Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[Ichneumonwasp]

But you know that even "utilitarians" have a strong aversion when they are asked the same question, but they have to push a fat guy on the tracks to save 5 people rather than flip a switch... this is true no matter what the religion or age or religion of the person asked... the only people whom it is not different for is people who have had a portion of their brain damaged so that they don't have a revulsion connected with their decision making activities. (google Marc Hauser if you are unclear of the studies I'm talking about)

So what is really going on is that we are wired to behave a certain way... and so we think to codify and justify why we are choosing what we do... we want to see ourselves as behaving rationally. If someone doesn't have an emotional reaction to the trolley question and sees it entirely in terms of lives saved without considering how he/she feels about themselves having to do the deed--then they are not a utilitarian--they are a person who has a small portion of the "conscience" damaged. We evolved to have a revulsion about causing harm to others... and it's hard to over ride that revulsion even when more lives are at stake. We know exactly what part of the brain is involved and how damage to that part effects the reasoning... it keeps the "emotions" out of the equation.

Culture can dampen or elevate that effect. Making men into soldiers that can kill other people requires this. You have a handicapped army otherwise. Moral systems would hopefully broaden whom we feel empathy and kinship with... whom we feel more willing to protect. But there is no illusion required for that at all.

Yes, that is one of the examples where utilitarianism doesn't seem to work well but other explanations do.

But let's be clear. There is a difference between the way that we make moral decisions individually and what we should do as moral creatures.

We have been provided (really, we are) an emotional heritage bequeathed us through the evolutionary process. As a result we do feel revulsion when we are forced to kill an innocent standing next to the tracks -- I use the example all the time to show that utilitarianism doesn't fit with our moral intuitions in some situations. This is also the reason why they only show one kid at a time in those "give us money to keep these poor African children from starving to death" commercials. One child on screen elicits our sympathy and our internal feeling that we can save that one child from a terrible fate. When they show large numbers of kids on screen you'd think it would elicit more sympathy/outrage and turn into more money donated. But it doesn't. We feel lost when there are so many who need help and think -- well someone else, some government somewhere will help them.

But that is not morality in its full form. That is proto-morality. That is where our morality begins and needn't consist of what we should do. The rest of morality for the individual largely does consist of rationalization -- using either deontology or utilitarianism. But we are not necessarily stuck in that situation. We can override our initial intuitions and arrive at a moral decision that may be opposed to our original feeling.

Take, for instance, the issue of slavery. We find it easy, natural, and emotionally satisfying to oppose slavery in all its forms because we do not feel the economic need for it. In the past there were many elaborate justifications/rationalizations for slavery even when philosophers could see that slavery should be wrong from a human perspective -- I mentioned Aristotle earlier who flirted with this but shied away because he lived in a slave owning society. If he had stuck to his guns he could have fully realized that his gut reaction -- that slavery is OK -- was wrong. We are in a similar situation with one of John Peter Singer's favorites -- animal rights. Animal rights seems silly to many of us because we like steak. We live as omnivores, so we feel that eating animals is right. At the same time anyone who has a dog or cat knows that their pet is conscious, rational, feeling, and intelligent (except for cocker spaniels). We don't want to deal with the reality that we are killing intelligent beings because of our economic situation -- much like slave-owners in the past.

If we are to make moral progress -- if that is not just a pipe dream -- we must be willing to see beyond our gut moral intuitions handed to us through our evolutionary heritage and stick to rational principles, whatever the consequences of those ideas. The only other option is to progress economically to the point where our gut feeling is placed in a new situation -- make it possible to grow meat in a vat and we will see the slaughter of animals as wrong.

I am not sanguine about our ability to see beyond gut instinct and act on rational principles, though. I know that is how I should act/see things. But, in the case of vegetarianism, I am a dedicated omnivore because I like meat and I'm just an a**hole. Morality is supposed to consist not just in the moral sentiments but in the rational alterations we make upon those sentiments -- through language and through interaction with others.

It may be that we are simply stuck with intuition and rationalization. But that's a bit sad, don't you think? I think there is more to us than just that, that we can rise above that level alone to some more elevated level of discourse. If we were able to universalize an ethical framework, this would allow us to chastise others who do not fit that ethical framework. Honor killing, for instance, makes perfect sense in Arabic communities where property is dealt with in the way that it is there. There is an economic reason why that institution exists. But we find it horrendous. Why can we not stand on a moral high ground and denounce the practice? If it's just gut feeling and rationalization, then moral relativity at the level of individual societies is all we can hope for, and we must put up with that practice (if we want them to put up with our practices).

