Reminding ourselves of how we came to have the values we have
December 25, 2024 2:07 AM Subscribe
Several ancient epics would be a lot shorter if all it took to reconcile the feuding brothers was a reminder of their shared lineage. Unfortunately, our origin stories don’t tell us how to resolve any particular ethical dispute. The essence of such disputes, as with the fratricidal wars of the ancients, is that they are between factions who share the same psychology, the same history, the same aspirations. The history that made us into creatures capable of coöperation also gave us the capacity to hate one another in the aggregate, to draw sharp lines dividing the in-group from the out-group. Sauer’s book may cast a gloomier light than he acknowledges. Our capacity for endless conflict may be just as much a part of our inheritance as is our ability, every now and then, to get along. from Does Morality Do Us Any Good? [The New Yorker; ungated]
comparing nietzsche to a sausage factory? [g]
ok
our origin stories don’t tell us how to resolve any particular ethical dispute. The essence of such disputes, as with the fratricidal wars of the ancients, is that they are between factions who share the same psychology, the same history, the same aspirations
wu-wei? 無為
[1000wordphilosophy (content note: literal sausage-making)]
Does Morality Do Us Any Good?
tl;dr: yes
posted by HearHere at 3:47 AM on December 25, 2024 [3 favorites]
ok
our origin stories don’t tell us how to resolve any particular ethical dispute. The essence of such disputes, as with the fratricidal wars of the ancients, is that they are between factions who share the same psychology, the same history, the same aspirations
wu-wei? 無為
[1000wordphilosophy (content note: literal sausage-making)]
Does Morality Do Us Any Good?
tl;dr: yes
posted by HearHere at 3:47 AM on December 25, 2024 [3 favorites]
Does Morality Do Us Any Good?
*stabs brother* Well, it certainly would have helped him …
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 6:21 AM on December 25, 2024 [6 favorites]
*stabs brother* Well, it certainly would have helped him …
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 6:21 AM on December 25, 2024 [6 favorites]
I like genealogy. So long as you don't make the mistake of taking apart a car engine, determining that no individual piece could make the car go on it's own, and then deciding that engines must not make the car go.
I'm generally not interested in pre-histoic evolutionary explanations of human society, though. They're a step up from religious origin stories, to be sure, but still unnecessary. I think they're interesting enough when they're strongly empirically grounded, (e.g., Behave) but that empirical grounding forestalls big conclusions and grand philosphizing that seem to motivate origin stories in the first place.
Also, I'm totally unmotivated by the opening skeptical line about ostensive post facto rationalization in formation of moral beliefs: if you form, or are taught, beliefs as a child, when you're physically awful at reasoning, of course this will happen. Not a knock on morality. The rationalizations you learn later in life, if you've actually learned them, will give those childhood beliefs depth and subtlety that a child's simplistic and binary world view doesn't have. If you don't do the "post facto" rationalization work, you will at best maintain your moral simplicity and at worst be knocked off a correct belief for a dumb reason. Not to mention people do change their childhood moral beliefs for reasons. So I don't think that general phenomena should cause skepticism about morality and I guess I tend to dismiss people who buy into that, although maybe there's more to it than I think.
As usual, since Hume is mentioned I have to comment. I feel like I encounter so frequently, especially when people mention morality, the idea that construction and artifice somehow detract from the reality, truth, or significance of a thing. Not so! Glad the article and Sauer's book don't fall into this.
Adam Tooze incorporates this insight in his approach to economic history:
posted by Hume at 6:37 AM on December 25, 2024 [6 favorites]
I'm generally not interested in pre-histoic evolutionary explanations of human society, though. They're a step up from religious origin stories, to be sure, but still unnecessary. I think they're interesting enough when they're strongly empirically grounded, (e.g., Behave) but that empirical grounding forestalls big conclusions and grand philosphizing that seem to motivate origin stories in the first place.
