that information is, not because the average human has evolved and can be expected to have a moral framework which incoporates non-humans. There wouldn't be as many vegetarians if some people weren't currently being so obviously needlessly cruel.
And then there's the impact that our activities have on wildlife that we aren't intending to harm. We know we are causing harm, though, so much so that we regularly drive animals to extinction. We also know we are currently driving a mass extinction event but that seems to barely register on our list of concerns. I don't see any meaningful action right now towards addressing this. I honestly hear so, so little about it, even when we are discussing the impacts of climate change. I kind of forgot about it myself during this discussion.
So in summary, I see us as being willfully cruel to some and fully indifferent to others and ultimately I think we have gotten worse over the years, not better. If I were an animal, I would much rather have shared the planet with humans from 1000 or even 100 years ago than with humans from today, and I believe the trend continues.
Hope that clears things up.
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#113"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 he bothered to spell out in detail what he means by "tribalism,"
He did though:
> Under conditions of real or perceived out-group threats involving competition for scarce resources, for example, the disposition for tribalist and exclusivist responses is triggered [...]
I suspect that the existence of country borders and ethnic identities is safe as long as they don't support themselves on the fear of the "outside world" and the "other".
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#114This article reminds me that A) Most philosophy writings sounds like the ramblings of cranks B) There is still a lot of value in thinking about them. I think that this article is missing a few insights that I value. One is that I’ve come to view something like philosophical truth essentially unknowable- There may be universal truths, but proving that across all scenarios is not feasible. They may even (or likely) be…
> One is that I’ve come to view something like philosophical truth essentially unknowable
"Any human life holds the same intrinsic value".
To me this looks like a moral absolute that "can be known". :)
There can be discussions on the side of it about how this "value" can come to fruition, or how it can be extended to encompass all sentient life, or just all life, but you can take it as it is and it represents an objective moral absolute that has no influence from "the inside", as prof. Fitzpatrick put it. Do you think I am wrong?
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#115>That is at least what moral practice is like when viewed “from the inside.” By that I mean your moral phenomenology as an engaged participant. This perspective presents the appearance of at least a core of basic objective and universally valid or correct moral standards we are trying to understand and to live by (even as we recognize that we will at best do so imperfectly). This is why we’re prepared to argue, often…
This can be explained as diffusion of responsibility. It's not really the same situation. Thus your moral obligations are not the same.
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#116>That is at least what moral practice is like when viewed “from the inside.” By that I mean your moral phenomenology as an engaged participant. This perspective presents the appearance of at least a core of basic objective and universally valid or correct moral standards we are trying to understand and to live by (even as we recognize that we will at best do so imperfectly). This is why we’re prepared to argue, often…
I like your example and the fundament of your message that ethical decisions being made under the same meat brain machine, but I feel like you are conflating abstract reasoning about "morals" and intuitive empathizing with "moral" behaviour. To me they don't look the same.
I can say with absolute certainty that the lives of both children are morally equal, yet I can appreciate that one can not help equally in both cases. I would even agree that having a lower empathy for a child in Africa is evidence of how one is not a "moral" person, but that doesn't take away from the initial axiom: their lives have equal worth.
Apologies if my naive interpretation of your words and attempt at an explanation doesn't make the matters clearer. I think that looking into effective altruism might make more sense, the people behind it have a lengthier and better reasoned thesis.
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably, that is what we've seen happening throughout history - keeping the conceptual intuitive tribalism but significantly extending what the "tribe" means. The basics of tribalism comes either from isolated tribes (generally under Dunbar's number) for hunter-gatherers or, later with agriculture, extended family units/clans - where you have both close blood relations and know each other. Then we see city-states an…
> In that regard, humanism is essentially nothing else than treating all humans as a single tribe, and it is an extension of the same trend and practice; we know that dissolving the smaller tribes in order the larger tribe stronger works and is possible as we have done that before; though, often the unification was facilitated and driven by external threats. Sure, but it always comes at the expense of "smaller" tribe…
While it comes at the expense of the "smaller tribes", IMHO it's better for the individuals at these smaller tribes, as it frees them from the limitations and even tyranny of these smaller tribes - e.g. an extreme case is the "honor killing" culture, or LGBT people who happen to be born in a "strong small tribe" and need the wider society to protect them from their local community.
Looking at the contrast between different societies, it often seems that the fragmented tribalism is actively harmful to how pleasant it is to live in that society. For example, in places where "clan identity" matters, that clan mentality is a direct driver for nepotism and corruption which makes life worse for the larger community; countries where different ethnic groups have a strong "tribal" behavior tend to have a lot of inter-community conflict, discriminatory behavior and sometimes even violence up to the point of genocide; and I'd argue that it is better for individuals to live in a more integrated larger tribe without that inter-community conflict even if it does make these smaller tribes weaker or perhaps irrelevant.
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#118Why Americans so care about PEACEFUL transfer of power and at the same time support bloody and dirty revolutions all around the world?
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so long ago vast majority of Europe was controlled by a single extended family. Now it's gone. Roman empire collapsed. HRE collapsed. Austro-Hungary collapsed. Tsarist Russia + Soviet union collapsed. Ottoman empire collapsed. UK is still slowly collapsing. Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth went separate ways. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia split. Roman catholic church was pretty close to superstate at it's height.
>Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth went separate ways * Was partitioned by external forces and eradicated from existence for decades.
... and decided to not re-unite after WW1. Even though some forces did put in a lot of work behind that.
Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." There may be no tribalism inside of developed countries. But there's lots of tribalism between groups of developed countries and the rest of the world. Forcing all sorts of laws and customs on what they see as lesser countries. Sort of colonialism 2.0.
There is actually tribalism in the form of economic equality. Rich people only hang out with rich people. Poor only with the poor, etc. What does a rich person need to do to be segregated from society? Simply go to a expensive restaurant or country club.
There’s a distinction in the article, I think, in that tribalism is rooted in anti-egalitarianism that your comment doesn’t address. You can go to different restaurants without thinking less of another person.
Differing tastes/hobbies/actions is not enough to meet the criteria of tribalism, less we fracture into “pineapple on pizza vs no pineapple” tribes.