Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[Augustus]

That would be good advice for you to follow.

I never take offence at online posts as they don’t matter much to anything and you engage for enjoyment.

 

[icehorse]

Well, just report to the nearest hospital and donate your body to organ harvest. Never mind that it is against the good for you, it is for the good of the many.

Ha! Another fun philosophical dilemma

As I recall, the rebuttal to that sort of idea is that if we lived in a society in which that was possible, the dread experienced by everyone would be greater than the benefits provided by the donor So a net loss for the aggregate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ha! Another fun philosophical dilemma

As I recall, the rebuttal to that sort of idea is that if we lived in a society in which that was possible, the dread experienced by everyone would be greater than the benefits provided by the donor So a net loss for the aggregate.

Well, how do you measure that?
In effect it always end up in different rules for how to behave.
The problem is this. If it was as simple as one simple rule and since we have been at it for over 2000 years now, we would have found it, but we haven't because the everyday world is too complex for one simple rule.

 

[icehorse]

Well, how do you measure that?
In effect it always end up in different rules for how to behave.
The problem is this. If it was as simple as one simple rule and since we have been at it for over 2000 years now, we would have found it, but we haven't because the everyday world is too complex for one simple rule.

I don't recall saying it was a simple problem

I don't think it's simple, but I think it's solvable to a sufficient degree.

As for having been at it for 2000 years, well, we know a lot more now then we did then. There are a zillion things we take for granted today that we might have wished for, for thousands of years, right?

Paraphrasing Sam Harris: "Why is it we claim expertise in so many domains, but pretend that there is no such thing as moral or ethical expertise?"

I don't think it's a neutral stance to take the position that morality and ethics are too subjective to grapple with. I think that's actually a stance that makes things worse.

For example, take LIV golf. Those guys are making things worse. I think they should be forced to play their golf tournaments in full burkas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't recall saying it was a simple problem

I don't think it's simple, but I think it's solvable to a sufficient degree.

As for having been at it for 2000 years, well, we know a lot more now then we did then. There are a zillion things we take for granted today that we might have wished for, for thousands of years, right?

Paraphrasing Sam Harris: "Why is it we claim expertise in so many domains, but pretend that there is no such thing as moral or ethical expertise?"

I don't think it's a neutral stance to take the position that morality and ethics are too subjective to grapple with. I think that's actually a stance that makes things worse.

For example, take LIV golf. Those guys are making things worse. I think they should be forced to play their golf tournaments in full burkas.

Well, the problem is this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
You are trying to make in effect something objective as a measurement standard, which is subjective down to the individual.
The problem is the same today as 2000 years ago.

As for you thinking how to solve it, that is subjective, including that it is worse. So as long as you in effect are subjective and not objective you haven't solved the problem.

Like some other humans you don't notice when you are subjective. You in effect just take for granted that your subjectivity is an objective standard.

 

[icehorse]

Well, the problem is this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
You are trying to make in effect something objective as a measurement standard, which is subjective down to the individual.
The problem is the same today as 2000 years ago.

As for you thinking how to solve it, that is subjective, including that it is worse. So as long as you in effect are subjective and not objective you haven't solved the problem.

Like some other humans you don't notice when you are subjective. You in effect just take for granted that your subjectivity is an objective standard.

I've read my Kahneman, have you? I acknowledge that I'm prone to bias, as are we all. But we all have to muddle through the best we can.

Yes, the problem hasn't changed much, but we know orders of magnitude more about being human than we did 2000 years ago

 

[Muffled]

Also for @Moon yes what happened in 1980? I am not sure if Moon has already answered because I can't read all the posts but hopefully I'll see her answer soon about 1980. I can guess but I'd rather heat it from her.

I believe Mt St Helens volcano exploded in 1980.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've read my Kahneman, have you? I acknowledge that I'm prone to bias, as are we all. But we all have to muddle through the best we can.

Yes, the problem hasn't changed much, but we know orders of magnitude more about being human than we did 2000 years ago

So here is your subjective idea. We all agree as to think and feel like you. Okay, but then why not me?

