Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

[danny la rouge]

And I made the remark that certain large evangelical religions have come to internal agreement about universal values, and have spent centuries trying to impose those 'universal values' on the nonbelievers of the world.

I was saying that what you're describing is moral absolutism, and it leads to tyranny when those who believe they have discovered the 'universal values', attempt to make others accept them.

I'm not describing moral absolutism. I've explained why.

What you're describing appears to be moral relativist cowardice. "Mustn't judge". Well some things should be judged.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ha. Just seen your tagline. You've been watching Community.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ha. Just seen your tagline. You've been watching Community.

I strongly identify with Abed. Perhaps more than any other fictional character.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not describing moral absolutism. I've explained why.

What you're describing appears to be moral relativist cowardice. "Mustn't judge". Well some things should be judged.

No, I'm counselling caution. Many people in many places in many times have determined that they have 'the answer' when it comes to 'universal values', morality, whatever.

Mostly, those situations have turned out badly - at least for those who disagree.

So I'm saying that lots of long hard thought should go into it, before we embark on another go-round of 'universal human values'.

 

[danny la rouge]

No, I'm counselling caution. Many people in many places in many times have determined that they have 'the answer' when it comes to 'universal values', morality, whatever.

Mostly, those situations have turned out badly - at least for those who disagree.

So I'm saying that lots of long hard thought should go into it, before we embark on another go-round of 'universal human values'.

Well, it wasn't my phrase, but we're too far down the line to worry about that now. My point is that there are already common traits inherent in our being. These are not the high level moral systems that are build post hoc upon our biological heritage, but the things we are all capable of by dint of being social animals. Which we are. (And note that does not imply denying the fact that we're also capable of anti social behaviour. Quite the reverse as it happens).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, it wasn't my phrase, but we're too far down the line to worry about that now. My point is that there are already common traits inherent in our being. These are not the high level moral systems that are build post hoc upon our biological heritage, but the things we are all capable of by dint of being social animals. Which we are. (And note that does not imply denying the fact that we're also capable of anti social behaviour. Quite the reverse as it happens).

I agree that there are traits inherent in our being, including traits that militate toward cooperation and selflessness; along with traits that militate toward selfishness and aggression.

The trick is in coming to a fuller understanding of our complete natures, and figuring how our individual natures are best translated into group activity.

 

[redsquirrel]

That was redsquirrel's phrase, but for me there is a universal basis to work on. We're social animals, and like other social animals we have an inherent sense of empathy, fairness, altruism, solidarity, community spirit. I think these things are the basis of a built-in 'moral' system: a set of social skills and attributes that evolved with us and in order to meet our circumstances. It is a biological feature of our being. (For more on that see Stephen Jay Gould, Frans de Waal and others). That is what is already there to build on. It is capable of overcoming our capacity for the opposite of all those attributes.

(my emphasis)
I completely agree with this. And people should note the last sentence, and that I said "start from" not finish with.

Of course there's going to be conflict and violence between people no one is suggesting otherwise, but from the foundation that danny outlines above we can then start to build systems to minimise conflict and maximise cooperation.

 

[danny la rouge]

I agree that there are traits inherent in our being, including traits that militate toward cooperation and selflessness; along with traits that militate toward selfishness and aggression.

The trick is in coming to a fuller understanding of our complete natures, and figuring how our individual natures are best translated into group activity.

This is where I've been saying you're arguing with yourself. Nobody is disagreeing.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Isn't it lovely when we all get along?

 

[danny la rouge]

Isn't it lovely when we all get along?

But also sometimes we don't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Now Danny: let's try to accentuate the positive.

 

[redsquirrel]

Christ, we're making heavy weather of a throw away remark.

First off, I wish people would read what I actually wrote:

Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

I'm not cherry picking the good points. I quite clearly said each has a negative opposite.

Also I really don't see in the wider culture any cherry picking of good points, in fact quote the opposite.

Over the last 30 years there's been a real death of humanism, instead it's become common to simply write off humans as naturally selfish (which they are of course, but they are equally "naturally" generous), that no real change to the political systems is possible, that most people are stupid and/or dupes and/or racists, that we're a plague etc

I mean a while ago I read this, in the forward the editor talks about the difficulty in selling the idea to many people. The modern world is far more intent on cherry picking "bad" attributes than "good" ones.

 

[danny la rouge]

cherry picking "bad" attributes than "good" ones.

Completely agree. I blame TH Huxley and his misunderstanding of Darwin. He did a huge disservice to subsequent understanding of evolution: he imposed upon it a Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It's time we restored the picture and removed Huxley's muddy varnish.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Completely agree. I blame TH Huxley and his misunderstanding of Darwin. He did a huge disservice to subsequent understanding of evolution: he imposed upon it a Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It's time we restored the picture and removed Huxley's muddy varnish.

You've spurred me to read Evolution and Ethics . Seems Huxley was thinking along the same lines as Freud did later. He shows the dangers of assuming other animals to be 'lower' and humans to be 'higher' when he says this:

Wolves could not hunt in packs except for the real, though unexpressed, understanding that they should not attack one another during the chase. The most rudimentary polity is a pack of men living under the like tacit, [57] or expressed, understanding; and having made the very important advance upon wolf society, that they agree to use the force of the whole body against individuals who violate it and in favour of those who observe it.

He's nearly there except that he's wrong about wolves. Wolves punish transgressors. They have morals, too. He, Freud and others could not see that as they could not see how they were wrong about humans.

