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

Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#51

Post by FooBarWidget »

fiblye wrote: post #50
FooBarWidget wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not recommend /r/sino if you're looking for good discussions. It's an echo chamber. Most of the guys there are blindly pro-China, blindly anti-American. For better discussions and analysis, check my recommendations here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24035638

I mentioned /r/Sino because it's what you'll typically find on the Chinese internet. It is an echo chamber. Try scrolling through weibo for an active discussion saying "Maybe Taiwan can be its own country" or "Maybe China's policy of banning all foreign discussion platforms isn't good." You might have a one off comment saying something like that, but the moment multiple people talk about it, it is guaranteed to be de…

Are there any places on Chinese Internet with more balanced discussions?

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#52

Post by discreteevent »

ha4fsd3fas wrote: post #48
hrktb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Golden Rule is too simple to be universal. We'd hate to be treated ourselves as we treat our kids, what helps someone could handicap others. We all have different modes of behaviour, included how we treat pain, harshness and transparency. Empathy would be a facet among many others for any moral system.

> We'd hate to be treated ourselves as we treat our kids Sounds like people should treat their kids better

Left to their own devices they make some decisions that harm them. So you have to prevent them but they hate this at the time. What do you do?

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#53

Post by rbecker »

justicezyx wrote: post #10

It's no better example of the us and China ideology conflicts at play right now... Both sides believed the other cheated bullied and unfairly gained from themselves...

You're mistaking the tools of the conflict for its cause. The conflict arose because the US finally realized China is a threat (as China knew the US was all along). Which one plays more unfairly is just a tool in propaganda efforts of each side to draw people and countries to its cause.

Which is not to say there's no moral difference between the two, just that it's mostly unrelated to the cause of the conflict.

In other words, you won't convince the US to allow themselves to become more vulnerable to China, by pointing out their sins in South America. Similar holds for China.

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#54

Post by raxxorrax »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #36
js2 wrote: post #8

> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use? The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > It’s true that Greene is…

This is more of a side remark, not a direct reply to your comment. I'm a utilitarian for general policy making, especially when statistical data is at play, but I cannot understand utilitarians who believe that all of morality should be utilitarian. Even elaborate versions are flawed, even e.g. Harsanyi's utilitarianism where you are supposed not to know who you are in society (similar to Rawl's "veil of ignorance" b…

Utilitarianism and its hard problem of not killing your grandmother if she isn't contributing anymore.

> I cannot understand utilitarians who believe that all of morality should be utilitarian

Nothing to understand in my opinion, they just haven't thought it through. Same thing can be applied to rationalists and romanticists. Doesn't apply to everyone of course.

But intrinsic to utilitarianism is always the question of who the recipient for this utility should be. And it quickly disintegrates before that question in my opinion.

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#55

Post by Emma_Goldman »

ianleeclark wrote: post #32
javert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most moralities are not mutually compatible. For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality. BTW, I upvoted your comment.

> For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality. Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks. You could have both an individualist and a collectivist both be deontologists, utilitarians, or some other framework.

> 'Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks'.

Of course they are. Nozick begins Anarchy, State and Utopia with the pronouncement that individual rights are absolute. Rawls begins A Theory of Justice by claiming that justice is the first virtue of social institutions. Their conflicting visions of political life are intimately related to the value the place, respectively, on the value of the individual and the value of the collective.

The triumvirate deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics is a useful framework, especially pedagogically, as a parsimonious way of teaching ethics. But actual ways in which humans have thought about ethical and political life is far more complex, varied and interesting. If you tried to reduce Hegel, early Javanese culture, or third-wave feminism to 'deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics', you would get no where. The vast majority of people have not thought in those terms, and so are misunderstood when read through those terms.

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#56

Post by roenxi »

raxxorrax wrote: post #54
jonathanstrange wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more of a side remark, not a direct reply to your comment. I'm a utilitarian for general policy making, especially when statistical data is at play, but I cannot understand utilitarians who believe that all of morality should be utilitarian. Even elaborate versions are flawed, even e.g. Harsanyi's utilitarianism where you are supposed not to know who you are in society (similar to Rawl's "veil of ignorance" b…

Utilitarianism and its hard problem of not killing your grandmother if she isn't contributing anymore. > I cannot understand utilitarians who believe that all of morality should be utilitarian Nothing to understand in my opinion, they just haven't thought it through. Same thing can be applied to rationalists and romanticists. Doesn't apply to everyone of course. But intrinsic to utilitarianism is always the question…

> Utilitarianism and its hard problem of not killing your grandmother if she isn't contributing anymore.

Doesn't seem that hard. When I'm old and feeble I'll be totally relying on social systems to protect me (respect for property rights, policing, etc). Ergo, I should be working as hard as possible now to make the system robust such that people can't hurt the elderly. If they aren't safe, I will eventually be wiped out.

If I'm in a position where I can kill my mother to benefit myself, the rational lifetime-optimum response is to improve the system of policing and investigation so I couldn't possibly get away with it. This will inconvenience me now but secure my comfort in the future.

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#57

Post by imtringued »

lopmotr wrote: post #41
js2 wrote: post #8

> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use? The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > It’s true that Greene is…

> I prefer this formulation: what's moral is what minimizes overall human suffering, now and in the foreseeable future. Isn't that easier to find loopholes we wouldn't like, such as exterminating all humans to prevent any future suffering? Or generally doing all sorts of killing of people who suffer.

I think this is a bit too extreme but it's not difficult to imagine a world where everyone is taking anti depressants and pain killers on a regular basis.

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#58

Post by imtringued »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #47
fiblye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/r/china is exclusively western expats. They're the opposite of what mainstream Chinese thought is. And based off what I see on the actual Chinese net in Chinese, /r/sino stays completely in line with the common consensus.

I sure hope actual Chinese netizens aren't as polarized as the guys on /r/sino. We need the east and the west to come together, and not merely to contend on who can be the biggest bully.

I don't think the people with controversial opinions voice them publicly.

Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)

#60

Post by 082349872349872 »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #47
fiblye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/r/china is exclusively western expats. They're the opposite of what mainstream Chinese thought is. And based off what I see on the actual Chinese net in Chinese, /r/sino stays completely in line with the common consensus.

I sure hope actual Chinese netizens aren't as polarized as the guys on /r/sino. We need the east and the west to come together, and not merely to contend on who can be the biggest bully.

At the moment, I'm not sure if /r/sino is any more serious than /r/aeiou. We truly live in a Poe's Law world.

(And I leave it to the argies and the austrians to fight over who makes the best milanesa/schnitzel. But it does sound like it may be what I was looking for, in terms of non-hanzi-expressed general opinions which, however outlandish they may sound on HN, would be unremarkable on 新浪微博.)

Post reply on HN