From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 10:02:25 MST
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, 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.
All that being said, I do believe that the universe has a direction. That
the playing out of non-zero sum games everywhere around us means that the
universe is evolving toward greater intelligence, or as some would say,
toward greater Love. It's a good thing, by any high level measure I can
imagine, and we would be wise to learn and play along.
> True, but 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". 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.
>> The best we can do is a short term approximation of "good", in
>> accord with current local social norms, and nature will take care of
>> the rest in it's inexorable extropic way.
By this, 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.
> 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. 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. There is a lot of "good" that can be done
through successive approximation in an attempt to close on a moving target.
>Also, aren't we a
> part of nature? If you, or I, or we, decide, or our society decides,
> to let "nature take care of the rest" and we feel that we don't know
> what the good is then other groups of humans, other societies, that
> don't include us may come to regard us with the same "detachment" as
> we regard chimps.
I find detachment to be very useful in overcoming our pre-programmed biases
to better understand something. Then, apply human values to energize your
efforts.
Many people have a gut level reaction to detachment, thinking it leads to
atrocious behavior. It's the same kind of thing as people thinking atheists
must be immoral becuase they have no fear of god and final judgement.
> 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. Also, the separation of in-groups and out-groups only exists at
that context level, at a higher level they are all related. 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.
I understand what you mean by sterile. To compare again to atheism vs.
religion, many of the faithful look upon atheists with pity that the poor
atheists can not know the glory of god and thus have such a "sterile" view
of the world. On the other hand, many atheists pity the poor faithful that
they can not see beyond their blinders and view more of the magnificent
structure of the observable universe.
>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.
- Jef
www.jefallbright.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:16 MST