The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[nismaratwork]

Why is the Deliverator so equipped? Because people rely on him. He is a role model. This is America. People do whatever the [BLEEP] they feel like doing, you got a problem with that? Because they have a right to. And because they have guns and no one can [BLEEPING] stop them. As a result, this country has one of the worst economies in the world. When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else

music
movies
microcode (software)
high-speed pizza delivery

Fanciful and comedic, yes, but it strikes me as the result of Singer's view. Life is a competiton with cooperation... there is always competition.

 

[apeiron]

Do you realize that the equilibrium between cooperation / competition has nothing to do with morality and moral codes ?

Perhaps you should just post your evidence ? Links to papers please, which do support your arguments.

Kudos to Q Goest who just pointed out this introductory paper on chaos/complexity which has a succinct summary of how competition~cooperation is generally taken as the local~global dynamic of hierarchically organised social order...

http://www.necsi.edu/projects/baranger/cce.pdf

Finally, there is one more property of complex systems that concerns all of us very closely, which makes it especially interesting. Actually it concerns all social systems, all collections of organisms subject to the laws of evolution. Examples could be plant populations, animal populations, other ecological groupings, our own immune system, and human groups of various sizes such as families, tribes, city-states, social or economic classes, sports teams, Silicon Valley dotcoms, and of course modern nations and supranational corporations.

In order to evolve and stay alive, in order to remain complex, all of the above need
to obey the following rule: • 6 • Complexity involves an interplay between cooperation and competition.

Once again this is an interplay between scales. The usual situation is that competition on scale n is nourished by cooperation on the finer scale below it (scale n+1). Insect colonies like ants, bees, or termites provide a spectacular demonstration of this.

For a sociological example, consider the bourgeois families of the 19th century, of the kind described by Jane Austen or Honore de Balzac. They competed with each other toward economic success and toward procuring the most desirable spouses for their young people. And they succeeded better in this if they had the unequivocal devotion of all their members, and also if all their members had a chance to take part in the decisions. Then of course there is war between nations and the underlying patriotism that supports it.

Once we understand this competition-cooperation dichotomy, we are a long way from the old cliche of “the survival of the fittest”, which has done so much damage to the understanding of evolution in the public’s mind.

Amen to that. :P

Although Baranger does get it slightly wrong as it is competition that exist at the n level, and co-operation that exists at n+1 level. (It works out in his examples. like bourgeois families, as every n is formed cooperatively as the n+1 of the level below, and so because of its new coherence, can become the next scale of competitive, or constructive, action).

 

[DanP]

Kudos to Q Goest who just pointed out this introductory paper on chaos/complexity which has a succinct summary of how competition~cooperation is generally taken as the local~global dynamic of hierarchically organised social order...

http://www.necsi.edu/projects/baranger/cce.pdf

Nice paper, still it says nothing about the origins of morality.

 

[apeiron]

Nice paper, still it says nothing about the origins of morality.

It says the origin lies in the basic principles of complex systems. But you keep whistling your tune .

 

[DanP]

It says the origin lies in the basic principles of complex systems. But you keep whistling your tune .

The origin of what ? It has no hint to morality, unless you area dead bent on seeing one.

As for tunes, yeah, it seems you are a great singer as well.

 

[nismaratwork]

The origin of what ? It has no hint to morality, unless you area dead bent on seeing one.

As for tunes, yeah, it seems you are a great singer as well.

From what I can see it's an argument that morality has its roots in pro-social traits of lower animals we inheritied and evolved with. Those who cooperated and abstained from acts that left a social animal alone forms the basis for what we call morality. I believe that there's a good reason it boils down to the 'Golden Rule'... it's the logical basis for our actions.

I'd say what we call morality is a valuable construct that involved an interaction between members of a system; those who fail, are culled (see bees and ants) while those who interact according to norms may pass on genes.

 

[DanP]

From what I can see it's an argument that morality has its roots in pro-social traits of lower animals we inheritied and evolved with.

I don't see nay such argument in that paper, but as I said, everyone see what he wants.

