10 replies to this topic

[exapted]

Some people invoke notions such as: "It's all because of a lack of personal responsibility"

Some people forget the definition of 'cause'. A 'cause' is something necessary and sufficient for something else, usually before it.

Often the same people strongly believe in the power of "prescriptive" morality. In my view "prescriptive" morality is the exertion of some will, not the will itself.

Morality and ethics have actually changed very little in the past 10 to 15 thousand years. There are technological solutions to problems, but no ethical or moral solutions. Ethics and morality are, generally, terminal phenomena. Although we observe them and embody them, reasoning about them changes very little. At most, we can say "X is reprehensible". What does that get us? It often causes us to think "the solution to X is also reprehensible, because X is reprehensible".

Instead, I think people should focus on technology. By technology I don't mean only TVs and cars and that sort of technology. Technology includes education. And of course we should consider the ethical and moral consequences. But we shouldn't, at this point, endow ethics and morality with determining power, because that is an illusion. "prescriptive" morality is not equipped to solve the pressing problems of today, and it can often blind us to solutions.

[Vgamer1]

I think I agree with you, but I don't think we should throw away all morality because we think that one day it might change. Morality can only be based on what we currently know about the world. Also, to say that morality and ethics have not changed in 10 thousand years seems wrong. Human sacrifice, slavery, torture, and senseless killing become more common the further into the past one goes.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "perspective" morality.

Again, I think I agree with you, but I'm having trouble understanding some of your statements. Are you saying we should not have morality? Or are you saying that we should base morality more on logic? Or did I miss it entirely?

[exapted]

Vgamer1, on Nov 3 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

I think I agree with you, but I don't think we should throw away all morality because we think that one day it might change.

I'm definitely not saying that we should get rid of it.

Have you ever heard people say "it's all because of the entitlement society, people don't take enough personal responsibility". I'm arguing that that is an observation of a terminal phenomenon, and in no way does it lead us to a solution. Only changes in the structure of society lead us to solutions, and even then only technology is really lasting.

Vgamer1, on Nov 3 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

Also, to say that morality and ethics have not changed in 10 thousand years seems wrong. Human sacrifice, slavery, torture, and senseless killing become more common the further into the past one goes.

You're right that morality and ethics have changed a little bit, but only a little bit. In most cases we can explain such changes by citing changes in technology. For example we could say that Christianity is the result of "power of the common people" due to changes in population and technology. If we re-engineered humans, then morality would really change.

Vgamer1, on Nov 3 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "perspective" morality.

I said "prescriptive", meaning to tell people what to do: "do that" or "don't do that" or "that's not right".

Vgamer1, on Nov 3 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

Are you saying we should not have morality? Or are you saying that we should base morality more on logic? Or did I miss it entirely?

If I argued that we should get rid of morality I would be contradicting myself in a way, because I'm basically saying that morality is mostly non-causal, because it is determined by other factors. It is a terminal phenomenon. It's real, people embody it and talk about it, and sometimes other ideas (such as the justice system) are conditioned on it - I'm not saying that should end. I'm just saying that if we are using logic and empirical evidence, we will realize that morality only changes when other things change first.

So, for example, when someone is arguing that we need to work harder to teach people values, personal responsibility, etc., you could say the following:
That's true as far as it goes. It is inevitable that, to some extent, people will follow and reason about some specific moral and ethical principles. But it is not true that by talking about and reasoning about morality that we will enact any significant change, because such change depends on other factors. Only by reasoning about factors other than morality can we really change morality.

Edited by exapted, 04 November 2009 - 12:27 AM.

[exapted]

Another way to say it is to say:
People are a determining factor, but mainly through tool-making.

Now that I think of it, that's also sort of what Jared Diamond said in Guns, Germs and Steel, but he also said in his book Collapse that people can make short-term mistakes that lead their society to failure; but again that's mainly about how we use our tools.

[KalaBeth]

With respect, I believe you've flipped cause and effect. Or to be more precise - I agree that cultural ethics and technology by necessity interrelate, but the bulk of determinative power is on the other side.

First, certainly greater abundance and higher technology create the opportunity for greater latitude in moral decisions.

For example -
If my clan is three days from running out of food, the crops have failed, and there's no hunting to be had, I'll have considerably less reservations about cattle reiving - armed robbery - than if we can all pop down to the Safeway for some lunch. My choices basically come down to "murder or starve."

On the other hand, the reverse is not true.
If I have a great deal of technology and abundance, I might use the opportunity to create beautiful art, tearjerking symphonies, and fantastic beer .... or I could use that same technological ability to make more efficient ovens for disposing of the messy remains of a genocide.

