8 ms·
Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013)
- jonathanliu 6y agoA good read and even more relevant today than when it was written in 2013. I like that Wright does not suggest the world's moral ills could be solved if only everyone would convert to his chosen school of utilitarianism. The argument eventually concludes that the answer is bias neutralization through metacognition aka self awareness. However, Wright acknowledges the extreme time, effort, and desire necessary to overcome one's biases. Although I can't force others to be less biased, I can work on becoming less biased myself.
- tus88 6y agoLibertarianism, not utilitarianism is the answer. Everyone just needs to stop getting into everyone else's business.
- javert 6y agoLibertarianism seems to follow pretty directly from individualism, which most people reject. (I actually support it.) Individualism is directly comparable to utilitarianism. The rational people in our society should be debating individualism vs. collectivism vs. utilitarianism (possibly vs. others). That is in lieu of discussing the higher-level political instantiations of these things (e.g. libertarianism vs. socialism, etc.). What political system you want depends (at least) on what moral system you favor.
- testing312 6y ago'Freedom' is not a framework for morality? I will judge you as a bad person for not saving the child in the pond while able to do so.
- javert 6y agoI would save the child in the pond because I want to. I don't think it's a moral imperative.
- efitz 6y agoBut would you ‘punish’ them for not saving the child?
- eertami 6y agoYes. "Non-assistance à personne en danger" is a crime in France punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Personally I'm absolutely fine with people being punished for not helping save someones life. However this must only be if doing so does not pose any risk to the helper. See [0] for a list of countries with similar laws. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue#Regulations_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue#Regulations_by_...
- 0xy 6y agoLibertarianism and democracy are not compatible concepts.
- raxxorrax 6y agoHow so?
- dang 6y agoPlease do not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It leads to predictable, tedious, and usually nasty discussion. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideolog&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wombatmobile 6y agoThe article is too long. People should just use common sense and do what I think is right.
- tux1968 6y ago> Maybe we’re approaching a point where we can actually harness this knowledge, make radical progress in how we treat one another, and become a species worthy of the title Homo sapiens. These moral arguments always imply that we can pronounce the way things ought to be and that it's just a matter of finding a way to make everyone conform to the "correct" vision for humanity. But there's a danger in homogeneous crops, flocks, and societies. Having everyone pulling in the same direction will surely have unintended consequences that may well do more harm than good when the final tally is taken.
- js2 6y ago> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > It’s true that Greene is a utilitarian—believing (to oversimplify a bit) that what’s moral is what maximizes overall human happiness. I prefer this formulation: what's moral is what minimizes overall human suffering, now and in the foreseeable future. > The rift was mended by putting the boys in non-zero-sum situations—giving them a common peril, such as a disruption in the water supply, that they could best confront together. It's tragic that Covid19 hasn't united us. How did we end up fighting over wearing masks? (This question is rhetorical.) > Self-doubt can be the first step to moral improvement. I mean yeah, but: “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” — Bertrand Russell This entire essay is premised on people wanting to get better. On having some degree of curiosity and willingness for self-examination. I don't see a lot of that in the world.
- Andyfilms 6y agoI suspect what the author is getting attempting to do is to get us to examine the criteria that determines suffering itself. Some aspects are universal--hunger, pain, disease--but once those needs are met, emotional suffering becomes manifest to take it's place. And emotional suffering is subjective; I suffer because I lack the time to explore my true passions, my friend suffers because they are unable to form lasting relationships. Which of us is suffering more? It's doubly tricky because the things that minimize physical suffering often aren't the best way to minimize emotional suffering. Eating fast food every day ensures you won't starve, and staying indoors ensures you'll never get sick, but you certainly won't be happy with that lifestyle. I do agree that many people lack introspective tendencies that would lead them to becoming better people. I think that's partly because it's difficult to be introspective without context. If you don't expose yourself to points of view counter to your own, you will never know what views to self-examine. People tend to gravitate to echo chambers, it seems.
- justicezyx 6y agoIt'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...
- FooBarWidget 6y agoAlmost. China believes US is the bully, but I've never heard of anybody believing the US unfairly gained.
- 082349872349872 6y agoCan you recommend any sources (selfishly I'll say preferably in a european language) for relatively mainstream chinese viewpoints? One might hope HN would provide a non-siloed venue including (one would guess, self-selecting for relatively pro-western) chinese geeks, but as far as I've seen, those who openly identify as such are discouraged.
