4 ms·

Attempting to derive moral prescriptions from an interpretation of evolutionary behavior is bizarre, and I doubt the author would be willing to be internally co

Attempting to derive moral prescriptions from an interpretation of evolutionary behavior is bizarre, and I doubt the author would be willing to be internally consistent in such a practice. For example, the universal subjection of species to parasitism and predation have driven many advantageous genetic modifications, but I hardly think the author would make a public claim in support of enshrining parasitism and predation as moral principles. I find that advocates for these kinds of socially-based moral systems have never offered a way by which they, personally, will suffer for my benefit. Rather, it's always posed as a justification for why I, personally, or some illusory other, will be made to suffer for the author's benefit. It's tiresome.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Do you believe we currently live in a system where no one is suffering for anyone else's benefit? It seems like there's a lot of that already going on. A change might be unfair to you, but it might be more fair to everyone else.
- ncoehuenuthue 5y ago
  I don't believe things are anywhere near ok, and I think most people would agree with that. But the article in question is a high-minded discussion of ideals. I would personally consider the definition of cooperation to be explicitly voluntary. The Aztecs believed that by ritually sacrificing their fellow people that the needs of the many would be met at the expense of the few. Because this was belief universally understood to be true, anyone who did not want themselves to be sacrificed would be considered selfish and anti-social. A socially-minded morality would insist that people to be sacrificed had a social duty to do so. An individually-minded morality would insist that people should only be sacrificed by their own choice. I don't believe either description to have much to say about the morality of human sacrifice or the practicalities of cooperation. I think that the evolutionary-psychology from whence human sacrifice was born (I can save food for the winter -> sacrificing things in the present can improve my future -> sacrificing is a good strategy in general) has not left the human psyche. You can remove human sacrifice from the religious idols on the mountain, but you can't remove the impetus to sacrifice other people for a perceived gain. I honestly can't provide you with a perfect moral or economic system. I just don't believe anyone else can either, so it's best not to force other people to go along with anything.
  - ncoehuenuthue 5y ago
    You know, I just imagined someone being held in custody by the police. Such a person would be described as 'cooperating' if they were not actively resisting. So, perhaps the understanding of cooperation must also include subjugation. English can be odd.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Another example: conscripted soldiers routinely cooperate with one another. Without the conscription and ongoing threats of punishment for desertion, most of them would, presumably, choose not be there at all.
  - specialist 5y ago
    > I would personally consider the definition of cooperation to be explicitly voluntary. Consent of the governed?
JackFr 5y ago
The author believes that if we act unfettered, in pure self-interest the whole of society will suffer. But his cure seems to be to set commissars and mandarins above us to regulate and modulate our behavior. Luckily for us these high priests will not suffer from the same foibles of ambition, greed and self-interest that the rest of us do.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

Do you believe we currently live in a system where no one is suffering for anyone else's benefit? It seems like there's a lot of that already going on. A change might be unfair to you, but it might be more fair to everyone else.

ncoehuenuthue 5y ago
I don't believe things are anywhere near ok, and I think most people would agree with that. But the article in question is a high-minded discussion of ideals. I would personally consider the definition of cooperation to be explicitly voluntary. The Aztecs believed that by ritually sacrificing their fellow people that the needs of the many would be met at the expense of the few. Because this was belief universally understood to be true, anyone who did not want themselves to be sacrificed would be considered selfish and anti-social. A socially-minded morality would insist that people to be sacrificed had a social duty to do so. An individually-minded morality would insist that people should only be sacrificed by their own choice. I don't believe either description to have much to say about the morality of human sacrifice or the practicalities of cooperation. I think that the evolutionary-psychology from whence human sacrifice was born (I can save food for the winter -> sacrificing things in the present can improve my future -> sacrificing is a good strategy in general) has not left the human psyche. You can remove human sacrifice from the religious idols on the mountain, but you can't remove the impetus to sacrifice other people for a perceived gain. I honestly can't provide you with a perfect moral or economic system. I just don't believe anyone else can either, so it's best not to force other people to go along with anything.
- ncoehuenuthue 5y ago
  You know, I just imagined someone being held in custody by the police. Such a person would be described as 'cooperating' if they were not actively resisting. So, perhaps the understanding of cooperation must also include subjugation. English can be odd.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Another example: conscripted soldiers routinely cooperate with one another. Without the conscription and ongoing threats of punishment for desertion, most of them would, presumably, choose not be there at all.
- specialist 5y ago
  > I would personally consider the definition of cooperation to be explicitly voluntary. Consent of the governed?

JackFr 5y ago

The author believes that if we act unfettered, in pure self-interest the whole of society will suffer. But his cure seems to be to set commissars and mandarins above us to regulate and modulate our behavior. Luckily for us these high priests will not suffer from the same foibles of ambition, greed and self-interest that the rest of us do.