Those who cooperated and abstained from acts that left a social animal alone forms the basis for what we call morality. I

So if you are a chimp which cooperates with other chimps to form a border patrol to kill males of another chimp group, committing the incipient forms of genocide, you exhibited
the basis for moral behaviour ? Since surely, this behaviour is cooperative, and prevents the chimp soldier from getting isolated :P

Remember, cooperation is essential not only for building, but for destroying. Humans create new technologies, makes life for each other nice and easier when they cooperate, and yet they are also at their maximal destructive potential when they cooperate with each other forming armies, developing nuclear weaponry , systematically killing everything which is not from their group (Sebia / Bosnia / Croatia is a good recent example)

Humans also become very good at torturing others when they form groups which cooperate. Remember Zimbardo and Stanford Prison Experiment ? Cooperation of the "guards" to humiliate and destroy the "prisoners" was interesting to watch.

Cooperation is also so powerfully destructive that we need laws in economy to prevent it from happening. We call them "anti-trust laws"

believe that there's a good reason it boils down to the 'Golden Rule'... it's the logical basis for our actions.

Golden Rule is a prank.



I

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't see nay such argument in that paper, but as I said, everyone see what he wants.



So if you are a chimp which cooperates with other chimps to form a border patrol to kill males of another chimp group, committing the incipient forms of genocide, you exhibited
the basis for moral behaviour ? Since surely, this behaviour is cooperative, and prevents the chimp soldier from getting isolated :P

It forms the basis for cooperative behaviour, I didn't say we were perfect, or pleasant. If you want the shortest possible answer: yes.

Remember, cooperation is essential not only for building, but for destroying. Humans create new technologies, makes life for each other nice and easier when they cooperate, and yet they are also at their maximal destructive potential when they cooperate with each other forming armies, developing nuclear weaponry , systematically killing everything which is not from their group (Sebia / Bosnia / Croatia is a good recent example)

I agree, but nobody said that nature was kind, or that objective morality exists (well, not me at least) beyond our dreams. Killing and destruction is a necessary element of a realistic world; cooperation in that minimizes casualties, or rather, gives the opportunity to do so.

Humans also become very good at torturing others when they form groups which cooperate. Remember Zimbardo and Stanford Prison Experiment ? Cooperation of the "guards" to humiliate and destroy the "prisoners" was interesting to watch.

I would call that short-circuiting our morals by banking on other elements of our neurology and psychology. I'd add, in that scenario, they believed they were acting in accordance with instruction by moral men. The system worked, the outcome was the failure, and it exposed the pathological side of cooperation. Then again... "Conscience is an anticipation of the opinions of others." (Henry Taylor)

Cooperation is also so powerfully destructive that we need laws in economy to prevent it from happening. We call them "anti-trust laws"

It is destructive to some, it works well for the monopoly, but putting that aside, so what? Cooperation is not everything that's pro-social, neither is victory; ask an extinct apex predator. Maybe we're not as moral as you'd hope?

Golden Rule is a prank.

How so?

 

[DanP]

It forms the basis for cooperative behaviour, I didn't say we were perfect, or pleasant. If you want the shortest possible answer: yes.


I agree, but nobody said that nature was kind, or that objective morality exists (well, not me at least) beyond our dreams. Killing and destruction is a necessary element of a realistic world; cooperation in that minimizes casualties, or rather, gives the opportunity to do so.

All social behaviors emerge from the same balance between competition and cooperation. Inherently, they carry no moral load. The moral load is only given through social context. Killing can make you a candidate for death row, or win you a medal of the Congress. Maiming someone in the streets will land you in jail for aggravated assault. Do the same in the ring and you'll land a fat paycheck and the adulation of fans. Same actions, different social circumstances.

Besides, if morality does not objectively exists, it can't be evolved. Behaviors do objectively exists. What are you left with then ? Descriptive morality. Which is nothing but a narrative
of what some group considers "right or wrong".

I would call that short-circuiting our morals by banking on other elements of our neurology and psychology. I'd add, in that scenario, they believed they were acting in accordance with instruction by moral men. The system worked, the outcome was the failure, and it exposed the pathological side of cooperation. Then again... "Conscience is an anticipation of the opinions of others." (Henry Taylor)

Nah, I don't think they believed they acted in the concordance with instructions of a moral man. Rather, the power of authority has given free hand to the beast within :P

It is destructive to some, it works well for the monopoly, but putting that aside, so what? Cooperation is not everything that's pro-social, neither is victory; ask an extinct apex predator. Maybe we're not as moral as you'd hope?