Also, I'm totally unmotivated by the opening skeptical line about ostensive post facto rationalization in formation of moral beliefs: if you form, or are taught, beliefs as a child, when you're physically awful at reasoning, of course this will happen. Not a knock on morality. The rationalizations you learn later in life, if you've actually learned them, will give those childhood beliefs depth and subtlety that a child's simplistic and binary world view doesn't have. If you don't do the "post facto" rationalization work, you will at best maintain your moral simplicity and at worst be knocked off a correct belief for a dumb reason. Not to mention people do change their childhood moral beliefs for reasons. So I don't think that general phenomena should cause skepticism about morality and I guess I tend to dismiss people who buy into that, although maybe there's more to it than I think.
As usual, since Hume is mentioned I have to comment. I feel like I encounter so frequently, especially when people mention morality, the idea that construction and artifice somehow detract from the reality, truth, or significance of a thing. Not so! Glad the article and Sauer's book don't fall into this.
Adam Tooze incorporates this insight in his approach to economic history:
The aim of understanding how data is created is not to debunk those data as merely “constructed” or “imagined”. ...the relationship between statistics and economic reality is similar in that the data tell us about the world because they are mechanically related to it, built into it, integrated, part of it within it. I think of power and knowledge not as forces or capacities that are given, or born, or appear to us in a “flash”. They are made; not inherited, but constantly innovated. Everything we do as analysts, as journalists, or in any other capacity, is immersed in the same process of the making of things, the making of representations of things, and the making of things that are representations.I think morality is, on some important level, the same as Tooze's analysis of economic data here.
posted by Hume at 6:37 AM on December 25, 2024 [6 favorites]
Easy to imagine the author thinking, who can I pitch this to that would definitely buy it?
posted by mhoye at 6:38 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 6:38 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]
At the end of the French version of "The Aristocrats", the agent (now a French Female Little Person) watches as the perforrmers freeze in a Picasso-esque tableau, turns to the camera, lights a cigarette and takes a long pull before exhaling and says, to the camera: "La morale nous fait-elle du bien ?" (subtitled "Does Morality Do Us Any Good?") and walks off. Cut to close-up of performers, frozen mis-en-scene, only their eyes moving as they watch the agent walk away. The sound of a door opening and shutting is heard. Fade to black, subtitles remain ... Fin.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 6:43 AM on December 25, 2024 [6 favorites]
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 6:43 AM on December 25, 2024 [6 favorites]
When the New Yorker starts inquiring whether morality does us any good and uses "people who won't be forced to eat tofu" as the equivalent of "people who hate immigrants", you can tell the reaction is in full swing.
People want there to be nothing to morality, and want there to be an inevitable back and forth between "sides" so that they can lick the boot and feel good about it. It's inevitable! Humans are just like that!
Perhaps the really relevant link here is Who Goes Nazi, unfortunately not now a parlor game.
posted by Frowner at 6:58 AM on December 25, 2024 [23 favorites]
People want there to be nothing to morality, and want there to be an inevitable back and forth between "sides" so that they can lick the boot and feel good about it. It's inevitable! Humans are just like that!
Perhaps the really relevant link here is Who Goes Nazi, unfortunately not now a parlor game.
posted by Frowner at 6:58 AM on December 25, 2024 [23 favorites]
In the Python version of the Aristocrats, the "Fin" freezes onscreen and as the camera pulls away, it is shown to be a black-and-white photograph in a book held by John Cleese, dressed as a vicar. A *thwack* is heard as he winces and the camera continues pulling away as he says "Does Morality *thwack* *wince* Do Us Any Good?" and the spanker is revealed to be Terry Gilliam, dressed as a workman, clearly not enjoying his job, holding a cricket bat, spanking Cleese's bare bum. Camera slides right to Terry Jones, who breaks into an absolutely fabulous version of "Jerusalem" on a pipe organ. Fade to black ...
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 7:02 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 7:02 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]
In the BBC version, the a director is heard, yelling "Cut" and the performers stop.
The camera begins slowly pulling back and reveals the room to be a set in a studio, as James Burke walks into the foreground asks "Does morality do us any good?"
Behind him, the performers begin drying off, cleaning up, and in one case, licking themself (the dog).
"It's a question philosophers have asked thru the ages. In fact, that question is the basis behind, basically, all the world's religions. Those religions establish rules for moralities, based on local customs and needs."
Behind him, police kick in the door and begin arresting everyone in the room, walking them out, dragging them off, etc.
