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

[nismaratwork]

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.



I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.



More logical argument needed. OK.



No way. I'm enjoying it.



That's one of the main reasons I am here.



I haven't. And won't.

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

 

[alt]

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.



I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.



More logical argument needed. OK.



No way. I'm enjoying it.



That's one of the main reasons I am here.



I haven't. And won't.

Cool ! Hope to hear from you soon. This sure is an interesting subject.

 

[alt]

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

Nismar ?

Now who said this in a nearby place not long ago ? Hmmm ?

Oh, and I enjoy 'spirited debate' so much, that sometimes I lose track of WHY, in the sheer joy of the debate itself.

 

[cobalt124]

OK Back to it. I created most of this before my previous post.

OK - let’s take it collectively
“any money spent on non essential items and services by any group of people, corporations, governments, etc, is morally wrong”
Nope ! - Still sounds odious to me.

You can‘t put morality aside - it‘s an essential element of his statement.

No wonder you are missing the point. You are trying to read 'out' (as opposed to read in) Singers ‘morally wrong’ accusations.

Feel free. But you can't extricate Singer from his 'morally wrong', no matter how hard you try. Only he can do that.

Yes, I'm off topic. I will start another thread. I didn't enter it to defend Singers moral stance, which is his business, I'm interested in the practicalities of the idea he is suggesting.

Oh, that's OK. Keep and bear in mind however, that all I have done here , or rather, all I've intended to do, is ask some questions that naturally pop into my deific (Heh) brain, every time I see those 'save a family in India' adverts. Such questions as I’ve iterated here several times.

Thankyou, I wasn't always sure where you were coming from in this, good to know. I picked up on Singers idea last year sometime from a radio programme and it stuck with me. Then this thread was started. But I never picked up on the moral argument, just how/if it could work. I'm not a keen fan of how aid money is generated for the vulnerable, as I see it, people give money for the wrong reasons, and giving money is easy. It seems to me more is needed.

Disagree - there would be numerous scenarios where population control would not have to be considered. Surely you can think of some ?

The only form of population control I would see as acceptable is education (as self empowering) and contraception (as an individual choice).

No, I wasn't been sarcastic. What's confusing ? I said that material assets are not always a measure of happiness. How does this support Singers position ? I would have thought the opposite to be the case, in that people in poverty and sometimes extreme poverty, can be as happy as a Westerner - if not happier. No need therefore, to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc.

I see where you are coming from. I see a distinction between education (as self empowering) and "to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc."

Well, you should read the link. It's very informative, and shows how the highest caste, discriminate against the lowest. Perhaps you should start at the top of these societies by educating those in the highest castes into doing more for their countrymen. Did you ever think of that ?

I probably won't, from what you post about it, I don't think I'll learn anything new. I'm not western/capitalist bashing here...

What ARE you talking about ?

...hence I ask, specifically about the caste system, "Where are the good intentions in discrimination?". It will just make the situation worse.

...are you going to teach them how to rise and not fall?...

No.

...become a threat to you, etc...

I don't see any threat.

...according to your image of what’s right for them?...

According to an individuals image of what is right for themselves. I can't imagine a person having medically preventable premature death as an image of what is right for themselves.

I think I'm getting a measure of what you're on about here. This part of the conversation came about form you saying that consequences should never be considered, to which I replied that they should be. You’ve bought this round, and round .. Now your above comment, seems to be going in a different path again. From disputing the consideration of consequences, to disputing success. It seems you have a lot of baggage to unpack.

Then the question is "Whos consequences?". Success would be saving people from a medically preventable premature death, for a start.

...as do larger entities...

Individuals ultimately.

If you're against free enterprise and capitalism, in favour of a more socialist / communist order, don't speak in tongues - just say so, although, perhaps, you should start a new thread, as that would be moving quite away from this one.

Just for the record, I'm not against free enterprise and capitalism divorced from greed and corruption, and I have never been a socialist.

That's nice. Good luck with your quest.

It's not a quest, though it may have come across as one. I don't have the time for quests.

Let us know what you find out. We might dispute your success, or your measure thereof, though by your earlier prescription, that should be of no consequence to you.

