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

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#71

Post by chousuke »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #14

Hard to even approach answering this question without some kind of workable definition of "objective" and "universal" and "morality." What does a person mean when they say all these words together? My best guess would be something like, "All people would agree that any action recommended by this morality are right, and any action prohibited by this morality are wrong, and this morality either recommends or prohibits…

I have a suspicion that any "universal" moral framework would boil down to the halting problem at some level.

Even so, a moral framework doesn't have to be complete to be justifiably considered "objective", so attempting to find universally acceptable moral axioms may not be altogether futile.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#72

Post by sebastialonso »

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…

I agree with everything except the last part, because it sounds really warm tummy but by definition is impossible.

The tribalism the author uses is the same created by your argument that evolution forged our behaviors. The tribalism evolution forged is a space-dependent concept, it's almost literally those who exist within 5 meters of myself, who eat, shit and sleep with me.

I don't necessarily think we need to ditch it, it might be useful for something. But we need an equivalent for the whole species, independent of time, planet or place, and also as someone else said, to include other species.

Ol' tribalism needs to be taken down to the cellar, mercilessly beaten and left chained there until we are attacked by aliens or something else accordingly.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#73

Post by kodah »

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…

Tribalism doesn't necessitate an other, that's just where our understanding is at, imo. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, but the amount of deceptive and straw man arguments I see between the constituents of both is a real spectacle. For instance, try mentioning Democrats or Progressives by name in criticism anywhere and you'll get a flood of negative reactions, even if it's a mild criticism or obvious behavioral note. If you mention the two, you "must" be the other right? Yet this forum has a lot of independents, which I think is fairly well known. One could argue people are tired of hearing groups cast broadly, but wide criticism of Republicans seems to be fairly in-game still.

I think if you commit yourself to listening to critique then the "other" fades away. If you commit yourself to the party, or inextricable party ideals then the other is always a reasonable option to reach for.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#74

Post by mantas »

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."

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.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#75

Post by mantas »

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-...

The best example is West-based colonies in the new world. Why did Canada or Australia went their own way? Why is USA seemingly splitting apart? UK?

If someone would manage to establish single world order, it's only a matter of time when it would fracture into pieces.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#76

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

stablenode wrote: post #33
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #14

Hard to even approach answering this question without some kind of workable definition of "objective" and "universal" and "morality." What does a person mean when they say all these words together? My best guess would be something like, "All people would agree that any action recommended by this morality are right, and any action prohibited by this morality are wrong, and this morality either recommends or prohibits…

You're quite right. Arguably, an attempt at formulating an objective morality has been made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism . However, it is anathema on HN.

Objectivism has little to do with objectivity, despite sharing the first nine letters. They are two entirely different concepts. Whether objectivism is preferred on HN is another unrelated question.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#77

Post by mantas »

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.

... and who ensures that everybody has for and against the same things? Even twins raised together sometimes end up complete opposites.

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#78

Post by bumby »

DangitBobby wrote: post #48
bumby wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the distinction stop with the human convention of the animal kingdom? Is it immoral to make a plant species extinct? Is morality rooted in subjective experience?

> or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality I pre-answered your question about the animal kingdom. When I say "must include" I imply only that it's necessary, not sufficient. My premise is simply that I have identified a necessary condition which will never be met.

I’m not trying to refute your position, just trying to clarify what it’s based upon. Why is the distinction drawn with experience? E.g., if the ultimate goal is to reduce suffering then it makes sense that experience is what matters

Re: Are we cut out for universal morality?

#79

Post by NateEag »

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 don't think universal morality means universally _accepted_ - I believe the idea is that it's universally _true_.

Truth is not truth due to everyone agreeing on it.

Post reply on HN