"Humans are a social creature, forming tribes - groups of people who share those customs and needs based on a variety of factors, principally geography, but this expands as time progresses to encompass other factors far beyond the merely religious. Rules and requirements are adopted unconsciously and imperfectly by other persons around the core tribe and this provides a safety net for the preservation of the tribe. By that estimation, we can only conclude that the answer is ..."
Behind him, a policeman puts a leash on the dog and walks him out, as the door shuts.
"Yes."
Fade to a BBC 1970's dark grey.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 7:37 AM on December 25, 2024 [8 favorites]
The camera begins slowly pulling back and reveals the room to be a set in a studio, as James Burke walks into the foreground asks "Does morality do us any good?"
Behind him, the performers begin drying off, cleaning up, and in one case, licking themself (the dog).
"It's a question philosophers have asked thru the ages. In fact, that question is the basis behind, basically, all the world's religions. Those religions establish rules for moralities, based on local customs and needs."
Behind him, police kick in the door and begin arresting everyone in the room, walking them out, dragging them off, etc.
"Humans are a social creature, forming tribes - groups of people who share those customs and needs based on a variety of factors, principally geography, but this expands as time progresses to encompass other factors far beyond the merely religious. Rules and requirements are adopted unconsciously and imperfectly by other persons around the core tribe and this provides a safety net for the preservation of the tribe. By that estimation, we can only conclude that the answer is ..."
Behind him, a policeman puts a leash on the dog and walks him out, as the door shuts.
"Yes."
Fade to a BBC 1970's dark grey.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 7:37 AM on December 25, 2024 [8 favorites]
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity:
The laws of nature, as applied to stones or trees, may only mean "what Nature, in fact, does." But if you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behaviour, it is a different matter. That law certainly does not mean "what human beings, in fact, do"; for as I said before, many of them do not obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not. …posted by Lemkin at 8:16 AM on December 25, 2024 [4 favorites]
Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing— a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real—a real law, which none of as made, but which we find pressing on us. …
If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe— no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?
Check out the big brain on Brad
posted by ginger.beef at 8:30 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by ginger.beef at 8:30 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]
I love it when the writer's first line of the entire story is just wrong: "Nothing kills your appetite, they say, like discovering how the sausage is made."
Quite the contrary, the more people know about how sausage is made, the more they like it. Hobbyists and master saucissiers simply adore a good sausage, and will talk your ear off about how to feed and care for a pig and what kind of knives are best used to convert said pig to said sausage.
And the book appears to be "here's the latest bunch of laymen evopscych about altruism" with a weird contrast of people to chimpanzees, which fails to note that chimps' high levels of intraspecific rancor and low level of altruism is a rather outlier in the animal kingdom where we very often observe large quantities of cooperation and what (were they sentient) would be regarded as self-sacrifice for the good of the closely-genetically-related.
posted by MattD at 8:39 AM on December 25, 2024 [7 favorites]
Quite the contrary, the more people know about how sausage is made, the more they like it. Hobbyists and master saucissiers simply adore a good sausage, and will talk your ear off about how to feed and care for a pig and what kind of knives are best used to convert said pig to said sausage.
And the book appears to be "here's the latest bunch of laymen evopscych about altruism" with a weird contrast of people to chimpanzees, which fails to note that chimps' high levels of intraspecific rancor and low level of altruism is a rather outlier in the animal kingdom where we very often observe large quantities of cooperation and what (were they sentient) would be regarded as self-sacrifice for the good of the closely-genetically-related.
posted by MattD at 8:39 AM on December 25, 2024 [7 favorites]
Quite the contrary, the more people know about how sausage is made, the more they like it.
Only if they start the book in the second chapter.
posted by Lemkin at 8:41 AM on December 25, 2024 [3 favorites]
Only if they start the book in the second chapter.
posted by Lemkin at 8:41 AM on December 25, 2024 [3 favorites]
The real Lord of the Flies:
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-real-lord-of-flies.html
William Golding’s Lord of the Flies depicts a cynical image of humanity but socialists from all over the world have held a more hopeful view of mankind.
