
Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality (2013) - Hooke
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/why-we-fightand-can-we-stop/309525/
======
jonathanliu
A good read and even more relevant today than when it was written in 2013. I
like that Wright does not suggest the world's moral ills could be solved if
only everyone would convert to his chosen school of utilitarianism.

The argument eventually concludes that the answer is bias neutralization
through metacognition aka self awareness. However, Wright acknowledges the
extreme time, effort, and desire necessary to overcome one's biases.

Although I can't force others to be less biased, I can work on becoming less
biased myself.

------
metrokoi
This is the problem with hypotheticals, they are never an accurate
representation of human psychology just like a ball ignoring air resistance.
The two problems are not the same, the human brain KNOWS that pushing a large
man onto tracks is not guaranteed to save the people on the trolley, even if a
researcher tells them it will. The subconscious recognition of that
uncertainty will affect the result. Flipping a switch is a guaranteed outcome,
one which cannot be swayed by subconscious thought.

In addition, one could also throw themselves on to the track in the second
problem, and if you decide to push the large man on to the track you will also
have to weigh the guilt of knowing you may have been able to stop it by
sacrificing yourself.

This is just one example, but it shows how such research is flawed. The human
brain isn't designed to think in terms of guaranteed outcomes, and a
researcher cannot assume that two decision are equal just because they say
they are.

~~~
pas
[https://www.reddit.com/r/VeryBadWizards/comments/7i1tyd/vsau...](https://www.reddit.com/r/VeryBadWizards/comments/7i1tyd/vsauce_set_up_a_reallife_trolley_problem_for_his/)

------
js2
> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral
> philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use?

The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a
mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do
to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule)

> It’s true that Greene is a utilitarian—believing (to oversimplify a bit)
> that what’s moral is what maximizes overall human happiness.

I prefer this formulation: what's moral is what minimizes overall human
suffering, now and in the foreseeable future.

> The rift was mended by putting the boys in non-zero-sum situations—giving
> them a common peril, such as a disruption in the water supply, that they
> could best confront together.

It's tragic that Covid19 hasn't united us. How did we end up fighting over
wearing masks? (This question is rhetorical.)

> Self-doubt can be the first step to moral improvement.

I mean yeah, but: “One of the painful things about our time is that those who
feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding
are filled with doubt and indecision.” — Bertrand Russell

This entire essay is premised on people wanting to get better. On having some
degree of curiosity and willingness for self-examination. I don't see a lot of
that in the world.

~~~
keiferski
The idea that a universal moral system is preferable to a hierarchical or
individually diversified one is itself a moral opinion which draws
significantly from the Christian universalist conception of human value. That
doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it certainly doesn’t make it culturally
universal.

The reduction of suffering is also not a universal aspiration; many thinkers
believe that meaningful suffering is desirable and necessary to form an
identity and find meaning in the universe.

“Only the English [philosophers] want to be happy.”

\- Friedrich Nietzsche

Personally I remain unconvinced that this drive to make everyone everywhere
look, act, and think the same way is desirable or conducive to actual
diversity. It mostly just makes the world less interesting; McDonalds and the
western business suit replacing centuries of local cuisines and clothing.
Solutions should instead focus on how to manage various ethical and cultural
values under the banner of a secularized political state. Otherwise you’ll get
secession and fracturing into smaller states, which are highly undesirable
from a geopolitical perspective (see: Germany and Italy prior to their
unifications in the 1800s.)

~~~
raxxorrax
I think Nietzsche was a great man and not nearly as judgmental as he conducted
himself. But I also believe the classical explanation that he had a problem
with his mother and that is the reason why he had such strong expectations
towards himself and others.

Nazis abused his writings but he wouldn't have like them of course. His
dislike for christian morals is understandable because he saw them as a form
of subjugation and contrary to emancipation. I think this grew to an
unfortunate amount of hatred later on. He is partially correct as are the
morals of Christianity in my opinion.

~~~
keiferski
Well I only invoked the quote as a response to universalism, not necessarily
as a reference to Nietzsche’s ideas in general.

But sure, I don’t agree with him on everything, and while I think his
diagnosis of Christianity is in many ways correct, it also is flawed in
others. Of course we have to differentiate between what Nietzsche actually
wrote and what the popular culture notion of his ideas is.

Otherwise, I don’t think I’d agree that his high expectations come from a
Freudian read of his childhood. For the most part they are pre-Socratic
Ancient Greek cultural values, especially _agon_ , which was a sort of
competition.

------
tux1968
> Maybe we’re approaching a point where we can actually harness this
> knowledge, make radical progress in how we treat one another, and become a
> species worthy of the title Homo sapiens.

These moral arguments always imply that we can pronounce the way things ought
to be and that it's just a matter of finding a way to make everyone conform to
the "correct" vision for humanity.

But there's a danger in homogeneous crops, flocks, and societies. Having
everyone pulling in the same direction will surely have unintended
consequences that may well do more harm than good when the final tally is
taken.