I can't think of a better place to find out than here.

 

[cobalt124]

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

I said enjoy, not gleeful, not amused, and I'm not a misanthrope or a masochist. The debate is well worth it, the issue being how I go about that debate.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar ?

Now who said this in a nearby place not long ago ? Hmmm ?

Oh, and I enjoy 'spirited debate' so much, that sometimes I lose track of WHY, in the sheer joy of the debate itself.

True, but that's a natural reaction to debate, not the reason I engaged in the first place. In essence, the difference is that I might become sufficiently involved to lose track... I don't go in just swinging for the hell of it, for a bit of a thrill.

 

[nismaratwork]

I said enjoy, not gleeful, not amused, and I'm not a misanthrope or a masochist. The debate is well worth it, the issue being how I go about that debate.

This purely out of curiosity... masochist... in the old game of "one of these things is not like the other" that does stand out. The first three can be synergistic to bring you enjoyment... the latter is sexual pleasure through pain, or in general the concept of enjoying suffering. Personally, I think misanthropy and masochism are incompatible... you'd enjoy the misery and no longer be miserable. Yet another "Sesame Street" lesson, Oscar The Grouch says something along the lines of, "I hate X, which makes me happy! I hate being happy, which makes me sad, but that makes me happy... which makes me sad... which makes me happy!..." and so forth.

Sorry, I have Sesame Street on the brain... one of the nieces just loves the old runs of the show when Henson was alive. Still, it seems to suit the situation...

 

[cobalt124]

...I think misanthropy and masochism are incompatible...

I believe my statement was clear enough. What are you curious about?

 

[nismaratwork]

I believe my statement was clear enough. What are you curious about?

I'm curious why you added, "masochist", to the list of things you're not.

 

[cobalt124]

I'm curious why you added, "masochist", to the list of things you're not.

I thought you were taking issue with my enjoyment of this discussion. Not enjoying it would entail some form of masochism.

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought you were taking issue with my enjoyment of this discussion. Not enjoying it would entail some form of masochism.

No, that would be anhedonic, the inability to experience enjoyment... masochism is a paraphilia where you derive sexual excitement from the experience of physical pain. In less formal parlance, it refers to a kind of, "auto-erotic schadenfreude".

 

[cobalt124]

I'm using it in the colloquial sense "enjoyment of what appears to be painful or tiresome" from my dictionary.

 

[alt]

True, but that's a natural reaction to debate, not the reason I engaged in the first place. In essence, the difference is that I might become sufficiently involved to lose track... I don't go in just swinging for the hell of it, for a bit of a thrill.

That's cool. People engage in debate for any number of reasons I suppose. Eventually their motivations take second place to the substance of their debate.

---------------

Cobalt, seen your latest. I have some serious time constraints at the moment. Hope to reply in detail soon.

 

[BobG]

I bet if you had an option to give $10 to UNICEF out of your paycheck, few people would, even though that would raise probably $20+ billion every year if even half the population opted in.

I'm not sure about this. The Air Force (and probably other departments of the federal government, given the name) has the Combined Federal Campaign once a year where employees can sign up to donate a certain amount out of their paycheck for the charity of their choice. At least in the Air Force, it always had an extremely high participation rates (in 90% range), even if some of the participation was of the token variety (very small amount of money).

 

[EnumaElish]

Wow, never realized you are/were part of USAF, BobG! How exciting and prideful it must be, (and how nerve-wrecking for the ordinary man on the street, or the average internet user)!

You guys have really put your life "on the line" for many of us here, I guess, so "thank you!"

 

[alt]

The only form of population control I would see as acceptable is education (as self empowering) and contraception (as an individual choice).


I see where you are coming from. I see a distinction between education (as self empowering) and "to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc."

Reading through your entire post, and in fact all posts in this thread, I believe the main issue that we haven't done to death is the one I've quoted from your post, above.

You presume you're going to educate them, self empower them, etc, and yet keep them from being abitious and keen to adopt the standards and affluence of the western world, and the associated consumption that comes with it.