 

[Fiona]

Well said! For me the reason it is interesting to discuss these issues is precisely to explore the limits of our intuitions and the extent to which we can modify them through reason. It may be it is not possible to find rational ethical systems which have wider application than our particular evolutionary capabilities modified by particular cultural circumstances: I hope this is not true, and I am not ready to give up the hope of something better just yet

 

[rocketdodger]

But we find it horrendous. Why can we not stand on a moral high ground and denounce the practice? If it's just gut feeling and rationalization, then moral relativity at the level of individual societies is all we can hope for, and we must put up with that practice (if we want them to put up with our practices).

Well, that isn't necessarily true. You -- and this is something Fiona is doing as well -- are trying to inject some kind of moral "justice" into moral relativity when you suggest that the golden rule need apply. That is a personal value of yours and needn't apply to anyone else.

I assert that it is perfectly fine to denounce practices we do not agree with and at the same time expect others to put up with our own practices.

In other words, I realize that morality is subjective, but I think mine is the best, and I don't see a problem with trying to change others (or myself) so that there are no conflicting values between us.

 

[articulett]

Regarding meat... I was a vegetarian for quite some time. Then I realized that the animals would not have been born or lived at all if they didn't taste good... our agriculture has evolved to work with humans... to FEED them; cows wouldn't exist at all if not for that. A cow couldn't exist in the wild very well--too docile--every animal would want that burger, right--and predators aren't particularly gentle when they kill. So the real question is, is it better to have a short relatively peaceful live or no life at all?

I think we evolved to hurt (emotionally) when we cause the suffering of another... I cry when I have to put a pet to sleep even though I am ending suffering. I wish humans were allowed to choose such a death for themselves legally. But I don't think it's irrational. Yes, we do need to override our instincts in many cases to do the more moral thing--the choice that is better in regards to maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. No life is better than an anguished life. But existing in some sense in some manner and bring something to other life (food, etc.) is what all life is about, isn't it? Even a carrot's life... it exists because of the life that came before... and it leaves something to better the life that continues after it dies. All life, even bacterial life play this game.

Sentient life can feel--so it deserves special consideration. The more an entity can feel, the more we all have a vested interest (thanks to mirror neurons) in maximizing positive feelings and minimizing suffering so long as we are aware of the situation. We evolved to feel what those around us are feeling. If I had to kill an animal myself to eat meat, I don't think I could do it... not because I think it's wrong, but because I have an instinct against killing. That being said, I recognize that a short peaceful life that ends and benefits others is better than a long painful life --and that all life will end in some manner.

I am in a situation now where I have a couple of geriatric pets that are peeing all over my home making me feel insane... I've rescued and cared for them and they've had a much better life than they had prior to me caring for them. But they appear healthy though grouchy--cataracts and arthritis probably... at my expense mind you... an increasing expense. So what do I do? If I give them up for adoption, they become someone else's problem. I could make them stay out doors but it is over 110 degrees in Vegas, and they are old and likely to die from heat stroke. I can have them put to sleep. Or I can continue on as I am. I am torn. Because this can go on and get worse for years without making any of us happier in any way about any thing. But it seems wrong to end their lives--though many a pets life has been ended prematurely through random accidents or tumors etc.

We do the best we can with our evolutionary adapted feelings and our rationality. I don't think illusions add to the decision making process at all.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, that isn't necessarily true. You -- and this is something Fiona is doing as well -- are trying to inject some kind of moral "justice" into moral relativity when you suggest that the golden rule need apply. That is a personal value of yours and needn't apply to anyone else.

I assert that it is perfectly fine to denounce practices we do not agree with and at the same time expect others to put up with our own practices.

In other words, I realize that morality is subjective, but I think mine is the best, and I don't see a problem with trying to change others (or myself) so that there are no conflicting values between us.

Yes, that is one possibility. It means that might makes right. The ethic that wins the "correct" one.

I think morality is something different. It begins in subjectivity, but it doesn't remain there. It always begins in our subjective moral intuitions, which we largely share, but just like language, private morality doesn't make any sense. Morality, like language, concerns actions between people. It seems to me that it is constructed within communities between people, using reasoning that we have been left with through the evolutionary process.

Moreover, the whole point of morality is that it is not just what people do or what people feel. It concerns what we should do. As such, we have the ability to apply rationality in a consistent way so that we can arrive at some universalizable code of conduct. I realize that we must be extremely careful because anything that we come up with is likely to be full of unhidden assumptions and tendencies that we prop up with rationalizations. That is why we must be critical of any universalized scheme. But it doesn't mean that one is not possible. To the extent that human reason is universal (well, almost -- but non-reasoning folks are not subject to moral dictates anyway) I think that we should be able to arrive at some sort of consensus.