This is still all too relevant, as you say. It's exactly what Freud thought:

Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.

A muddy varnish indeed.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

YThey have morals, too.

Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.

Through careful observation, it's not so hard. Lots of pet owners can tell you that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.

Not really. Mutual aid between members of the same animal species for the benefit of the community means conformity to particular behaviours, and conformity to a set of normative behavioural standards is "moral".

 

[danny la rouge]

Difficult to infer motivation in a non-linguistic species.

I'd quibble with the use of the word "morals", but I then try to be careful when I use it of human society too. However he's quite right that wolves have social 'codes'. Anyone who has a dog can see that. If you've done the trick of pretending to 'cry' (making a 'hurt' sound) when a puppy accidentally nips you with its teeth you'll know that it only takes a couple of goes before it learns to stop doing it.

Experiments have shown that dogs have a sense of what we might call fairness. They'll stop doing tasks if they get a worse reward than another individual. Wolves live in cooperative societies. Of course they have ways of doing that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Observers can look at animals, see behavior that looks moral, and then anthropomorphize, saying that because what they're seeing looks like something that humans do, it must be the same thing [or arise from the same psychological antecedents] as what humans do.

That's an error. What motivates a dog to act in a way that seems familiar to humans might arise from the same antecedents, or not. There's no sure way to know, because we can't discuss it with the dog.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Not really. Mutual aid between members of the same animal species for the benefit of the community means conformity to particular behaviours, and conformity to a set of normative behavioural standards is "moral".

It's quite possible that all animal behaviors are completely determined by biological factors, meaning the animal has no choice, meaning 'morality' doesn't enter into it.

The animal doesn't 'choose' to do 'right' or 'wrong'. It may simply be acting in the way that's biologically determined.

 

[danny la rouge]

You've spurred me to read Evolution and Ethics . Seems Huxley was thinking along the same lines as Freud did later. He shows the dangers of assuming other animals to be 'lower' and humans to be 'higher' when he says this:



He's nearly there except that he's wrong about wolves. Wolves punish transgressors. They have morals, too. He, Freud and others could not see that as they could not see how they were wrong about humans.

This is still all too relevant, as you say. It's exactly what Freud thought:



A muddy varnish indeed.

"Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it."

And how are we supposed to do that if it "isn't in our nature"?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Wolves live in cooperative societies. Of course they have ways of doing that.

Bees live in cooperative societies: are bees moral actors as well?

Is cooperation the test for moral behavior?

 

[alfajobrob]

thing is pointing at bonobos or chimps has only limited value. hom sap is a very different animal for any number of reasons. I'm not having the 'we share 99% of dna!!!elevn1' discussion. The thing where we talk about hom sap by looking at its close relatives- well its an interesting thing but we can't read too much into it imo. Without wishing to sound all HUMANS PREVAIL we have, and have had since before recorded history, language and fire and all sorts of technological advances that came along- social technologies. Systems of wealth marking, taboos against kin fucking and eating human flesh (yes I know, some still did in living memory but even that was highly ritualised). Basicaly we have a toolkit that is not really comprable to what other animals have, even the ones that look most like us.

anyways this is veering way off t...

Master species eh...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's quite possible that all animal behaviors are completely determined by biological factors, meaning the animal has no choice, meaning 'morality' doesn't enter into it.

The animal doesn't 'choose' to do 'right' or 'wrong'. It may simply be acting in the way that's biologically determined.

As may you and I, free will being an illusion. Also, you may be a zombie with no inner life, and maybe I'm the only consciousness in the universe.

That's the level you've descended to here. And it's not scientific. It is a very poor interpretation of the evidence with no explanatory or predictive power. Attributing to other animals such as dogs a point of view, intentions, motivations, feelings and desires, on the other hand, has a great deal of explanatory and predictive power.

Also, seems only polite given that they clearly do it to us: note the difference in reaction between a dog that's been trodden on by accident and one that's been kicked on purpose. They read intention into our actions alright.

 

[danny la rouge]

Observers can look at animals, see behavior that looks moral, and then anthropomorphize, saying that because what they're seeing looks like something that humans do, it must be the same thing [or arise from the same psychological antecedents] as what humans do.

That's an error. What motivates a dog to act in a way that seems familiar to humans might arise from the same antecedents, or not. There's no sure way to know, because we can't discuss it with the dog.

You're the one anthropomorphising! It's not about seeing human traits in dogs, it's about understanding social traits in social animals. Of which we happen to be one, but there are many more non human social species: we're not the apex of evolution but a twig on the bush.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

free will being an illusion. .

Correct.

 

[danny la rouge]

Bees live in cooperative societies: are bees moral actors as well?

Is cooperation the test for moral behavior?

Johnny, my advice to you is to read what I've actually said.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're the one anthropomorphising! It's not about seeing human traits in dogs, it's about understanding social traits in social animals. Of which we happen to be one, but there are many more non human social species: we're not the apex of evolution but a twig on the bush.

You've said that because social animals behave in social ways, that we can infer that they are motivated by 'morality'.

I'm saying that that's an error in reasoning.

Bees and ants are social creatures behaving in social ways. Does that make them moral actors?

 

[danny la rouge]

You've said that because social animals behave in social ways, that we can infer that they are motivated by 'morality'.

No I haven't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Johnny, my advice to you is to read what I've actually said.

You said this.

Wolves live in cooperative societies.

I'm assuming that there was a reason you did so.