Freedomain Radio

UPB talks about how things like theft, deceit, murder cannot be posited by a moral theory to be "good" because this argument self-detonates.  Put another way, the idea that "X is good" (where X = {theft, deceit, murder}) is not consistent with reality.

This got me thinking that while the idea that these things are "good" is not consistent with reality, the knowledge that they can happen permeates our reality nonetheless.  I'd like to do a thought experiment in which none of the actions that we're labeling as "immoral" could possibly take place, and compare the resulting world to our present reality.  Or perhaps it would be more realistic to start with our present world, ponder removing immorality from it, and see what effects that has.

What I'm wondering is, if we can come up with ways in which our present reality - which includes the ever-present possibility of theft, rape and murder - is better than the imaginary world in which they're not possible, would that mean that although they clearly don't work as universal moral principles, they are being kept in the mix because their presence as threats somehow produces better results than if they weren't possible threats.  I think what I mean by "better" is that, much like with natural selection, it doesn't matter so much what we think, as what works, survives, and self-propagates in practice.  (We've used natural selection/"survival of the fittest" to remove God from biology; it seems to me that a similar line of reasoning could be used now to remove him from ethics.) 

I'm not saying I'm going to be happy with the results - I'm also not happy with the knowledge that if I enter a lion's den I'll likely get eaten - but I would like to increase my understanding of reality. (The reference to the lion's den alludes to the biblical story about Daniel.  Although I'm sure every human would like for there to be some God protecting them from lions should they ever enter a den, that desire doesn't make it such.  Survival of the fittest prevails.)

Perhaps, if we determine that (the threat of) "immoral" actions have somehow acted as driving forces in the development of the world, being the scientifically advanced humans we now are, we can think up more civil/effective ways of achieving those same ends.  Or better understand ways in which this is already happening.

What do you guys think?  Would this be an interesting line of reasoning to pursue?  Have I already gone astray somewhere?  I've got some ideas for the thought experiment brewing in my mind, but I wanted to see what people think of the hypothesis and methodology, before I start to flesh those out.

My instant thought was a world without immorality would also have to be a world without morality. Taking away the negative definition also takes away the opportunity for a positive definition. Actions would just be actions.

Then I realised we were thinking along the same lines........(?) I'm going to have to give it some more thought.

 

What about the physical conditions?

 

In order for there to be no such thing as murder, everyone has to be immortal. .  or unable to have any interaction with another person, aka universe of one

Without the concept of "immoral" - more importantly - without the psycho-biological desire to conform to what is "moral", you'd be free to act in any way you choose, without any conscience at all.

You'd feel fine with forcing the extraction of anything from anyone for any arbitrary reason you please, without a single *** on the conscience - because you wouldn't actually have one. Everything would become a calculation of short-term risks-versus-gains.

It wouldn't be a nightmare, because we wouldn't realize the difference. There'd be no distinction between love-making and rape. No distinction between affection and manipulation. No distinction between violence and peace. All actions would simply be "actions", meant to satisfy whatever perceived need was before us at the moment.

We'd be even less socially developed than Bonobos (see De Waal, Dawkins for more). Perhaps a good analogy would be that of a sea anemone.

 

GregG:

It wouldn't be a nightmare, because we wouldn't realize the difference. There'd be no distinction between love-making and rape. No distinction between affection and manipulation. No distinction between violence and peace. All actions would simply be "actions", meant to satisfy whatever perceived need was before us at the moment.

We'd be even less socially developed than Bonobos (see De Waal, Dawkins for more). Perhaps a good analogy would be that of a sea anemone.

 

@Greg: That was my initial thought too

@Allison: I think this is where it goes wrong;

Allison:

What I'm wondering is, if we can come up with ways in which our present reality - which includes the ever-present possibility of theft, rape and murder - is better than the imaginary world in which they're not possible, would that mean that although they clearly don't work as universal moral principles, they are being kept in the mix because their presence as threats somehow produces better results than if they weren't possible threats.

 

The actions would still be possible in the parrallel reality but just wouldn't be deemed immoral. The benchmark 'moral' would not exist. If you wanted to prove that our world is better, I think you have acheived that.

However, I think this question is more important and is still valid;

Allison:

Perhaps, if we determine that (the threat of) "immoral" actions have somehow acted as driving forces in the development of the world, being the scientifically advanced humans we now are, we can think up more civil/effective ways of achieving those same ends.  Or better understand ways in which this is already happening.