 

[icehorse]

So here is your subjective idea. We all agree as to think and feel like you. Okay, but then why not me?

No, that's not my idea.

Let's say the collective goal is to increase the aggregate well being of conscious creatures. There are certainly many strategies to pursue that goal and there is no reason why we cannot implement many of them at the same time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that's not my idea.

Let's say the collective goal is to increase the aggregate well being of conscious creatures. There are certainly many strategies to pursue that goal and there is no reason why we cannot implement many of them at the same time.

Well, I was taught that differently. The goal is to increase the wellbeing of the individual.
Your goal is collective, mine is individual.

 

[sayak83]

Humanity is facing enormous problems these days. Climate change will likely displace a BILLION people from their homes in the next few decades. We're running out of fresh water and topsoil. We're likely to face huge crop failures and food shortages.

We need to work together, if we're to survive.

Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. Sure, there are exceptions. But mostly religion is divisive. Either you're a Muslim, or you're not. Either you're a Christian or you're not. This "us vs. them" worldview is exactly what we DO NOT NEED at this critical juncture.

We need inclusive, critical thinking. We do not need divisive, magical thinking.

And while I'm at it, most identity politics these days shares a lot in common with religion. The most important / destructive way in which this is true is in the establishment and defense of DOGMA. We need new dogma like we need a hole in the head.

Back in the 60s and 70s we used to say "question authority". It's still good advice, but I'd amend it a bit and say:

"Question authority and question dogma".

Either you are an American or you are not.
Nationalism is far more divisive and destructive (see Russia Ukraine war) than religion.

 

[icehorse]

Either you are an American or you are not.
Nationalism is far more divisive and destructive (see Russia Ukraine war) than religion.

That seems like a whataboutism response, but maybe I misunderstood you?

In other words, I agree that nationalism is divisive. But how does that factor into the OP?

 

[Augustus]

That seems like a whataboutism response, but maybe I misunderstood you?

In other words, I agree that nationalism is divisive. But how does that factor into the OP?

Any ideology that unites its adherents also divides it from non-adherents.

Beliefs are also cyclical because humans are irrational and have short memories so don't collectively learn from their mistakes. The rise and fall of ideologies creates division too.

Nationalism is divisive and causes harms, so people promote globalism as a replacement. Globalism causes harms (as all systems do) and creates a backlash, so people promote nationalism, etc.

Religion is divisive and causes problems, so people promote various irreligious ideologies. Various irreligious ideologies cause problems and create a backlash, so people promote religion, etc.

An so forth...

 

[Augustus]

Well, the problem is this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
You are trying to make in effect something objective as a measurement standard, which is subjective down to the individual.
The problem is the same today as 2000 years ago.

As for you thinking how to solve it, that is subjective, including that it is worse. So as long as you in effect are subjective and not objective you haven't solved the problem.

Like some other humans you don't notice when you are subjective. You in effect just take for granted that your subjectivity is an objective standard.

It is common for people seem to have a psychological need to believe that their values are more than somewhat arbitrary preferences that are largely the result of circumstances beyond their control. This seems to be a driver of people wishing to find an 'objective' or 'scientific' morality, just as it is behind things like a religiously based morality.

We don't experience our strongly held values as transactional opinions followed by consensus (we generally don't see the right to life as a fiction we agree to adhere to, like a game rule in Monopoly), but as experienced truths (for example one may instinctively feel visceral anger at either the availability or the banning of abortions).

We can't help but feel our morals are 'better' than those of rival groups, rather than simply being different.

This is easy to accept if you have religious morality, or aren't particularly fussed about being highly rational. It is a bit of a problem if you have an internal need to feel you are rational though.

Objective/scientific/rational views of ethics tend to assume some form of utilitarianism, but as you noted earlier, pure utilitarianism, is pretty awful as it sacrifices the individual for the good of the many: one dies to save 4 = excellent.

So it becomes the greatest good for the greatest number, but only within the boundaries of certain fundamental rights (that are based on my preferences).