The real Lord of the Flies is a tale of friendship and loyalty; one that illustrates how much stronger we are if we can lean on each other. There were six of us who had been castaways on ‘Ata an uninhabited island near Tonga for 15 months. The boys were students at a boarding school in Nuku‘alofa, the Tongan capital....
posted by aleph at 8:42 AM on December 25, 2024 [8 favorites]
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-real-lord-of-flies.html
William Golding’s Lord of the Flies depicts a cynical image of humanity but socialists from all over the world have held a more hopeful view of mankind.
The real Lord of the Flies is a tale of friendship and loyalty; one that illustrates how much stronger we are if we can lean on each other. There were six of us who had been castaways on ‘Ata an uninhabited island near Tonga for 15 months. The boys were students at a boarding school in Nuku‘alofa, the Tongan capital....
posted by aleph at 8:42 AM on December 25, 2024 [8 favorites]
Even as New Yorker radical centrism goes, this one's a doozie.
We even begin to extend our moral concerns beyond the human, newly troubled at the thought of factory farms that made possible the cheap burgers on which we once cheerfully gorged.
Yet that vaunted expansion itself creates a new out-group, the deplorables who, say, persist in voting against greater immigration or who won’t sit quietly and eat their tofu. In other words, we learn to define the out-group—the people we don’t have to care about, rather like the orcs in a fantasy video game—by its moral failings. The in-group is diverse in terms of race and gender, but morally homogeneous.
So the real problem is not the people who scream for mass deportations, but rather the normal, decent, diverse, non-immigrant hating people because they're 'morally homogeneous'.
In the spirit of the day: Jesus Fucking Christ.
posted by signal at 8:47 AM on December 25, 2024 [11 favorites]
We even begin to extend our moral concerns beyond the human, newly troubled at the thought of factory farms that made possible the cheap burgers on which we once cheerfully gorged.
Yet that vaunted expansion itself creates a new out-group, the deplorables who, say, persist in voting against greater immigration or who won’t sit quietly and eat their tofu. In other words, we learn to define the out-group—the people we don’t have to care about, rather like the orcs in a fantasy video game—by its moral failings. The in-group is diverse in terms of race and gender, but morally homogeneous.
So the real problem is not the people who scream for mass deportations, but rather the normal, decent, diverse, non-immigrant hating people because they're 'morally homogeneous'.
In the spirit of the day: Jesus Fucking Christ.
posted by signal at 8:47 AM on December 25, 2024 [11 favorites]
When Biden announced the “force people to silently consume tofu” initiative, I knew it would backfire.
posted by Lemkin at 9:21 AM on December 25, 2024 [7 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 9:21 AM on December 25, 2024 [7 favorites]
"Does morality do us any good?"
yeah, I guess. It helps me anyway.
I guess.
I do tend to operate from various internal (or wherever they come from) directives that I've somehow evolved over my six plus decades fumbling (sometimes crashing and burning, other times swaggering, dancing even) through this thing known as life.
What doesn't seem to work is imposing my particular directives on others, demanding the same from them as myself. Two old friends come to mind who don't really know each other beyond an occasional crossing of paths. Yet they've both managed to evolve similar psyches which compel them to moralize, to consciously judge the actions and characters of others based on their own (admittedly quite exemplary) moral codes. But the thing is -- I see it causing them more grief than anything else. They spin off into fierce and righteous rages, they fire well intentioned volleys ... which unfortunately often have the character of shotgun blasts -- they don't always hit just the intended target. Morality can be a real bastard in this regard. Not good for anyone in the vicinity, including the one with the gun.
Anyway (he said, consciously lapsing into a sort of relativism), I guess this is why I try to never use the "M" word (morality) in polite discussion (or impolite for that matter). Not because I don't, to a large degree, operate from it, but because I just don't see how it serves toward the greater good of all humankind (TM) once it actually leaves the sphere of my personal thoughts and reflections and enters into the wild. Shit's just way too complex out there.