So no evolved morality exists :P The only thing which exists are behaviors which may lead to more or less reproductive success. The ethical load comes into play only when social context is taken in account, and the complex behavior - social context is reported to the man invented ethical rules which pass at a certain place and time as "moral".

How so?

Because things are gray. The Gray rule works. The rules who say "Cooperate with your in-group because it is in your interest. If someone to which you cooperated does not return,
punish him severely. Watch out for business opportunity. You need to raise over others in your group, but you need to do so in a social context which is accepted by the others. SO when opportunity arises, be mindful how you use it"

More or less, this is what all humans do.

 

[nismaratwork]

All social behaviors emerge from the same balance between competition and cooperation. Inherently, they carry no moral load. The moral load is only given through social context. Killing can make you a candidate for death row, or win you a medal of the Congress. Maiming someone in the streets will land you in jail for aggravated assault. Do the same in the ring and you'll land a fat paycheck and the adulation of fans. Same actions, different social circumstances.

Besides, if morality does not objectively exists, it can't be evolved. Behaviors do objectively exists. What are you left with then ? Descriptive morality. Which is nothing but a narrative
of what some group considers "right or wrong".



Nah, I don't think they believed they acted in the concordance with instructions of a moral man. Rather, the power of authority has given free hand to the beast within :P




So no evolved morality exists :P The only thing which exists are behaviors which may lead to more or less reproductive success. The ethical load comes into play only when social context is taken in account, and the complex behavior - social context is reported to the man invented ethical rules which pass at a certain place and time as "moral".




Because things are gray. The Gray rule works. The rules who say "Cooperate with your in-group because it is in your interest. If someone to which you cooperated does not return,
punish him severely. Watch out for business opportunity. You need to raise over others in your group, but you need to do so in a social context which is accepted by the others. SO when opportunity arises, be mindful how you use it"

More or less, this is what all humans do.

I'd have to agree with everything you've said, except one: the beast in people is far worse than what that experiment showed... that really is just group action in my view.

So... yeah, I don't believe in absolute morality, but you've outlined what I do believe nearly completely.

 

[apeiron]

I don't see nay such argument in that paper, but as I said, everyone see what he wants.

Remember, all you have to do to argue against the thesis that human morality is based on the standard social animal need to balance competitive and co-operative behaviours is to come up with convincing arguments of moral customs that have nothing to do with striking such a balance.

So far your arguments have all been along the lines of "chimps and nations co-operate to fight, gee that's really immoral." Which contradicts your own position because it both accepts the basic dichotomy and points out the immorality of an unbalanced outcome, the morality of balance outcomes.

But I agree, everyone (doesn't) see what he wants. :P

 

[DanP]

Remember, all you have to do to argue against the thesis that human morality is based on the standard social animal need to balance competitive and co-operative behaviours is to come up with convincing arguments of moral customs that have nothing to do with striking such a balance.

Not really. Social behavior arise from this balance. That's all. No morality or immorality.

So far your arguments have all been along the lines of "chimps and nations co-operate to fight, gee that's really immoral." Which contradicts your own position because it both accepts the basic dichotomy and points out the immorality of an unbalanced outcome, the morality of balance outcomes.

I never said this behavior is immoral. Time and again I supported the amorality of evolved behavior, and the idea that the moral load exist only in social context, and morality are man made rules. The example was given simply to contradict the idea that morlaity exist because pro-social behavior. If you are a chimp, murder can be a pro-social behaviour. It gets you a place and females.

 

[apeiron]

Time and again I supported the amorality of evolved behavior, and the idea that the moral load exist only in social context, and morality are man made rules.

Yeah, so again, where are the examples of the man-made rules that are not based on the evolutionary imperatives described by the dichotomy? Where is the evidence that social evolution is somehow different from biological evolution when it comes to what constitutes a healthy balance?

You must be able to think of some examples seeing as you are so convinced by your argument. But so far, nada, zilch.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, so again, where are the examples of the man-made rules that are not based on the evolutionary imperatives described by the dichotomy? Where is the evidence that social evolution is somehow different from biological evolution when it comes to what constitutes a healthy balance?

You must be able to think of some examples seeing as you are so convinced by your argument. But so far, nada, zilch.