We are a value pluralistic species, which means we have some inbuilt tendencies, but these can produce very different outcomes. Torturing a baby for fun may be near enough objectively bad for us not to worry about the technicalities, but on most things there are numerous equally "correct" but completely incompatible positions. Things aren't purely relativistic, but they are far from being objective/scientific/purely rational, etc.

Value pluralism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example:

Free speech versus blasphemy laws - there is no way to say one is more moral than the other other than by personal preference, just that one favours individual rights and the other favours collective rights, both of which are valid approaches.

What about equal opportunities for all versus nepotism to favour my tribe/in-group? Do what is best for me and my family versus do what is best for strangers on the other side of the world?

So in the end, the main benefit of "objective" approaches to ethics is that they function as post-hoc rationalisations for the person who holds these values that make them feel that they are "more reasonable" and "better" than other equally valid value systems.

"Do this because it is more rational" sounds a lot better than "do this because my values are better than yours because they are more aligned with my values"

As we all have a tendency to think, "the world would be great if it wasn't for all these other people messing it up for smart folk like me!".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is common for people seem to have a psychological need to believe that their values are more than somewhat arbitrary preferences that are largely the result of circumstances beyond their control. This seems to be a driver of people wishing to find an 'objective' or 'scientific' morality, just as it is behind things like a religiously based morality.

We don't experience our strongly held values as transactional opinions followed by consensus (we generally don't see the right to life as a fiction we agree to adhere to, like a game rule in Monopoly), but as experienced truths (for example one may instinctively feel visceral anger at either the availability or the banning of abortions).

We can't help but feel our morals are 'better' than those of rival groups, rather than simply being different.

This is easy to accept if you have religious morality, or aren't particularly fussed about being highly rational. It is a bit of a problem if you have an internal need to feel you are rational though.

Objective/scientific/rational views of ethics tend to assume some form of utilitarianism, but as you noted earlier, pure utilitarianism, is pretty awful as it sacrifices the individual for the good of the many: one dies to save 4 = excellent.

So it becomes the greatest good for the greatest number, but only within the boundaries of certain fundamental rights (that are based on my preferences).

We are a value pluralistic species, which means we have some inbuilt tendencies, but these can produce very different outcomes. Torturing a baby for fun may be near enough objectively bad for us not to worry about the technicalities, but on most things there are numerous equally "correct" but completely incompatible positions. Things aren't purely relativistic, but they are far from being objective/scientific/purely rational, etc.

Value pluralism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example:

Free speech versus blasphemy laws - there is no way to say one is more moral than the other other than by personal preference, just that one favours individual rights and the other favours collective rights, both of which are valid approaches.

What about equal opportunities for all versus nepotism to favour my tribe/in-group? Do what is best for me and my family versus do what is best for strangers on the other side of the world?

So in the end, the main benefit of "objective" approaches to ethics is that they function as post-hoc rationalisations for the person who holds these values that make them feel that they are "more reasonable" and "better" than other equally valid value systems.

"Do this because it is more rational" sounds a lot better than "do this because my values are better than yours because they are more aligned with my values"

As we all have a tendency to think, "the world would be great if it wasn't for all these other people messing it up for smart folk like me!".

Yeah and I have a well trained understanding of that, because I am neuro diverse and always have to check normies for the words like truth, proof, evidence, objective, rational, normal, relevant and so on.

 

[icehorse]

Any ideology that unites its adherents also divides it from non-adherents.

True, but across a wide spectrum. Some ideologies are more universally acceptable and inclusive than others.

Nationalism is divisive and causes harms, so people promote globalism as a replacement. Globalism causes harms (as all systems do) and creates a backlash, so people promote nationalism, etc.

Religion is divisive and causes problems, so people promote various irreligious ideologies. Various irreligious ideologies cause problems and create a backlash, so people promote religion, etc.

An so forth...

What would you say are the most common motivators pushing people to invent / promote an ideology?

 

[icehorse]

It is common for people seem to have a psychological need to believe that their values are more than somewhat arbitrary preferences that are largely the result of circumstances beyond their control. This seems to be a driver of people wishing to find an 'objective' or 'scientific' morality, just as it is behind things like a religiously based morality.