- fiblye 6y agoThis sounds crazy, but /r/sino on reddit is pretty much as close as you'll get to mainstream Chinese political thought in English. There's a very good chance many of the people there are legitimate shills for the government, but I mean, those are the state-sponsored and permitted opinions that they're presenting. People going against the grain either don't talk or get silenced. From an American perspective, the stuff said there is absolutely bizarre and contradictory to virtually every talking point you'll hear from everybody else, but it aligns very closely with what people I know who live in China/still have strong ties to China say. Expect lots of cherry picked data and extreme reaching just to prove a point. Though to be frank, that's politics everywhere. If you're frequently caught up in American/European politics, a few minutes of reading discussions there might frustrate you, but it'll also make you think because the viewpoints are so contrary to what most Westerners regard as the norm.
- haecceity 6y ago
- hairofadog 6y ago> “They fight not because they are fundamentally selfish but because they have incompatible visions of what a moral society should be.” Agree. I think much of the conflict in the world today comes from the fact that people on the left end of the political spectrum value empathy, while people on the right value loyalty. It's difficult to find a common morality when your hierarchy of values is misaligned.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago> people on the right value loyalty But loyalty to whom? To your group or tribe of course. The group as a whole can be highly immoral raping and killing other groups. So loyalty does not mean morality, even though as you suggest it may be the case that "right values loyalty". Left values empathy? Surely yes, but I would rather say the left values equality of all human beings. Empathy follows from understanding that we are all the same, and should therefore have equality in our dealings with the society. Loyalty is selfishness. You help those who have helped you in the past you don't care about those who have not helped you in the past. Loyalty is mob-mentality
- 082349872349872 6y agoRather than expecting people to standardise beliefs, perhaps it would be easier to identify a set of practices that make it easier for people with different "moralities" to coexist? https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- javert 6y agoMost 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.
- 082349872349872 6y agoWhat if[1] both sides compromise their morality? True, it's cutting off hydra heads to replace one big problem (should we all be individualist or all be collectivist?) with many many small ones (is this particular problem better addressed with individualistic solutions or collectivistic solutions?) but I'd say expecting that one big problem to be solved would be inhuman. [1] this hypothetical is not very. As far as I can see, none of Eastasia, Eurasia, nor even Oceania, hold to a pure individualism or pure collectivism. (Even north korea, while still apparently very collectivist, looks more individualist in fashion and cuisine than in prior years.)
- javert 6y agoIf either side is forced to compromise, they simply feel that the system is immoral, and they seek to change it. You can see this, for instance, in American politics. There is no agreement to compromise in general. When compromises happen, they are temporary tactical maneuvers. Afterwards, both sides will continue to fight for what they believe to be moral. (This example is a bit outdated, but just imagine American politics in 1980. I'm not sure both sides today believe in moral principles.) The idea of a meta system where you judge each case individually is not a compromise between individualism and collectivism, it's a new morality that is neither one. Basically, it's pragmatism. Pragmatism tends not to work in the long run, because there isn't any good way to judge each individual case without reference to more general principles. The need for more general principles is why you have moral systems (other than pragmatism) in the first place.
- metrokoi 6y agoThis is the problem with hypotheticals, they are never an accurate representation of human psychology just like a ball ignoring air resistance. The two problems are not the same, the human brain KNOWS that pushing a large man onto tracks is not guaranteed to save the people on the trolley, even if a researcher tells them it will. The subconscious recognition of that uncertainty will affect the result. Flipping a switch is a guaranteed outcome, one which cannot be swayed by subconscious thought. In addition, one could also throw themselves on to the track in the second problem, and if you decide to push the large man on to the track you will also have to weigh the guilt of knowing you may have been able to stop it by sacrificing yourself. This is just one example, but it shows how such research is flawed. The human brain isn't designed to think in terms of guaranteed outcomes, and a researcher cannot assume that two decision are equal just because they say they are.
- pas 6y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/VeryBadWizards/comments/7i1tyd/vsauce_set_up_a_reallife_trolley_problem_for_his/ https://www.reddit.com/r/VeryBadWizards/comments/7i1tyd/vsau...
- _0ffh 6y agoOne key feature for human success was the adaptability of behavioural patterns. Anything you find that's "hardwired" or heavily biased towards must have been pretty universally positive to neutral along the way. In light of that it would be more surprising than not to find very much in the way of those.