[Ham] When you talk about morality in terms of "effective strategies", "manipulation of collective behavior", and "social strategies that work", you're running on a different track than I am.
[Krimel] We are running on different tracks? Now there's a revelation. My point is that you seem to think that social order must be imposed by "force". Or that it must been "enforced". Now this is a misleading term from the get go. Given the time and place in which I leave I am "forced" to own an automobile. Job opportunities, food supplies, the geographical disbursement of family and friend all make walking or biking impractical. Public transportation is all but nonexistent. No one holds a gun to my head or throws me into a vehicle and pummels me until I make it move but I am never the less "forced" to own and automobile. But that is not a sense of the word "force" that makes sense to me. I would reserve "force" and "enforce" to mean physical violence or the threat of physical violence. Further I would say that societies that rely on "force" and "enforcement" in this sense do not succeed. They are impractical as people are very clever are circumventing "force" of this kind. As I said I think we can judge society to a certain extent but the degree of "force" required to maintain it. On the other hand my point is that societies, especially successful societies that persist for centuries, do not rely on force to produce social control. Loyalty, love, respect, excellence, devotion, mutual self interest and the like are far more effective means of "forcing" social behavior. Humans do not exist in isolation. The only ape species that comes anywhere close to living solitary lives are orangutans. Almost all other primate species live in social groups. Your claim that some how individuals are at odds with society, is nothing more than a Randian fantasy. > [Krimel] > A moral system that favors some at the expense of others, > or that ignores some altogether is not a moral system > in my opinion. [Ham] Sounds like a defnition of "affirmative action" to me, a decidedly "unjust" system. [Krimel] I was thinking more along the lines of a society that approves of monopolies and confer tax benefits on the rich while it lets the disabled, widows and orphans languish in poverty. Or legally designates some of its members as three fifths of a person or denies suffrage to half its members. When for centuries such a society has committed such gross violations of its own sacred principles, then some kind of remediation might be in order and some injustice will not doubt result. But the injustice it seeks to redress is far greater. If you have a plan for righting centuries of legally sanctioned violations of basic human rights I am sure we would all love to hear it. [Ham] Statistical surveys of public attitudes, life expectancies, and consumer preferences neither define nor express human behavior. They only plot numbers. I seem to recall that you are a systems analyst, and it shows through in all your assertions. To wit ... [Krimel] That's just ridiculous. First of all I am a wizard and nothing I have ever said would suggest that I am a systems analyst. I am not even sure what that is. Statistics certainly do describe what people actually do and are likely to do. The bell curve eloquently shows not only the mostly likely behaviors people will exhibit but the range of possible behaviors in given situations. Numbers of this sort can also be applied to individuals. My monthly credit card bills and phone records, attendance records at work and school and the temporary internet files on my computers, quantify what I have done and are good indicators of what I am likely to do. These quantitative measures are often at odds with what I say I would do or even what I actually believe about what I do. [Ham] Why this specificity about numbers? The Prisoner's Dilemma involved only two suspects to illustrate a moral principle. What's the special qualification for 150 people? It would appear that you have a systemic view of morality as opposed to my "microcosmic" view, and we're talking at cross-purposes. Your moral thrust is that of an efficient, smoothly running system, whereas my concern is the freedom of the individual. Morality is not law, and it is certainly not achieved by social engineering. [Krimel] The specificity of number is attractive to me personally because it provides both clarity and precision. I am not going to go over the Prisoner's Dilemma with you. You can do it on your own time. The number 150 is special because given the archeological evidence and evidence from modern hunter gather societies, than is the number of people that have lived in human social groups for the vast span of time that humans have existed on this planet. We lived under those conditions for so long that it is fair to say that this is the number of people we are equipped by evolution to interact with. This number corresponds in historic times and in the modern era with the size of military and corporate personnel units and the number of entries in people's cell phone directories... More importantly in groups of this size no formal "moral" codes are needed. People interact with one another on the basis of personal acquaintance. Group membership and identification with a group is not formalize because every member of the group knows every other member, personally. Everyone else is a stranger. Within group violence is limited; while between groups violence may be frequent. Moral codes emerge of necessity when the size of communities becomes so large that we can't know personally all of the members of our group. Formal codes emerge to mediate and make predictable interactions among strangers. [Ham] Since the confusion here relates to our respective ontologies, let me clarify my position: 1. There is no Universal Moral Principle. At best, morality is an intellectual scheme designed by humans to minimize social conflicts. [Krimel] But we just discussed the remarkable fact that there do indeed seem to be Universal Moral Principles. The Golden Rule in one form or another seems to be one such. I would add that prohibitions against incest might qualify as another. Or how about the fact that no people on record, with the possible exception of modern America, have advocated neglecting the young. [Ham] 2. All human actions originate as a response to proprietary values. When the perceived values are shared by others, there is no need for moral guidelines. Such accord may be found in societies with a common cultural heritage, and are least likely in "mixed" societies with strongly held but disparate belief systems. [Krimel] With the exception of hunter gathers all "cultures" have formal moral codes. See above. Of course each individual's responses are based on the contingencies of the circumstances we find ourselves in and our past histories in similar circumstances. None of this is strictly speaking within our personal control and our range of personal freedom to act is highly circumscribed. [Ham] 3. Since value is proprietary to the individual, the ideal solution to social conflicts would be a "universal philosophy" based on fundamental (innate, authentic) human values, including the sanctity of life, individual freedom, and rational (responsible, ethical) conduct. [Krimel] The "ideal solution"? "Universal philosophy"? I suspect Platt would spot a latent Marxist in those phrases. But there is nothing universal to be found in the items you list. Sanctity of life? Whose life? Strangers? Criminals? Enemies? During the vast span of human existence up until about 100 years ago death was capricious. Disease, accident, combat all fell on the just and the unjust alike. Individual freedom? To do what? To steal? To lie? To deprive the disadvantaged? To covet your neighbor's spouse? To leave one's family? To shit in the middle of town? Freedom of action is always the individual's prerogative. The consequences for such action have always been socially mediated. [Ham] This would be quite simple to achieve, were it not for individuals obsessed with power or xenophobia, indoctrinated to notions of sin or idolatry, or living in mortal fear of failing to appease a deity. While some of these anomalies may require psychiatric treatment, a valuistic philosophy adopted by the community of mankind would go a long way toward resolving our social inequities. [Krimel] If this were "quite simple to achieve" then some time, some where, some people would have achieved it. I would say that as close as we have come to this ideal of human freedom was in tribal societies when personal interactions were personally negotiated. The valuistic philosophy you describe only seems reasonable to you from the stand point of your personal history. Your inability to see beyond this and to see that other people, Arabs for example, do not see things the way you do. They do not share your understanding of what is right or of what is good or of what it means to be an individual human being. To claim that they are evil because your point of view is "universal" and "moral" is self serving and anachronistic. [Ham] This is where I'm coming from, Krimel. Where are you? [Krimel] I come from planet Earth where black and white are idealized extremes of gray. On planet Earth, shit happens. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. Some times justice is served and sometimes it is something we just dream about. I live in a world that is predictable within limits and while we have increased our powers of prediction they are by no means absolute. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