Any particular person may decide not to participate and to follow his or her own moral intuitions. People do it now, they will do so in the future. This isn't a law were discussing here, but a potentially universalizable moral code of conduct. No one is obliged to follow it. Moral codes are always only a guide for what is right action.

 

[articulett]

...right they are a code of ethics that maximize happiness for the whole if everyone utilized the same code of ethics.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Regarding meat... I was a vegetarian for quite some time. Then I realized that the animals would not have been born or lived at all if they didn't taste good... our agriculture has evolved to work with humans... to FEED them; cows wouldn't exist at all if not for that. A cow couldn't exist in the wild very well--too docile--every animal would want that burger, right--and predators aren't particularly gentle when they kill. So the real question is, is it better to have a short relatively peaceful live or no life at all?

I think we evolved to hurt (emotionally) when we cause the suffering of another... I cry when I have to put a pet to sleep even though I am ending suffering. I wish humans were allowed to choose such a death for themselves legally. But I don't think it's irrational. Yes, we do need to override our instincts in many cases to do the more moral thing--the choice that is better in regards to maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. No life is better than an anguished life. But existing in some sense in some manner and bring something to other life (food, etc.) is what all life is about, isn't it? Even a carrot's life... it exists because of the life that came before... and it leaves something to better the life that continues after it dies. All life, even bacterial life play this game.

Sentient life can feel--so it deserves special consideration. The more an entity can feel, the more we all have a vested interest (thanks to mirror neurons) in maximizing positive feelings and minimizing suffering so long as we are aware of the situation. We evolved to feel what those around us are feeling. If I had to kill an animal myself to eat meat, I don't think I could do it... not because I think it's wrong, but because I have an instinct against killing. That being said, I recognize that a short peaceful life that ends and benefits others is better than a long painful life --and that all life will end in some manner.

I am in a situation now where I have a couple of geriatric pets that are peeing all over my home making me feel insane... I've rescued and cared for them and they've had a much better life than they had prior to me caring for them. But they appear healthy though grouchy--cataracts and arthritis probably... at my expense mind you... an increasing expense. So what do I do? If I give them up for adoption, they become someone else's problem. I could make them stay out doors but it is over 110 degrees in Vegas, and they are old and likely to die from heat stroke. I can have them put to sleep. Or I can continue on as I am. I am torn. Because this can go on and get worse for years without making any of us happier in any way about any thing. But it seems wrong to end their lives--though many a pets life has been ended prematurely through random accidents or tumors etc.

We do the best we can with our evolutionary adapted feelings and our rationality. I don't think illusions add to the decision making process at all.

Yes, good point. All animal life exists at the expense of other life.

But, even though I don't like Singer very much, his point never concerned that fact; in fact, it isn't even very relevant, I'm afraid.

[brief aside]Cows couldn't make it in the wild because we selectively bred them that way. Does this create a problem now? Well, yes, of course -- which is one of the reasons why I don't like Singer very much. He usually leaves out the part where we have created huge systems that his simple solutions will either perturb or worsen -- like the idea of giving away any money you make over $30,000.[/aside over]

His point was that we are not in the position of most animals. We know and can reflect on the pain we cause. If we want to use a rational principle, like 'don't hurt/kill intelligent creatures' (one that many of us feel in our gut anyway), then we fail with our current economic system just as slave owners in the past failed. We rationalize the problem away. Granted, unlike slavery, we have damn good reason to do so because we evolved as meat eaters.
We wouldn't have the brains we have now without all those extra fats and the calories they carried -- a "gift" from all those consumed animals.

But, just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is moral. At some point we are going to have to decide -- does morality mean just what we feel and what we can rationalize, or can we arrive at some universalized scheme to decide what we should and should not do?

By the way, why do you bring up illusions from time to time? Didn't we leave all that nonsense behind on page 3 or 4?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

...right they are a code of ethics that maximize happiness for the whole if everyone utilized the same code of ethics.

Yes, of course, but that should not be confused with utilitarianism as a completely generalizable ethical code.

One could say precisely the same thing of Aristotle's virtue ethics or Kantian ethics.