Proving the development of the world has been based on protection from the threat of "immoral" actions begs questions of all political, religious, litigious slave/master relationships. It's well worth some thought. Especially now there is an objective benchmark with which to measure against......

..... aren't we are all trying think up more civil/effective ways of acheiving development by applying UPB, logic and the scientific method?

Greg, I found some parts of your post confusing, could you elaborate for me?

 

GregG:

 

Everything would become a calculation of short-term risks-versus-gains.

Why short term?

GregG:

There'd be no distinction between love-making and rape. No distinction between affection and manipulation. No distinction between violence and peace.

 

I don't understand why this would be the case. Can you expand on it?

ash:

Greg, I found some parts of your post confusing, could you elaborate for me?

GregG:

Everything would become a calculation of short-term risks-versus-gains.

Why short term?

I believe the moral reasoning center of the brain is the same place where the capacity for projecting long-term consequences also resides. I suppose it might be possible that the latter could exist without the former (but not the other way 'round). You may have a point on that one...

ash:

GregG:

There'd be no distinction between love-making and rape. No distinction between affection and manipulation. No distinction between violence and peace.

I don't understand why this would be the case. Can you expand on it?

The loss of distinction would probably be, in fact, because of the loss of categories for these concepts - and perhaps even the concepts themselves. Our behavior, as a species, would boil down to nothing more than action-reaction interplays. If you were to, say, push me down and take my lunch, I might respond with certain emotionally driven behaviors (though, I fail to see why they'd exist at all) but either way, there would be no connection between my reaction and any evaluation of your behavior. Judgment would be pointless, since no judgment is possible, since "right" and "wrong" don't exist.

hazy:

The actions would still be possible in the parrallel reality but just wouldn't be deemed immoral. The benchmark 'moral' would not exist.

Hmm, that's not what I was going for, though.  I was going for a world in which those actions that we currently deem "immoral" never happen.  What this would do to our concept of morality, I'm not sure.  Do you think my desired line of reasoning is even possible?

OK, so if it were put in these terms;

January 01 2010 there was a magical line drawn in history. The line represents the start of a period whereby no actions deemed immoral in the prior 6000 years can occur. An extensive record of history already exists from which all humans are programmed to short circuit right at the point of immoral action. Rendering each person physically incapable of anything immoral.

From a biological standpoint is it more efficient to allow humans to exist and evolve morality or submit entirely from 01 Jan 2010 to a devine programmer? I really don't mean to sound curt, I just can't think of any other way to put this....... but is the experiment beginning to sound a little too familiar???

 

Allison:

hazy:

The actions would still be possible in the parrallel reality but just wouldn't be deemed immoral. The benchmark 'moral' would not exist.

Hmm, that's not what I was going for, though.  I was going for a world in which those actions that we currently deem "immoral" never happen.  What this would do to our concept of morality, I'm not sure.  Do you think my desired line of reasoning is even possible?

Hopefully this isnt sidetracking the thread too much, but this reminded me of something I listened to about psychopathy and its evolutionary benefits. The author put forward the idea that psychopathy is an evolutionary adaptation and thus it would be near impossible to ever not have psychopaths around. I don't particularly agree with the argument but I thought it was a good argument anyway.

As a thought experiment, lets simplify this world to a town where everyone is good. Noone would bother locking their doors when they left the house because there would be no theft etc. Now, in an environment like this, somebody adapting and becoming a theif is hugely beneficial in terms of aquisition of resources, far more so than someone becoming a theif in a 'regular' town. Because of this, there will probably always be a level of immorality because the better society gets, the larger the incentive to do bad.

ash:

the better society gets, the larger the incentive to do bad.

Well, unless society is armed.

It seems to me that the inherent problem with this thought experiment is that every human being would have to be identical in their interests and their way of thinking, because different people measure morals differently.

Allison:

Hmm, that's not what I was going for, though.  I was going for a world in which those actions that we currently deem "immoral" never happen.  What this would do to our concept of morality, I'm not sure.  Do you think my desired line of reasoning is even possible?

 

I could have it wrong of course but it seems to me that if we live in a world where immoral actions never happen then we would just live in a moral world. I can't see how immoral actions not happening could change our idea of morality because these things are immoral simply by the fact that they cannot be logically applied universally as a moral principal. If nobody ever rapes anyone its not like it becomes neutral or moral to rape. Its still immoral just nobody does it. It also wouldn't change the moral nature of any other rule that fails the UPB test.