And on top of that, you're going to educate them into adopting some form of birth control within their countries.

Both these proposals are IMO, naive .

I guess it remains for you to expound on just how this is going to be done.

 

[nismaratwork]

Reading through your entire post, and in fact all posts in this thread, I believe the main issue that we haven't done to death is the one I've quoted from your post, above.

You presume you're going to educate them, self empower them, etc, and yet keep them from being abitious and keen to adopt the standards and affluence of the western world, and the associated consumption that comes with it.

And on top of that, you're going to educate them into adopting some form of birth control within their countries.

Both these proposals are IMO, naive .

I guess it remains for you to expound on just how this is going to be done.

Agreed... it's like wanting to give birth by teleporting the baby out to avoid all of that "unpleasentness". Well.. that's part of the process, and while it can be mitigated to some degree, it still hurts.

Your point about stifling ambition seems to be key, and key to the Egyptian uprising. People seem throughout history (Londinium?) to tear everything down to be free, even if that means it will be untold generations before that freedom can yield a real structure.

 

[alt]

Agreed... it's like wanting to give birth by teleporting the baby out to avoid all of that "unpleasentness". Well.. that's part of the process, and while it can be mitigated to some degree, it still hurts.

Your point about stifling ambition seems to be key, and key to the Egyptian uprising. People seem throughout history (Londinium?) to tear everything down to be free, even if that means it will be untold generations before that freedom can yield a real structure.

Hi Nismar. GREAT to see you back.

The issue I've tried to canvass here, is - how do you make comfortable and empower, educate, etc, millions of people, and then keep them in a stasis of your choosing ? I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but I am saying that such questions needs to be thought through, and that answers need to be proffered by the proponents of such ideas.

 

[cobalt124]

Hi Nismar. GREAT to see you back.

Likewise. Pressed for time, hope to get a response in soon.

 

[nismaratwork]

Likewise. Pressed for time, hope to get a response in soon.

Thanks cobalt, I look forward to it, you keep me on my toes.

Alt: Thanks very much! I agree with what you're saying, and that's the dangerous nature of revultions... you tear down the capacity to gather and have those thoughts. Even the extreme elements are going to insist on a voice now, and they need to have it... but the military needs to guarantee they are only a VOICE. They can have an ambition, but it's shaped away from known dangerous (AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah) structures.

If you look at the history of Turkey, you can see the military first locking down to protect their new constitution (new quite a while ago), but NOT stifling the political process. Now we have the emergence of a moderate religious party that isn't trying to stone women or put them in sacks.

I think the stasis you reference needs to be both cultural, with people retaining a sense of their national identity without having to demonize another figure... and military. There is just no other institution in Egypt that has the power right now. In addition, I see it as a VERY good sign for the interim that the military leadership has promised to uphold all current treaties; to me that says radical elements are NOT running the show (yet), and there is real hope for a gradual transition over decades and more to a true democratic Egypt.

I don't know what a democratic Egypt looks like, and I doubt the Egyptians do either... as you say, that's going to be a very long and active debate in all sectors. To do that, there needs to be stability, but not Mubarak's brand of stability.

 

[alt]

Thanks cobalt, I look forward to it, you keep me on my toes.

Alt: Thanks very much! I agree with what you're saying, and that's the dangerous nature of revultions... you tear down the capacity to gather and have those thoughts. Even the extreme elements are going to insist on a voice now, and they need to have it... but the military needs to guarantee they are only a VOICE. They can have an ambition, but it's shaped away from known dangerous (AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah) structures.

If you look at the history of Turkey, you can see the military first locking down to protect their new constitution (new quite a while ago), but NOT stifling the political process. Now we have the emergence of a moderate religious party that isn't trying to stone women or put them in sacks.

I think the stasis you reference needs to be both cultural, with people retaining a sense of their national identity without having to demonize another figure... and military. There is just no other institution in Egypt that has the power right now. In addition, I see it as a VERY good sign for the interim that the military leadership has promised to uphold all current treaties; to me that says radical elements are NOT running the show (yet), and there is real hope for a gradual transition over decades and more to a true democratic Egypt.