 

[articulett]

I brought up illusions because the OP addressed illusions... and the topic became whether morality needs to be fueled by illusions... at least that is what it appears from my perspective. Do we need religions or illusions to behave morally? Who decides what is moral? Or are we born with a degree of morality that is refined and honed by our culture, temptations, feelings, and perceived rewards and punishments along with a basic algorithm of understanding of game theory--maximizing cooperation, minimizing suffering. I think it's the latter.

I think that we confabulate all sorts of things that we get our morality from-- why we do what we do or believe what we believe--but we may, in fact, not actually understand our real reasons-- this is especially true of folks who believe they are behaving a certain way because god wants them too. That is clearly an illusion... whether it leads to better morality is not something I see evidence of, though I believe that most humans believe that their beliefs make them more moral... and that those who believe like them are more moral than those who believe differently.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I brought up illusions because the OP addressed illusions... and the topic became whether morality needs to be fueled by illusions... at least that is what it appears from my perspective. Do we need religions or illusions to behave morally? Who decides what is moral? Or are we born with a degree of morality that is refined and honed by our culture, temptations, feelings, and perceived rewards and punishments along with a basic algorithm of understanding of game theory--maximizing cooperation, minimizing suffering. I think it's the latter.

I think that we confabulate all sorts of things that we get our morality from-- why we do what we do or believe what we believe--but we may, in fact, not actually understand our real reasons-- this is especially true of folks who believe they are behaving a certain way because god wants them too. That is clearly an illusion... whether it leads to better morality is not something I see evidence of, though I believe that most humans believe that their beliefs make them more moral... and that those who believe like them are more moral than those who believe differently.

Ah, OK, sorry I joined the discussion a little late. I suppose it depends what we mean by illusion. Clearly, the "medical" definition of illusion is not necessary for morality. The source of morality is obviously within us -- this is true even for theists -- and it clearly, to me and you, has an evolutionary source.

What it *is* might properly be called an illusion or delusion, though. Money is a shared delusion -- it's just paper or metal (or a plastic card) that we all agree has meaning. Moral rules are much the same -- they don't exist out there in the universe independent of us; we create them. Granted, we create them from our evolutionary heritage, but they are not just our wants and desires -- there's more to it than that. We all make morality, in concert.

Virtue ethics might be fueled by illusion in some sense -- arguing that people should be brave or wise, etc. (what really is bravery or wisdom?). The problem is that "illusion" carries particular connotations. Abstract would probably be a better word.

 

[Gurdur]

If you call an apple an orange, eating it won't help protect you from scurvy. ....

Actually it will.

 

[Herzblut]

The source of morality is obviously within us -- this is true even for theists -- and it clearly, to me and you, has an evolutionary source.

Right. But is there any predefined, preferred moral codex genetically coded? I mean apart from obeying authority, where I am not sure if this is not a result of learning. I don't think so at all.

Man can learn any moral code. Morality is learnt.

 

[dglas]

Actually it will.

Dang! My Google-fu failed me this time.

...on the particulars. So, I sit corrected there.

But not on the point, which is still I think important.

[SouthParkMode]I learned something today.[/SouthParkMode]
One more illusion dispelled...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Right. But is there any predefined, preferred moral codex genetically coded? I mean apart from obeying authority, where I am not sure if this is not a result of learning. I don't think so at all.

Man can learn any moral code. Morality is learnt.

I wouldn't think that there is any predefined, preferred genetic moral code. We seem to have several different modes of thinking about it -- two at minimum.

Morality is largely learned, but some of what constitutes our morality appears to be in-built (our moral intuitions and the categories that we employ to think about them); it's not one thing, unfortunately. I think that's why we continue to debate this topic.

 

[Fiona]

I think that evolution sets limits on us, in morality as much as other areas. There are certain things we cannot do because our genetic inheritance does not allow it. This is obvious in our physical capabilities and I think it may apply to morality as well. Thus there is quite a lot of overlap between cultures both in the kinds of things they ascribe to the moral sphere and in the conclusions they come to. It is quite interesting to read fantasy writers who have tried to imagine intelligent species with a different base heritage, and this is done quite often, though it is clearly very difficult to step outside our own vision. ( I am thinking of things like Larry Niven's Kzin, who are evolved from big cats: and perhaps most confusingly the creatures in CJ Cherry's 40,000 in Gehenna. Anne Rice addresses some of the issues in Interview with the Vampire, though not very extensively: and there are similar themes in Ender's Game, for a few examples)

I do not think we can truly learn "any moral code" because a code derived from a different evolutionary history would be at odds with our base intuitions.