Hmmmm... I'm not sure that they can be seperated, but if I were to pick one:

Theft of IP in a digital format by people who would not, and could not afford it, is still largely frowned upon as a natural extension of theft.

 

[DanP]

You must be able to think of some examples seeing as you are so convinced by your argument. But so far, nada, zilch.

You see, that's exactly the problem with your diatribes. Its highly entertaining philosophy, but you are not able to present any proof that morality is evolved. You'd wager, you would able to think some proofs for your philosophy. Nada, zilch , barred zeroes.

Besides of course your "highly convincing" oxytocyn argument you was so proud of half a year ago or so.

"Selfish gene" theory explain very well competitive and cooperative behaviors. There is no need to postulate any kind of innate, evolved, heritable morality. It doesn't exist. Morality and moral codes are man inventions.

 

[apeiron]

Hmmmm... I'm not sure that they can be seperated, but if I were to pick one:

Theft of IP in a digital format by people who would not, and could not afford it, is still largely frowned upon as a natural extension of theft.

What is happening with the web is in fact a great experimental test of the principles of complex systems. So old morality gets broken down it seems due to the web, and then what new morality emerges? Does it reveal the same central striving after a productive balance between competition and co-operation? If so, then my approach is validated.

I think we would all agree that the moral answer when it comes to IP is that payment should be fair in the web world. To encourage people to produce IP (a locally constructive action) we need to have a co-operative set of social or global constraints. We must agree to pay in some common coin. And the equilibrium price will be somewhere between the old rip-off monopolistic pricing of the 1990s CD revolution and the "free" pricing of Napster rip-offing. So bring on micropayments. And boo to Apple iTunes for limiting the platforms on which tunes can run. etc.

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

 

[apeiron]

You see, that's exactly the problem with your diatribes. Its highly entertaining philosophy, but you are not able to present any proof that morality is evolved. You'd wager, you would able to think some proofs for your philosophy. Nada, zilch , barred zeroes.

Besides of course your "highly convincing" oxytocyn argument you was so proud of half a year ago or so.

"Selfish gene" theory explain very well competitive and cooperative behaviors. There is no need to postulate any kind of innate, evolved, heritable morality. It doesn't exist. Morality and moral codes are man inventions.

You continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims. But then your claims continue to be incoherently formed :P.

First you accept a genetic basis to competition~co-operation (the selfish gene theory agrees). But then you dispute one of the obvious biological mechanism that are the expression of that evolutionary imperative (neuromodulators like oxytocin, testosterone, norepinephrine, etc).

And first you say morality is man-made, a constraint encoded in a social context. Then you dispute that social contexts would evolve on exactly the same grounds as biological ones. Why should man-made morality be arbitrary when so clearly it needs to respond to the same evolutionary pressures?

There is no structure in your arguments. Just confused posing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Uhhh... why do I get the sense that I just stepped in the middle of a long and ongoing fight?

edit: Oh, and will you guys get pissed off if I say that to me, it looks like you both AGREE?

 

[apeiron]

Uhhh... why do I get the sense that I just stepped in the middle of a long and ongoing fight?

edit: Oh, and will you guys get pissed off if I say that to me, it looks like you both AGREE?

What, are you volunteering to referee here?

Anyway, here are the set of statements that seem easy to agree...

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.
- Social behaviour also has biological roots.
- What both levels of evolution have in common is negotiating the balance in competition~cooperation.
- Outside of the biological realm, moral ideas have no basis (just as life itself is meaningless so far as the view of inanimate matter is concerned).
- However, organising principles such as the second law are meaningful even to inanimate matter, and so perhaps could be considered a basis to morality in a very generic sense.

(This last is probably the most controversial statement as it says "entropy production is good", and so life can be judged on its endeavours in that regard.)

The problem that DanP has is that he in many other threads wants to emphasise how little he cares for social constraints. They are meaningless to him (and should be for all of us as well).

Yet he also finds the evidence forces him to agree with the truth of these individual statements.

The result is he keeps making a confused connection between the lack of a clear physical basis to moral ideas and the existence of an all too obvious social evolutionary one. It is the only way he can maintain his chosen stance frequently seen in other threads.

 

[nismaratwork]

What, are you volunteering to referee here?

Heh... no.