I don't know what a democratic Egypt looks like, and I doubt the Egyptians do either... as you say, that's going to be a very long and active debate in all sectors. To do that, there needs to be stability, but not Mubarak's brand of stability.

My bolded - Military rule is always a concern, I reckon. Best of intentions at the moment, though anything can happen.

And did you see the news recently ? Iranian protestors starting the same movement as in Egypt. This one might be brutal. I don't see the Iranian parliament / military going 'softly softly' .. though this probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Anyhow, as always, you make interesting and pertinent points.

 

[nismaratwork]

My bolded - Military rule is always a concern, I reckon. Best of intentions at the moment, though anything can happen.

And did you see the news recently ? Iranian protestors starting the same movement as in Egypt. This one might be brutal. I don't see the Iranian parliament / military going 'softly softly' .. though this probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Anyhow, as always, you make interesting and pertinent points.

Thanks alt, and yeah... in the Egypt thread Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, and more. It's not just ugly, it's POST-Orwellian!

 

[alt]

Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110220/ts_afp/scienceuspopulationfood

A snippet ..

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

I suppose family planning programs are good - in developing nations so as to forestall population explosions .. not that they have ever really worked, mind ..

But how much worse, and more difficult do we make it, by aiding third world nations to develope in the first place ?

 

[cobalt124]

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

I think this is a problem for every nation, not just the developing world, like global warming...

I suppose family planning programs are good - in developing nations so as to forestall population explosions .. not that they have ever really worked, mind ..

...both of which are not being tackled for precisely that reason, if all nations are in it together, we may stand a chance of progress.

But how much worse, and more difficult do we make it, by aiding third world nations to develope in the first place ?

Isn't the argument that as nations develop, population growth decreases, and so development would be a benefit in this instance?

 

[DanP]

like global warming...

What global warning ?

...both of which are not being tackled for precisely that reason, if all nations are in it together, we may stand a chance of progress.

Or we would loose money in black holes, money which would be put to better use to improve the situation in our homelands.

Isn't the argument that as nations develop, population growth decreases, and so development would be a benefit in this instance?

The only way to develop those countries is to engage them in international trade. Not to spoon feed them.

 

[cobalt124]

Good to see you back DanP, thought you'd gone for good!

 

[cobalt124]

What global warning ?

Maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms. Posters have stated that certain so called solutions have not worked and I agree. I'm saying that some of the reason may be that they are not dealt with as a global issue by all nations, but as a problem for "the developed world", or whoever.

Or we would loose money in black holes, money which would be put to better use to improve the situation in our homelands.

That doesn't seem to address the issue.

The only way to develop those countries is to engage them in international trade. Not to spoon feed them.

Well if we are doing that already (engaging in international trade), I would say that it is not working, so would there be any way to improve the situation so that it could slow population increases?

 

[DanP]

Maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms. Posters have stated that certain so called solutions have not worked and I agree. I'm saying that some of the reason may be that they are not dealt with as a global issue by all nations, but as a problem for "the developed world", or whoever.

But is their problem, not ours. You can't help those who don't want to be helped. What do you propose, to wage war against every government which refuses to embrace the western way of life ?

That doesn't seem to address the issue.

Sure it does. It will ensure or at least make big strides towards ensuring we will have our homelands much better prepared to take care of their own, when the time comes.

Well if we are doing that already (engaging in international trade), I would say that it is not working, so would there be any way to improve the situation so that it could slow population increases?

It's working. It's our superior science and economy which saves the ones who would otherwise perish. Western science. Western money which got put in agricultural research.
Globalization is the answer. And everyone of the citizens of the 3rd world should accept it and welcome it, because is the only thing which will deliver them.

 

[CronoSpark]

A very complicated question. I've skipped over the entire thread, as there is too many posts to read, so I hope I am not repeating another person's argument. I present hypothetical scenario where we only worried about the essentials. This might be good given the society we live in, but after some deeper thought I realized that everything is much more interconnected than I originally imagined.