I do think we can learn any human moral code and it is possible we can learn any moral code which is derived from primates. Maybe we can extend it further than that too: it is interesting to speculate at least. Perhaps we can envisage and learn a code which was derived from any mammal or even any species on earth: I think it would be hard for a human being to learn a moral code which emerged from a "hive mind" though.

Perhaps this is too fanciful for this thread but I find this approach useful to me because the sheer difficulty of imagining what a truly alien moral code might look like is itself instructive. Would we be able to call it moral at all: or would be need another set of words?

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps this is too fanciful for this thread but I find this approach useful to me because the sheer difficulty of imagining what a truly alien moral code might look like is itself instructive. Would we be able to call it moral at all: or would be need another set of words?

I think the odds that it would at least make sense to us are extremely high, and yes we could call it a moral code.

Aliens will have either evolved like we did, or else been designed to work together efficiently (I assume), and those constraints narrow down the possible behavioral rule sets quite a bit.

 

[Fiona]

Is it absolutely necessary for an intelligent species to be social, do you think?

 

[slingblade]

Is it absolutely necessary for an intelligent species to be social, do you think?

You likely know that a complete answer really depends on defining "social."
But just the off-the-cuff answers:

Sex is social. I imagine at least that much "social" contact is necessary.

Ideas. Can one person have all the ideas he's ever likely to need? Can he come up with complete ideas, all alone? Every time? Or are there just some things he's not going to be able to figure out?

Learning. If we aren't social, all learning takes place individually and repetetively, and none of it ever gets spread...everyone reinvents the wheel every day, but only for himself.

Progress without both learning from old ideas and creating new ideas is impossible. Stagnation results.

Intellect alone isn't enough. You may know exactly how to build a bridge. Are you, alone, enough manpower to get it done, and well?

Besides, a human cannot exist in isolation. A mother cannot leave a newborn to fend for itself, so at the very least, you either have no new people, or societies of two or three or more, depending on number of dependant offspring, for a limited number of years.

I don't really see how intellect functions in isolation.

 

[Fiona]

This is really just a game, Slingblade, though one I find interesting. I can imagine a species which does not procreate sexually, because there are such species. I do not know if a single individual can have all the ideas it will ever need: depends how long it lives, maybe. I do not see why learning needs to be shared if the species is solitary - so long as they can learn all they need that is enough. Similarly I do not see why a long-lived individual cannot make progress nor that stagnation is inevitable. As to the physical constraint? Well it sort of depends on what this alien looks like, does it not? And I cannot see why we need to conceive a being which cares for its young. This particular alien lays eggs and goes back to the sea

 

[Roboramma]

You likely know that a complete answer really depends on defining "social."
But just the off-the-cuff answers:

Sex is social. I imagine at least that much "social" contact is necessary.

Ideas. Can one person have all the ideas he's ever likely to need? Can he come up with complete ideas, all alone? Every time? Or are there just some things he's not going to be able to figure out?

Without a cultural heritage, it's likely that some things would never be discovered, of course. Before we had writing it was harder for intellectual lineages to form as well or go as far.
That doesn't suggest that they are required for intelligence - just for the more advanced products of intelligence.

Learning. If we aren't social, all learning takes place individually and repetetively, and none of it ever gets spread...everyone reinvents the wheel every day, but only for himself.

I'd say that's mostly true- though I might observe some of your artifacts (even when you aren't present) and thus learn something from them.
But again, that says something about how far the products of intelligence could advance, not how far the intelligence itself would.

Progress without both learning from old ideas and creating new ideas is impossible. Stagnation results.

Sure, but individuals can still learn from their own old ideas and create new ones.

Intellect alone isn't enough. You may know exactly how to build a bridge. Are you, alone, enough manpower to get it done, and well?

Right, again there are limits to how an individual can go with only intelligence. That doesn't suggest that it can't develop morally, however.

On the other hand, I think morality evolved as a way of dealing with others of one's own species, I think it exists at least in other primates, and some other social species, though to what extent I don't know. It's hard to see how moral sentiments could evolve without the social aspect... At least the idea that it's possible for others to be moral or immoral. We never, for instance, call dogs evil, but we do so with other humans, and I think it likely that's because morality evolved for the sake of dealing with other humans.
Then again, I can see how at least some moral feelings could evolve outside of the social context. Feelings about managing of one's own resources, perhaps?

Besides, a human cannot exist in isolation. A mother cannot leave a newborn to fend for itself, so at the very least, you either have no new people, or societies of two or three or more, depending on number of dependant offspring, for a limited number of years.

I don't really see how intellect functions in isolation.

This may be true of humans, but need not be true of all species - there are plenty of species wherein newborns are left in isolation.