Anyway, here are the set of statements that seem easy to agree...

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.
- Social behaviour also has biological roots.
- What both levels of evolution have in common is negotiating the balance in competition~cooperation.
- Outside of the biological realm, moral ideas have no basis (just as life itself is meaningless so far as the view of inanimate matter is concerned).
- However, organising principles such as the second law are meaningful even to inanimate matter, and so perhaps could be considered a basis to morality in a very generic sense.

(This last is probably the most controversial statement as it says "entropy production is good", and so life can be judged on its endeavours in that regard.)

The problem that DanP has is that he in many other threads wants to emphasise how little he cares for social constraints. They are meaningless to him (and should be for all of us as well).

I agree up to this point... my experience is that DanP is highly socialized, but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value. Life has no value, nothing has any value that's transient in the face of infinity, but we like it all the same, so we engage in a mutual fiction and try to live well.

This may not be what DanP believes, but it's the impression I've gotten, and it's something like my view.

Yet he also finds the evidence forces him to agree with the truth of these individual statements.

The result is he keeps making a confused connection between the lack of a clear physical basis to moral ideas and the existence of an all too obvious social evolutionary one. It is the only way he can maintain his chosen stance frequently seen in other threads.

Hmmmm... I need to read other threads, and of course hear DanP's rebuttal.

Oh hell, maybe I am willing to referee... you're both reasonable men.

edit: I don't think this is a good way to live, but in a way, I believe it's correct: "Life is meaningless, life is empty. When we take a life, we take nothing of value." (Brent Weeks)

 

[apeiron]

I agree up to this point... my experience is that DanP is highly socialized, but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realize as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans . And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

 

[nismaratwork]

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realize as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans . And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

I think that morality is a useful tool like any other, and I think it's a real construction of people and evolutionary biology. I don't think that when everyone is dead, it will matter; whether that happens in a hundred years, a million, or a billion. I'm not feeling angsty, I just place the value of say, a human life in the context of the connections that person has with others. If those connections don't exist, it comes down to one person's private world, their future, and nothing more.

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

 

[apeiron]

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social..

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist. And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist.

Note that I've consistantly said, "norms", because I don't beieve in a code to "live up to", that isn't a pastiche of fictions. I want to run a 100 mph, but failing to do so doesn't imply the reality of such speed in humans simply because I've set it as a goal. Social norms are useful only as that; norms... not good, not bad, just rules of the road which are changing and changeable given time and place.

And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.[/quotee]

We seek balance for a number of reasons, including the desire to avoid punishment. Around .6%-1% of the population can't even make that determiniation, but those imagined norms are no less binding. That balance is as changeable as the context you're in anyway.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

Could we have only 2 choices and still have free will? I'd say yes, so why complicate matters? Besides, evolution has allowed for people beyond just sociopaths who lack the capacity to function according to social norms; they have been very successful despite many millenia spent trying to eradicate them. Free will is the ability to choose, or withold a choice (the ultimate 3rd choice), I'm not arguing against free will.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

It's far too Platonic for my taste; for me form and substance are different. You have correctly identified my views on the matter, and... while I wouldn't ascribe to anyone school of thought, I definitely identify with SCP.

 

[DanP]

You continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims. But then your claims continue to be incoherently formed :P.

First you accept a genetic basis to competition~co-operation (the selfish gene theory agrees). But then you dispute one of the obvious biological mechanism that are the expression of that evolutionary imperative (neuromodulators like oxytocin, testosterone, norepinephrine, etc).

Like always, you are fallacious in extreme. I only dispute your claims that oytocin is any kind of proof that morality is inborn. Those claims are voodoo. I might be posing as you say, but you are the only person on this site who in several hundreds posts produced nothing else but empty philosophy. You can't prove anything you say.

The song remains the same. Just about everybody finds a religion to preach :P

 

[DanP]

What is happening with the web is in fact a great experimental test of the principles of complex systems. So old morality gets broken down it seems due to the web, and then what new morality emerges? Does it reveal the same central striving after a productive balance between competition and co-operation? If so, then my approach is validated.