------
_0ffh
One key feature for human success was the adaptability of behavioural
patterns. Anything you find that's "hardwired" or heavily biased towards must
have been pretty universally positive to neutral along the way. In light of
that it would be more surprising than not to find very much in the way of
those.

------
082349872349872
Rather than expecting people to standardise beliefs, perhaps it would be
easier to identify a set of practices that make it easier for people with
different "moralities" to coexist?

[https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/)

~~~
javert
Most moralities are not mutually compatible.

For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is
collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to
compromise their morality.

BTW, I upvoted your comment.

~~~
ianleeclark
> For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is
> collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to
> compromise their morality.

Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks. You could have both an
individualist and a collectivist both be deontologists, utilitarians, or some
other framework.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
> 'Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks'.

Of course they are. Nozick begins Anarchy, State and Utopia with the
pronouncement that individual rights are absolute. Rawls begins A Theory of
Justice by claiming that justice is the first virtue of social institutions.
Their conflicting visions of political life are intimately related to the
value the place, respectively, on the value of the individual and the value of
the collective.

The triumvirate deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics is a useful
framework, especially pedagogically, as a parsimonious way of teaching ethics.
But actual ways in which humans have thought about ethical and political life
is far more complex, varied and interesting. If you tried to reduce Hegel,
early Javanese culture, or third-wave feminism to 'deontology, utilitarianism
and virtue ethics', you would get no where. The vast majority of people have
not thought in those terms, and so are misunderstood when read through those
terms.

------
justicezyx
It's no better example of the us and China ideology conflicts at play right
now...

Both sides believed the other cheated bullied and unfairly gained from
themselves...

~~~
FooBarWidget
Almost. China believes US is the bully, but I've never heard of anybody
believing the US unfairly gained.

~~~
082349872349872
Can you recommend any sources (selfishly I'll say preferably in a european
language) for relatively mainstream chinese viewpoints?

One might hope HN would provide a non-siloed venue including (one would guess,
self-selecting for relatively pro-western) chinese geeks, but as far as I've
seen, those who openly identify as such are discouraged.

~~~
fiblye
This sounds crazy, but /r/sino on reddit is pretty much as close as you'll get
to mainstream Chinese political thought in English. There's a very good chance
many of the people there are legitimate shills for the government, but I mean,
those are the state-sponsored and permitted opinions that they're presenting.
People going against the grain either don't talk or get silenced.

From an American perspective, the stuff said there is absolutely bizarre and
contradictory to virtually every talking point you'll hear from everybody
else, but it aligns very closely with what people I know who live in
China/still have strong ties to China say. Expect lots of cherry picked data
and extreme reaching just to prove a point. Though to be frank, that's
politics everywhere.

If you're frequently caught up in American/European politics, a few minutes of
reading discussions there might frustrate you, but it'll also make you think
because the viewpoints are so contrary to what most Westerners regard as the
norm.

~~~
FooBarWidget
I would not recommend /r/sino if you're looking for good discussions. It's an
echo chamber. Most of the guys there are blindly pro-China, blindly anti-
American. For better discussions and analysis, check my recommendations here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24035638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24035638)

~~~
fiblye
I mentioned /r/Sino because it's what you'll typically find on the Chinese
internet. It _is_ an echo chamber.

Try scrolling through weibo for an active discussion saying "Maybe Taiwan can
be its own country" or "Maybe China's policy of banning all foreign discussion
platforms isn't good." You might have a one off comment saying something like
that, but the moment multiple people talk about it, it is guaranteed to be
deleted _in the best case_. If the discussion gets too big, worse things will
happen. Oftentimes there'll be a discussion about something offending China by
simply existing, and the comments are just increasingly outlandish suggestions
of how everyone needs to retaliate.

/r/sino is just a mirror of the Chinese internet experience, in English. It's
like reading comments on a mainstream TV news site, but anyone who dares call
out the content as BS gets their comments instantly wiped.

~~~
FooBarWidget
Are there any places on Chinese Internet with more balanced discussions?

------
hairofadog
> “They fight not because they are fundamentally selfish but because they have
> incompatible visions of what a moral society should be.”

Agree. I think much of the conflict in the world today comes from the fact
that people on the left end of the political spectrum value empathy, while
people on the right value loyalty. It's difficult to find a common morality
when your hierarchy of values is misaligned.

~~~
galaxyLogic
> people on the right value loyalty

But loyalty to whom? To your group or tribe of course. The group as a whole
can be highly immoral raping and killing other groups. So loyalty does not
mean morality, even though as you suggest it may be the case that "right
values loyalty".

Left values empathy? Surely yes, but I would rather say the left values
equality of all human beings. Empathy follows from understanding that we are
all the same, and should therefore have equality in our dealings with the
society.

Loyalty is selfishness. You help those who have helped you in the past you
don't care about those who have not helped you in the past. Loyalty is mob-
mentality