In short, greater abundance, due in large part to greater technology, gives me more options... but it does not control what option I take. Technology itself is morally neutral.


Now for the flipside - the material abundance and technological ability of a culture is to a large part dependent on its cultural expectations and mores.

As an example, try this thought experiment.

Culture A is predominantly made up of people who believe:
* The morally admirable thing for a young adult to do is to learn a trade and become self-supporting.
* Having children out of wedlock is undesirable - the ideal is to raise a child in a stable home with a solid moral and technical education.
* Technological innovation is a good in its own sake, and creating a particularly good innovation can be parleyed into the opportunity for a significantly higher standard of living for oneself and one's family.
* Interpersonal violence is rarely an acceptable answer to problems.

Culture B is predominantly made up of people who believe:
* There's no point to productive work. Better to make one's living by raiding the neighboring tribe or living off others.
* Men should 'sow their oats' far and wide, with no obligation to care for their children
* Achieving a higher standard of living through education and technical ability means you're a sellout to your people and should be shunned.
* Personal slights and insults must be physically avenged.



Can anyone seriously argue that "Culture B" will not always live in material poverty compared to "Culture A?"
* If your culture devalues scientists, don't expect many scientific advances.
* If your culture devalues engineers, don't expect many practical applications to come from scientific advances.
* If your culture devalues businessmen, don't expect many new products and services making use of practical applications.
* If your culture devalues education or work, don't expect many scientists, engineers, or businessmen.



In short, culture and cultural ethics are a *tool*, just as much as cars or hammers.
It is the software of humanity, and as with any software - the rules matter.


As a last note... the tools of cultural ethics have another similarity with their more physical counterparts - they are blind to their users.

[exapted]

Hi KalaBeth,

KalaBeth, on Nov 5 2009, 04:06 AM, said:

With respect, I believe you've flipped cause and effect. Or to be more precise - I agree that cultural ethics and technology by necessity interrelate, but the bulk of determinative power is on the other side.

First, certainly greater abundance and higher technology create the opportunity for greater latitude in moral decisions.

For example -
If my clan is three days from running out of food, the crops have failed, and there's no hunting to be had, I'll have considerably less reservations about cattle reiving - armed robbery - than if we can all pop down to the Safeway for some lunch. My choices basically come down to "murder or starve."

On the other hand, the reverse is not true.
If I have a great deal of technology and abundance, I might use the opportunity to create beautiful art, tearjerking symphonies, and fantastic beer .... or I could use that same technological ability to make more efficient ovens for disposing of the messy remains of a genocide.

In short, greater abundance, due in large part to greater technology, gives me more options... but it does not control what option I take. Technology itself is morally neutral.

You make it sound as if societies with technology are as likely to choose any set of values as another. Why in fact do societies have different values with regard to education and work? Assigning ethics and morality the status of free variables does not answer that question. It is true that people generally consider various possible outcomes when making ethical and moral decisions - this fact is not evidence that such considerations are causal explanations of their values.

KalaBeth, on Nov 5 2009, 04:06 AM, said:

Now for the flipside - the material abundance and technological ability of a culture is to a large part dependent on its cultural expectations and mores.

Do values operate causally? Perhaps they do, and I'm not trying to say that they don't. Chinese immigrants in America are comparatively quite successful, due in large part to their values. Did they decide to have such values as a result of a collective decision by Chinese to value hard work and education? Sort of, but that "decision" was shaped by a culture of rice cultivation and an ancient history of warfare. The Chinese empire was perhaps the most successful long-lived empire in the history of the world. It's success hinged on it's technological might.

KalaBeth, on Nov 5 2009, 04:06 AM, said:

As an example, try this thought experiment.

Culture A is predominantly made up of people who believe:
* The morally admirable thing for a young adult to do is to learn a trade and become self-supporting.
* Having children out of wedlock is undesirable - the ideal is to raise a child in a stable home with a solid moral and technical education.
* Technological innovation is a good in its own sake, and creating a particularly good innovation can be parleyed into the opportunity for a significantly higher standard of living for oneself and one's family.
* Interpersonal violence is rarely an acceptable answer to problems.

Culture B is predominantly made up of people who believe:
* There's no point to productive work. Better to make one's living by raiding the neighboring tribe or living off others.
* Men should 'sow their oats' far and wide, with no obligation to care for their children
* Achieving a higher standard of living through education and technical ability means you're a sellout to your people and should be shunned.
* Personal slights and insults must be physically avenged.



Can anyone seriously argue that "Culture B" will not always live in material poverty compared to "Culture A?"
* If your culture devalues scientists, don't expect many scientific advances.
* If your culture devalues engineers, don't expect many practical applications to come from scientific advances.
* If your culture devalues businessmen, don't expect many new products and services making use of practical applications.
* If your culture devalues education or work, don't expect many scientists, engineers, or businessmen.