We don't experience our strongly held values as transactional opinions followed by consensus (we generally don't see the right to life as a fiction we agree to adhere to, like a game rule in Monopoly), but as experienced truths (for example one may instinctively feel visceral anger at either the availability or the banning of abortions).

We can't help but feel our morals are 'better' than those of rival groups, rather than simply being different.

This is easy to accept if you have religious morality, or aren't particularly fussed about being highly rational. It is a bit of a problem if you have an internal need to feel you are rational though.

Objective/scientific/rational views of ethics tend to assume some form of utilitarianism, but as you noted earlier, pure utilitarianism, is pretty awful as it sacrifices the individual for the good of the many: one dies to save 4 = excellent.

So it becomes the greatest good for the greatest number, but only within the boundaries of certain fundamental rights (that are based on my preferences).

We are a value pluralistic species, which means we have some inbuilt tendencies, but these can produce very different outcomes. Torturing a baby for fun may be near enough objectively bad for us not to worry about the technicalities, but on most things there are numerous equally "correct" but completely incompatible positions. Things aren't purely relativistic, but they are far from being objective/scientific/purely rational, etc.

Value pluralism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For example:

Free speech versus blasphemy laws - there is no way to say one is more moral than the other other than by personal preference, just that one favours individual rights and the other favours collective rights, both of which are valid approaches.

What about equal opportunities for all versus nepotism to favour my tribe/in-group? Do what is best for me and my family versus do what is best for strangers on the other side of the world?

So in the end, the main benefit of "objective" approaches to ethics is that they function as post-hoc rationalisations for the person who holds these values that make them feel that they are "more reasonable" and "better" than other equally valid value systems.

"Do this because it is more rational" sounds a lot better than "do this because my values are better than yours because they are more aligned with my values"

As we all have a tendency to think, "the world would be great if it wasn't for all these other people messing it up for smart folk like me!".

Are you saying that universal moral and ethical expertise are unattainable?

 

[sayak83]

That seems like a whataboutism response, but maybe I misunderstood you?

In other words, I agree that nationalism is divisive. But how does that factor into the OP?

I am stating that when it comes to global problems like climate change, nuclear proliferation etc. nationalistic self interest is far far more problematic than religious divisiveness.

 

[Augustus]

Are you saying that universal moral and ethical expertise are unattainable?

I'm not really sure what you mean by moral expertise, do you mean like in legal arbitration an expert would make a judgement on the disputed case by comparing the facts to the law based on their personal legal expertise? Both parties who sign up are reasonably (although imperfectly) confident any disputes will be handled will be based on procedural fairness and impartial judgement?

An ethical expert could solve ethical problems by applying a set of universal principles to known fact and both parties would be reasonably (although imperfectly) confident any disputes will be handled will be based on procedural fairness and impartial judgement?

That kind of expert can't exist in a universal context, although could exist in a specific context where both parties are willing to accept their judgement.

What would an expert do? How would they gain their expertise?



I think you can have ethical expertise, but I guess it's not quite what you are thinking.

For me an ethical expert would understand the largely universal 'hardwired' values that underpin ethics in general (for example loyalty, reciprocity, etc.) and how these can manifest themselves very differently in different cultures and environments, and how this came to be.

This knowledge could then be used to inform decision making, frame action, etc.

Many problems are based on conflicts between different manifestations of our hardwired values though, and are pretty much incommensurable.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think it's a neutral stance to take the position that morality and ethics are too subjective to grapple with. I think that's actually a stance that makes things worse.

For example, take LIV golf. Those guys are making things worse. I think they should be forced to play their golf tournaments in full burkas.

How would that be judged though? What are they making worse?

Almost all major businesses and countries do business with Saudi Arabia. and we are happy to buy what they are selling.

When the US invaded Iraq, should players have quit the PGA tour? Many US sports, especially the NFL, actively promote the US military, are the players making things worse?

I understand moral objections to LIV and why some players don't want to join, but it seems like we just apply standards arbitrarily.