I think we would all agree that the moral answer when it comes to IP is that payment should be fair in the web world. To encourage people to produce IP (a locally constructive action) we need to have a co-operative set of social or global constraints. We must agree to pay in some common coin. And the equilibrium price will be somewhere between the old rip-off monopolistic pricing of the 1990s CD revolution and the "free" pricing of Napster rip-offing. So bring on micropayments. And boo to Apple iTunes for limiting the platforms on which tunes can run. etc.

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

Actually, no. What actually happens is that humans seen a medium in which they can steal almost at will, because the law enforcement is elusive on internet, the arm of law is weak, and the identity of the thief is much more easier to be protected.


There is no self organizing morality here. It's the same old song. Humans seen a way to break the laws and get away with it. It is not "self evolving morality on internet" which will stop them, but unleashing the hounds to cut with their teeth the offenders. It is organization of law enforcement, and fighting back against of the offenders which will put an end to this.

No morality. Those humans steal. They know it. They also know that for now they can get away with it. This is how much humans act.

And no, the equilibrium of price is not born of morality. Is born from the wish of the big record companies to minimize the loss. Not because they seen the "immorality of their rip-off prices". As long as they don't control the internet, they will just play to minimize their loss. If they manage to control the internet, rip-offs , as you call them (nothing is a rip off, btw, as long as you find idiots paying for it ), will come back. It's cold game theory.
A way to maximize their profits in changing market conditions. And so it is for the ones who infringe IP. Maybe one day the price for this IP will be so low , and the presence of law stronger, that paying the lowered price will be more easy then breaking the law. Cold game theory again. Morality my ***.

 

[DanP]

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times when you believe it;s a functional religion ?

 

[DanP]

Heh... no. but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

 

[DanP]

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.

Actually no. Those constrain arise from the clash of many different social behaviors in different social contexts. Those behaviors have no ethical load whatsoever by themselves.

Morality doesn't evolve to constrain anything. It's a man made narrative, a descriptive of human beleifs over the equilibrium in a certain moment in time in a certain society. Some of the elements of the story may correspond to the actual equilibrium, describing it correctly, some are personal beliefs, some are "fantasy". It also has no normative value. All in all, it's human make-belief, which fails to describe properly the equilibrium you talk about.

It's just a flawed story narrating human perception of the equilibrium. I can understand why humans have such a strong wish to make morality more than a flawed story. They are snared and blinded by ideals, going as far as inventing countless gods to give normative strength to the flawed descriptive story called morality, story which describes only believes.

 

[nismaratwork]

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

Hmmm... I think that gray area you're mentioned is the interaction between evolved morality (fear of retribution, a sense of wrongness, empathy) and the much larger realm of social structures. I'm not suggesting that this should be an article of faith, but it's hard to ignore in the light of major personality disorders, and common behaviours indipendant of social pressures.

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks. It's as easy to separate the two as it is to tell whether or not something is "genetic", or "environmental"... answer: both.

 

[DanP]

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks.

Well, it's clear that they form the basis of social interaction. Not so clear IMO about morality , moral sense and so on. IMO an emotion such as fear is nothing but an emotion. Some choose to see it as a rudiment of
morality. Their right. But I want proof about it.

Humans don't even agree of what morality is. There are several philosophical currents about it. Some pretend that adding the words genes, oxytocin, innates to a morality discussion will make such a philosophical current science. Unfortunately, it remains philosophy so far. If you are interested you can read Jesse Prinz's paper on the subject of innate morality here. Its interesting.

http://subcortex.com/MoralityInnatePrinz.pdf

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll read anything except harlequin romance.

Hmmmm... you want proof that I'm not sure you can get without resorting to interpreations of the role of neurotransmitters and hormones. Still, I can see why you and Apeiron keep going around in circles... you want hard evidence, he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

I need to read more about this before I referee, forgive me guys.

 

[DanP]

he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

Philosophy constitutes no evidence. Anyway, behaviour It's a subject I love so I continue to play my song.

 

[nismaratwork]

Philosophy is not evidence, but it can be convincing and lead to evidence. We know so much, and yet are so baffled by the complexity of the human body and brain... at some point we have to speculate based on the best available data. True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

 

[DanP]

True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his.

But if conclusive scientific evidence arises Ill be forced to accept it. That will be the case with even some serious evidence point towards that conclusion. If I die before those come, so beeit. Evolution doesn't care if I was right or wrong, and I won't turn in my grave should they someday discover that morality is innate :P