As I have already mentioned, values may operate causally. My question is, why does culture B devalue scientists, engineers, businessmen, education or work? If you could provide a real example we could analyze it. My example of a culture A is China. China has an ethic of hard work, which is useful. It is a tool, to be sure, but it's not something that Chinese people can simply "decide" to adjust. The Middle East did not have the rice culture of China, and so does not seem to have the work ethic of China. I'm making broad strokes, but the point is that people don't simply decide to have their respective value systems.

KalaBeth, on Nov 5 2009, 04:06 AM, said:

In short, culture and cultural ethics are a *tool*, just as much as cars or hammers.
It is the software of humanity, and as with any software - the rules matter.


As a last note... the tools of cultural ethics have another similarity with their more physical counterparts - they are blind to their users.

Culture and cultural ethics change when resources, circumstance, technology and other factors change the structure of culture. Values are vertically inherited. The means of enforcing the rules fits the definition of technology. The rules themselves are in turn shaped by technology. I suppose rules could be considered technology, but my point remains that ethics and morality do not provide solutions in themselves.

I think people are important factors, but the causal factors are mostly related to technology (mainly agriculture in human history).

[exapted]

It looks like I contradicted myself a little bit in this thread. In a response to Vgamer1 I said:

Quote

I'm basically saying that morality is mostly non-causal, because it is determined by other factors

Later I said:

Quote

o values operate causally? Perhaps they do, and I'm not trying to say that they don't.

I think values and morality may operate causally. But when explaining how problems were solved, I find that morality/values/ethics are not amenable to change other than through changes in technology. So perhaps someone with 'good' values (he/she values technology, education and hard work, etc.) will go to a place with 'bad' values. The person with 'good' values might create technology that changes the place with 'bad' values into a place with slightly more 'good' values. But in doing so that person might adopt some of the 'bad' values in order to operate in that society.

[shazam]

KalaBeth, on Nov 4 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

As an example, try this thought experiment.

Culture A is predominantly made up of people who believe:
* The morally admirable thing for a young adult to do is to learn a trade and become self-supporting.
* Having children out of wedlock is undesirable - the ideal is to raise a child in a stable home with a solid moral and technical education.
* Technological innovation is a good in its own sake, and creating a particularly good innovation can be parleyed into the opportunity for a significantly higher standard of living for oneself and one's family.
* Interpersonal violence is rarely an acceptable answer to problems.

Culture B is predominantly made up of people who believe:
* There's no point to productive work. Better to make one's living by raiding the neighboring tribe or living off others.
* Men should 'sow their oats' far and wide, with no obligation to care for their children
* Achieving a higher standard of living through education and technical ability means you're a sellout to your people and should be shunned.
* Personal slights and insults must be physically avenged.

That was thinly-veiled.... valid, though, regarding how those cultures operate themselves and the obvious ramifications on the forest that nobody seems to see in the trees.

[shazam]

Skimmed this a little bit.  I would say this: most people do not choose the values that their SOCIETY would press on them, but to say that they don't choose their own values would be asinine.  It just takes more balls and independant thought than the average discouraged and codependant person would hope to muster to break out of the mold in some respects.  The mold ain't terrible, but it needs work.  And you can't really fix it if you're stuck in it.

I would say that the most advanced material out there on the practical aspect of morality and personal standards is scattered across self actualization material, but if you're interested in a nice summary, 7 habits of highly effective people is a good one that makes sense.  One of the things it outlines is 'laws of life', though I don't think it calls it that.  

They are things that always, always stand in every society and religion in one way or another.  Integrity, honesty, not murdering people, cooperation.  Now, aside from that fact that this is all well and good, imagine a society that operated on the opposite concepts.  It would crumble.  So these types of principles are just common sense.  If a society is devoid of all of these concepts, it will implode.  If a PERSON is devoid of all these concepts, either somebody is going to get tired of their shit, or the person themself will bring a shitstorm into their own fan.  

This is from a purely practical standpoint.  And when it comes to philosophy, practical is the only thing you should be considering at all.  Of course, the definition of practical can be something that people like to twist to suit their purposes and then rationalize after the fact sometimes. As a first step, I think a question to ask yourself to really see if you're heading in a good direction with it is "Could I live like this without other people on the globe?".  That way you're not a leech, or letting yourself be leeched.   Why yes I do like objectivism and Ayn Rand, why do you ask?  Really though, Steven Covey puts it really REALLY well in 7 habits.  And it's just a badass book for getting yourself in gear.  I think I'm going to read it again.  No use reading a book just once.

Edited by shazam, 06 November 2009 - 08:11 AM.