Speaking of which, I don't think the sausage making analogy is very good here. Sausage making is complicated, for sure, but not complex. Because I could do some research, find a recipe, gather the necessary ingredients and be making my own sausage before the week was out. It'd be messy at first, disgusting even, but very much do-able. Reconciling complexity on the other hand, is nothing like this. And morality is definitely complex. There are no agreed upon recipes or ingredients. Nobody even knows what it is -- not really.
oh well, whatever ...
posted by philip-random at 9:24 AM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
yeah, I guess. It helps me anyway.
I guess.
I do tend to operate from various internal (or wherever they come from) directives that I've somehow evolved over my six plus decades fumbling (sometimes crashing and burning, other times swaggering, dancing even) through this thing known as life.
What doesn't seem to work is imposing my particular directives on others, demanding the same from them as myself. Two old friends come to mind who don't really know each other beyond an occasional crossing of paths. Yet they've both managed to evolve similar psyches which compel them to moralize, to consciously judge the actions and characters of others based on their own (admittedly quite exemplary) moral codes. But the thing is -- I see it causing them more grief than anything else. They spin off into fierce and righteous rages, they fire well intentioned volleys ... which unfortunately often have the character of shotgun blasts -- they don't always hit just the intended target. Morality can be a real bastard in this regard. Not good for anyone in the vicinity, including the one with the gun.
Anyway (he said, consciously lapsing into a sort of relativism), I guess this is why I try to never use the "M" word (morality) in polite discussion (or impolite for that matter). Not because I don't, to a large degree, operate from it, but because I just don't see how it serves toward the greater good of all humankind (TM) once it actually leaves the sphere of my personal thoughts and reflections and enters into the wild. Shit's just way too complex out there.
Speaking of which, I don't think the sausage making analogy is very good here. Sausage making is complicated, for sure, but not complex. Because I could do some research, find a recipe, gather the necessary ingredients and be making my own sausage before the week was out. It'd be messy at first, disgusting even, but very much do-able. Reconciling complexity on the other hand, is nothing like this. And morality is definitely complex. There are no agreed upon recipes or ingredients. Nobody even knows what it is -- not really.
oh well, whatever ...
posted by philip-random at 9:24 AM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
“La moral es un árbol que da moras, o sirve para pura chingada”
Gonzalo N. Santos, notorious Mexican despot.
posted by Dr. Curare at 9:26 AM on December 25, 2024 [1 favorite]
Gonzalo N. Santos, notorious Mexican despot.
posted by Dr. Curare at 9:26 AM on December 25, 2024 [1 favorite]
Morality has utility, but the author is wrong to presume our rules are derived entirely from evolution. Thousands of years of fluid interpretations of right and wrong around sexuality, identity, slavery, murder, how we wage war, etc. should disabuse every reader of the notion that much of it is hard-coded. It is situational and always has been.
There's definitely a core of our behavior that is wired, which researchers like Milgram and Skinner only started to get into in the mid- and late-1900s. That we still don't appreciate or want to investigate too deeply into the ways in which we are easily manipulated by a few others should perhaps scare us more than philosophers bullshitting about an always-shifting moral code.
Happy holidays, all.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:36 PM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
There's definitely a core of our behavior that is wired, which researchers like Milgram and Skinner only started to get into in the mid- and late-1900s. That we still don't appreciate or want to investigate too deeply into the ways in which we are easily manipulated by a few others should perhaps scare us more than philosophers bullshitting about an always-shifting moral code.
Happy holidays, all.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:36 PM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
"Does morality do us any good?"
The irony here is that the question itself is a moral question.
It requires a consequentialist perspective to even answer it.
I don't know if that proves the point, or if it renders the very question circular.
posted by yellowcandy at 12:56 PM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
The irony here is that the question itself is a moral question.
It requires a consequentialist perspective to even answer it.
I don't know if that proves the point, or if it renders the very question circular.
posted by yellowcandy at 12:56 PM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
"Does morality do us any good?"
yeah, I guess. It helps me anyway.
Me and you both, I guess.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:00 PM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
yeah, I guess. It helps me anyway.
Me and you both, I guess.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:00 PM on December 25, 2024 [2 favorites]
« Older Bittersweet Legacy of the Bandanese People | How Did They Ever Make A Movie Of "The Cement... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nofundy at 3:31 AM on December 25, 2024 [5 favorites]