Thanks for the enjoyable and stimulating conversation, Ricardo. As to the comment by Paul Wolf below. I don't think hundred thousand years ago, the hunter-gatherers used moral communication to encourage cooperation. They probably just cooperated. Moral communication can be used to justify cooperation just as it can used to justify fending for yourself. These are two different things. Moral evolution theorists anachronistically impose a contemporary moral framework to rediscribe pre-historic events.
Hans-Georg, thanks for this excellent discussion of your work. Your thesis fits well with a point that I recall Steven Pinker making in a talk many years ago, on the topic of progress. He said, as morally-sensitive creatures, we envision "progress" coming about through some majestic, triumphant battle of "good" vs. "evil", in which the good guys win resoundingly, forcing the bad guys into submission. According to Pinker, most progress doesn't actually happen that way. It happens through a dissolution of conditions. As an example, Pinker shares the case of a nurse who accidentally hooked up the wrong tubes to each other during the provision of care, causing the patient to get the wrong medicine and die. Clearly, this incompetent nurse was not taking his/her job seriously enough!!! We might think that "progress" on the problem of medical incompetence or carelessness can only be achieved by expressing our anger and outrage loud enough so that, from now until eternity, no one will ever make such a mistake again. But real progress in such a case will more likely occur by designing the tips of the tubes so that the wrong ones do not fit together. To relate this example back to your discussion, the heavy moral valence of the situation, the perceived moral deficiency of the nurse as a human being, is a symptom of a problem that needs to be solved. We should be seeking to design a system so that we do not get to that point.
So if I understand what he means , morality for him is good and evil, rather than just good and bad. So when he says “overly moralizing language is bad for society” he doesn’t mean it in an evil-good deontology, but rather that societies just seem to do better without overly moral language. Isn’t this just the deontology vs utility debate in a different garb? Maybe I missed something...
Yep people who think there is definite order and morality are far too deep in the center of their culture, at least for trying to be impartially rational. Just look at nature- it is dog eat dog, no marriages to say the least lol *', every animal just has to survive and thrive at any cost. That's how the vast majority of the natural world works, and arguably what we best function in because our minds evolved mostly for that (whole nother discussion I didn't mean to bring up) but main point being- to most people the harshness and swiftness of death out of nowhere that is everywhere in nature may seem overly cruel, and maybe even evil to us in our delusions of what coexistence of animals seems should look like- but to animals it's just life. Survive or die is what they know, and ecosystems can thrive for millions and millions of years under that because it is brutal and sustainable I can go on, imo is arguable that it's a better way to go out in life (less painful, more merciful) to be eaten by a predator during their prime in life than slowly brutally decaying away from something as nasty and unnatural and inescapable as cancer. But to each their own *' ok there are certain species that mate for life for some reason or another, but those species seem to do it for protection of the family unit (like small rodents) or highly intelligent birds for some reason, but still the exception than the norm
American attorney here: We don't publicize names specifically to shame defendants, it has just always been done that way. Our justice system IS, however, extremely retributive, particularly the vicious and evil war on drugs. And some judges prescribe public shaming (standing on the roadside with a sign), unfortunately. I think we get that from the poison that is religion. D.A., J.D., NYC (attorney/ writer / atheist)
Thanks for the enjoyable and stimulating conversation, Ricardo. As to the comment by Paul Wolf below. I don't think hundred thousand years ago, the hunter-gatherers used moral communication to encourage cooperation. They probably just cooperated. Moral communication can be used to justify cooperation just as it can used to justify fending for yourself. These are two different things. Moral evolution theorists anachronistically impose a contemporary moral framework to rediscribe pre-historic events.
Hans-Georg, thanks for this excellent discussion of your work. Your thesis fits well with a point that I recall Steven Pinker making in a talk many years ago, on the topic of progress. He said, as morally-sensitive creatures, we envision "progress" coming about through some majestic, triumphant battle of "good" vs. "evil", in which the good guys win resoundingly, forcing the bad guys into submission. According to Pinker, most progress doesn't actually happen that way. It happens through a dissolution of conditions. As an example, Pinker shares the case of a nurse who accidentally hooked up the wrong tubes to each other during the provision of care, causing the patient to get the wrong medicine and die. Clearly, this incompetent nurse was not taking his/her job seriously enough!!! We might think that "progress" on the problem of medical incompetence or carelessness can only be achieved by expressing our anger and outrage loud enough so that, from now until eternity, no one will ever make such a mistake again. But real progress in such a case will more likely occur by designing the tips of the tubes so that the wrong ones do not fit together. To relate this example back to your discussion, the heavy moral valence of the situation, the perceived moral deficiency of the nurse as a human being, is a symptom of a problem that needs to be solved. We should be seeking to design a system so that we do not get to that point.
I read The Moral Fool this year. I found it fresh and healthy... close to my way of thinking in many respects.
Well this is unexpected, I just bought the book a few months ago too!
very good
First 20 mins were boring , just when I was about to tune out , it suddenly gets interesting.
👍
Tu é portuga?
So if I understand what he means , morality for him is good and evil, rather than just good and bad. So when he says “overly moralizing language is bad for society” he doesn’t mean it in an evil-good deontology, but rather that societies just seem to do better without overly moral language. Isn’t this just the deontology vs utility debate in a different garb?
Maybe I missed something...
Yep people who think there is definite order and morality are far too deep in the center of their culture, at least for trying to be impartially rational. Just look at nature- it is dog eat dog, no marriages to say the least lol *', every animal just has to survive and thrive at any cost. That's how the vast majority of the natural world works, and arguably what we best function in because our minds evolved mostly for that (whole nother discussion I didn't mean to bring up) but main point being- to most people the harshness and swiftness of death out of nowhere that is everywhere in nature may seem overly cruel, and maybe even evil to us in our delusions of what coexistence of animals seems should look like- but to animals it's just life. Survive or die is what they know, and ecosystems can thrive for millions and millions of years under that because it is brutal and sustainable
I can go on, imo is arguable that it's a better way to go out in life (less painful, more merciful) to be eaten by a predator during their prime in life than slowly brutally decaying away from something as nasty and unnatural and inescapable as cancer. But to each their own
*' ok there are certain species that mate for life for some reason or another, but those species seem to do it for protection of the family unit (like small rodents) or highly intelligent birds for some reason, but still the exception than the norm
American attorney here: We don't publicize names specifically to shame defendants, it has just always been done that way. Our justice system IS, however, extremely retributive, particularly the vicious and evil war on drugs. And some judges prescribe public shaming (standing on the roadside with a sign), unfortunately. I think we get that from the poison that is religion. D.A., J.D., NYC (attorney/ writer / atheist)