[exapted]

shazam, on Nov 6 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

Skimmed this a little bit.  I would say this: most people do not choose the values that their SOCIETY would press on them, but to say that they don't choose their own values would be asinine.  It just takes more balls and independant thought than the average discouraged and codependant person would hope to muster to break out of the mold in some respects.  The mold ain't terrible, but it needs work.  And you can't really fix it if you're stuck in it.

My definition of 'choose' is that one considers various possibilities and, based on drives, reasons, goals and of course the hyperbolic discounting of future benefit, selects one. So yes people choose their values, but from an analytical standpoint there is nothing "free" about it. I could consider seemingly any number of actions today, but that in no way explains the actions I actually choose.

shazam, on Nov 6 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

I would say that the most advanced material out there on the practical aspect of morality and personal standards is scattered across self actualization material, but if you're interested in a nice summary, 7 habits of highly effective people is a good one that makes sense.  One of the things it outlines is 'laws of life', though I don't think it calls it that.

I don't think anyone is out to criticize effective personal productivity strategies. I also don't think any of the self-help books say much that hasn't been covered by Confucius or any number of philosophers who have made psychological observations. Moral or ethical "prescriptions" are fairly constant, having been originally shaped by agricultural societies, selecting from and being influenced by various proto-religions.

shazam, on Nov 6 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

They are things that always, always stand in every society and religion in one way or another.  Integrity, honesty, not murdering people, cooperation.  Now, aside from that fact that this is all well and good, imagine a society that operated on the opposite concepts.  It would crumble.  So these types of principles are just common sense.  If a society is devoid of all of these concepts, it will implode.  If a PERSON is devoid of all these concepts, either somebody is going to get tired of their shit, or the person themself will bring a shitstorm into their own fan.

That's part of my point. Ethics and morality stay pretty constant. Only certain rules of enforcing them change, due to technological change.

shazam, on Nov 6 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

This is from a purely practical standpoint.  And when it comes to philosophy, practical is the only thing you should be considering at all.  Of course, the definition of practical can be something that people like to twist to suit their purposes and then rationalize after the fact sometimes. As a first step, I think a question to ask yourself to really see if you're heading in a good direction with it is "Could I live like this without other people on the globe?".  That way you're not a leech, or letting yourself be leeched.   Why yes I do like objectivism and Ayn Rand, why do you ask?  Really though, Steven Covey puts it really REALLY well in 7 habits.  And it's just a badass book for getting yourself in gear.  I think I'm going to read it again.  No use reading a book just once.

I appreciate reading some literature about personal ethics, such as taoist literature, and books on personal productivity such as GTD. Nor am I for the abolishment of ethics or morality, because that would be to unnecessarily forgo a clear benefit. The universe is probably to a large degree deterministic, but that doesn't lead me to sit in the same location all the time because of the supposed futility of everything.

But what if someone is clearly immoral? Maybe ancient shamans would have burned that person, or given them disorienting drugs and hypnotized them. Why knows. In the modern world we put people into prisons. By the way there are practically no atheists in prison, which I think is evidence in favor of my argument that there are no moral or ethical solutions.

Have I contradicted myself? I don't think so. Moral and ethical ideas are inescapable in everyday life. You couldn't get rid of morality or ethics if you wanted to. But I don't see how focusing on them does anything but amplify personal neurosis.

The study of game theory, psychology, economics, etc., provide an intellectual basis for us to modify the patterns of ethics. But those things are not really ethics at all. Later, biotechnology, computer science and other technologies will help. Maybe psychiatric medications have already changed peoples' ethical and moral decision making.

[Singularity]

Read through the 1st 4 posts.

I think values/desires/drives drive problem solving to enable us to reach desirable states.  Technology serves to reach those states.  When our basic, and conditioned, needs are met, we have the LUXURY to be moral, which then becomes the new standard for future technological development.  But, I think values come first and are the cause of technology.  Our first primordial values where probably as simple as, "it is wrong for me to die or my family to die"; the basic survival instinct.  Survival is the ultimate attractor from which more complex value systems evolve which can only be followed when economically feasible (risk:reward ratio).

There is always the carrot and the stick.

But, yes, there is really no right and wrong, only perspective.  BUT, each intelligent agent can only pursue it's own goals, so there is a priority of perspectives.  To follow someone else's goals is to be a slave.  My perspective comes first, followed by my family and friends, then tribe or community, state, national, planetary, etc., however I decided to rank them.  IOW, I may respect your views, but I can only be myself and if push comes to shove and we are at complete odds, I have to fight for what I want.  It's all a constant negotiation, but no one should expect me to just give up my share because no one is really right/wrong or more deserving.  Watch out for that trick