From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 23:03:12 MST
Thu 21 Nov. 4.02. Jef Allbright wrote:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >>> To try and ground ethics on rationality alone may be akin to
> >>> searching for the perpetual motion machine, but maybe a more
> >>> "universal" ethical system can be grounded on rationality plus some
> >>> fundemental human traits like sociability. I don't know whether this
> >>> later goal is also impossible or just extremely difficult.
>
> I think it is *very* possible for human society to develop a better
ethical
> system. That's why this kind of discussion is valuable. But to do so
> intelligently, we must try to see it from as high a level of context as
> possible. We currently have multiple groups, each seeing things from
within
> their limited context, thinking that they have the best answer or only
> answer that really matters.
>
> Ultimately, the universe does not care about our specific survival or well
> being. But we do care, and we have no other choice but to look out for our
> interests. My point here is that you will not find a universal moral truth
> that applies in all situations because ultimately it will be based on
local
> human values.
>
> So, given that searched for universal laws such as "word of god",
"survival
> of the fittest", "greatest good for the greatest number", "Do unto others
as
> they should do unto you", "tit for tat", "most evolved position is best",
> "minimum entropy is best" are not universally applicable to human ethics,
I agree but I've been using "universals" in a different sense.
[To cut from my statement in another branch of this thread.
I don't think there are moral absolutes, but maybe there are
moral "universals". A universal would not be true for all time or in all
situatuations (it would not be an absolute) but we may safelty be able to
apply it or assume its true for nearly all persons.
Eg.
Persons have a biological predisposition to sociality. A willingness to
cooperate not just to compete comes with the suit.
Persons have a capacity for rationality. And can therefore discuss things
including ethics if they so choose.
Persons necessarily perceive the world from their own subjective viewpoint.
The first thing they value before they learn to value other things is their
life. The dead and insentient value nothing. ]
> we should get on with it and work together using the best
> tools we know to devise the best solutions for the context we
> understand now. And understand that conflict will be a natural
> part of that process.
[Again coming across from the other branch of the thread. And apologies for
my
thread management any offline or online META tips appreciated]
What exactly are "the best tools we know". Anders suggests a childrens book
teaching "tit for tat". I think there are game theoric "algorithms" or
strategems that once learns can be taught to others to increase extropy, to
our benefit and the benefit of those we might teach, but we need to be very
careful to be good students before we can be good teachers. A key question
is then "what are the best (or good tools)"?
<snip - the universe has a direction towards greater Love>
>
> > ..the world contains more than one society at present.
> > Ultimately does might make right and is it then for the mighty to
> > label all opponents as "evil"? Clearly this is not just a hypothetic
> > thing. It resonates today, as I suspect it always has in real world
> > struggles and real world politics.
>
> Does "might make right"? The fallacy in this thinking is that at the
> appropriate context level to understand this, one sees that there is no
> "right".
I'm reminded of poor 'ol Liebniz. He produced a "this is the best of all
possible worlds" essay and then went on to kill himself.
Others have opined that in order to reconcile the apparenence of "evil", as
they percieved it, with the notion of a benevolent creator, they found
themselves arguing "all things are good - to God". Which brings to mind
another comic rejoiner I've heard "there, but for the grace of God, goes
God".
> Of course the mightier side wins. They may or may not have the
> more useful moral position. Rather than looking for absolute "right",
there
> are things we could be doing to improve our situation. Things to improve
> empathy, understanding, communication, leading to sharing of risks and
> responsibilities for our overall benefit.
Yes. And I would argue that goups like this and lists like this are part of
the doing of such things. But again to prompt you, in a friendly spirit,
what things specifically (if any) can you think of, because developing "a
better ethical system" seems to be very extropic and very worthy work, but
it is not in my view easy work. This goes, in my view, to the earlier
question "What's Important to Discuss".
> <snip> I mean there's a lot we can do at the local level right now.
> And if one yearns for that absolute, well, I think one can take comfort
> and find inspiration in that universal trend toward increasing
intelligence
> that I mentioned earlier.
I'd take more comfort in it if I felt more confident I would be around to
participate in it. :-)
>
> > We get to the long term through a series of short intervals. If the
> > best we can do is all set our standards of good to the current social
> > norms then wouldn't all attempts to _change_ those norms be "not
> > good" or evil? If so, this seems unsatisfactory.
>
> We are programmed by our nature and limited understanding to feel that it
is
> unsatisfactory.
So does the discomfort spur us to act?
> In fact, it's just the way it is. To know this, to face
> the void and come out the other side with no visible means of support, is
> very liberating and empowering.
Sounds like stoicism?
> There is a lot of "good" that can be done
> through successive approximation in an attempt to close on a moving
target.
>
Any specific examples?
<snip>
>
> > Going boldly forward into the future feeling that ultimately there is
> > no right or wrong that all the boundaries of our in-groups and
> > out-groups are arbitrary seems a tad sterile.
>
> On the contrary, there are general principles that can guide us in
specific
> situations.
Your general principles may be akin to what I was trying to do with a list
of "universals".
> Also, the separation of in-groups and out-groups only exists at
> that context level, at a higher level they are all related.
Your probably right but don't _live_ at the higher level or at least not
solely. We _live_ (and currenrtly die) at the level where (arbitrary)
in-groups can be deliniated by species boundaries, national boundaries,
racial boundaries, sexual boundaries, boundaries created by the ISMs we
attach ourselves too (socialism, capitalism etc).
> The
> distinctions are not arbitrary, although they certainly seem that way from
> each group's limited perspective. At the higher level, they all fit
> together.
If they are not arbitrary, if one can see sound ways to justify defining
them in certain places (morally and or practically), or of bridging and
merging lower groupings, then one might do, I think, great extropic service
by elucidating these ways.
<snip>
>
> >If a better basis for
> > right and wrong is determinable and determined by a social group that
> > we aren't part of, that group (or society) may have better coherence
> > and may (even by our standard!) be justified in leaving us behind or
> > pushing us aside. Its only "natural". I don't know how but I suspect
> > we are going to have to do better than this.
>
> This is always the case. May the better side continue to win. I wouldn't
> want it any other way.
Me either. With one small proviso on the content of the winning side - I
think you can guess :-)
Regards
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:17 MST