For example, let's say everyone of us did not go to the movies to watch the latest show. This means that we will in effect reduce the amount spent on projection/TV/cinematic/cut jobs/etc..., resulting in less technological advances in the film industry, which could affect other sectors (touch screens, etc). People who were inspired by specific movies to develop ground-breaking technologies might have also not have those eureka moments if movies never existed. Of course this is an exaggerated case, but everything seems to be tied together. Even the items that you'd think are the least essential could in the end be tied to very vital sources of income for research in important technologies.

So, in a very strange way, it could be possible that if we spent only on the essentials and gave money to save other people's lives, we delay the progress on developing ... let's say, an infinite energy source, or a way to mass produce cheap fresh water by 5+ years, which could result in even more deaths. But of course, on an ethical level, if I am able, I would personally try to help save others somehow.

There probably is some term or book on this already, but just sharing my thoughts.

 

[sourlemon]

Lolz, I got to page 5 and gave up. But I'll put in my 2 cents anyway.

To me, the problem with Singer argument is that he assumes if we run into trouble someone will help us. So suppose I follow Singer advice and spend on "unnecessary" things, then I'm morally doing the right thing. Now, let's talk about unnecessary things. Of course junk food or an extra cars are unnecessary things. So let's cut that. But then think about it, do I really need the internet to live? Is that really necessary? Ok. Cut that. What about this apartment that I'm living in? Do I need a $900 apartment? If I move into a poorer neighborhood, I could save at least $300 in which I could donate to charities. How about my savings? My health care? Wouldn't I give those away if I see a child drowning? Why should I eat three meals a day I could save a child by having two?

Where do you draw the line?

And if I have no saving, what happen when I get fire? How long can I live on unemployment? And what happen when I can't find a job after the unemployment period? I would become homeless and depend on soup kitchen to feed me. Now I have to depend on other generosity to save me. But what if they don't, I'm in big trouble aren't I? Or what if they don't feel my case is bad enough because saving a child from a disease is more important than feeding me? I'm screwed then! Not only that, by continuously thinking that I can save a child by not buying a candy will cause me great harm because I'll continuously have guilt when I buy on unnecessary things. This will cause stress, unhappiness, and maybe depression. And who knows, because of that stress/depression, I may acquire some sickness. Now I have to use other people money to cure my sickness, instead keeping myself healthy and make money to save others.

I understand Singer's point of view, but I think it's ok to spend on unnecessary things. It makes people happy and I don't think it's right to stop someone from being happy if their happiness isn't causing anyone any harm. I don't see how it's morally wrong to buy a candy. It makes me happy and gives people a job. I worked hard for my money, why shouldn't I spend it the way I want to? I could also argue that if I invest in myself, I can be a better help to those people in need. For example, if I have candy at my desk, I work harder because I have sugar which makes me happier. This in turn will lead to me getting a promotion which allow me to have more money to give back to those in need.

Take Warren Buffett for example. If he didn't save his money and invest, would he be the billionaire he is today? Would he be able to give that much back? Or if all who feel it's morally wrong to spend money on yourself contribute to charity, would it be as much as what Buffet has given? I doubt it.

We keep thinking being poor is bad because you can't afford internet or a car. But that's not necessary true. My family was really poor to the point that my parent couldn't buy me a banana. I had about 3/4 pairs of clothes. But I had a great childhood. I didn't have a flu shot every year (if ever), but I hardly remember being sick. Sometimes I think we do more harm than good by pushing our standard to them. It's like giving them the internet for one day then take it away. If you haven't given that to them, then they wouldn't know what they're missing. So is it really a bad thing by not giving what we have to them? I'm not saying that it is bad or it isn't. But it's something to think about.

I also agree with DanP that those parents should really be careful about giving births to children they can't take care off. It's totally irresponsible. And so come the argument of what is right? Which one benefit more? Should we give the children their shots or spend the money on educating people so they can stop having kids they can't take care of. Don't you think we save more lives by educating the parents? I'm just posing the question. (I actually side with giving shots to the children because I just don't have the heart to say no to them.)

PS written this at 2-3 am in the morning, so half of it is probably incomprehensible.

 

[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)