From Michael Fuchs               Mar 24, 01 03:19:11 PM -0800
To: sc@ewav.com (Scott Christensen)
Cc: jfk@stanfordalumni.org (Jeremy Kassis),
        cpoplawski@yahoo.com (Chad Poplawski),
        alex@heublein.net (Alexander Heublein)
Subject: Re: Musings upon the notions of morality and other evolutionarily related things


Scott Christensen intrepidly averred:
> 
> Kassis said
> later on in his email that morality is negotiated and that is true. What
> we consider right and wrong is partly built in to every human being, as
> described in TMA, leading to the enormous similarities in all human
> philosophical tradtions. Partly it's negotiated based on cultural
> experiences leading to the unique differences in those philosophical
> traditions.

Well, it seems we have a plurality (if not a quorum . . .). Morality as
strongly genetically influenced, with cultural negotiation being the
final word, really does seem to have the virtue of accuracy.


> Perhaps we shouldn't be using the word "morality" if it's all whim as
> the word has too many absolute connotations to it.

Wright might, come to think of, applaud us throwing the "absolutism"
out of morality. As he points out, we're somewhat built to get
ourselves into these self-righteous lathers, absolutely convinced not
only that something out there is Platonically, absolutely "right"--but
that we know what it is.


> Mindshare of ideas is the place where all the really interesting
> activity is taking place these days. Memes are generated at a furious
> rate and live and die at an equally furious rate

I was pretty cool on memetics until I read Daniel Dennett's _Darwin's
Dangerous Idea_ (highly recommended) recently. He pointed out to me that
*evolution is simply an algorithmic (ie mathematical) process that is
SUBSTRATE-NEUTRAL*. Being instantiated in genes is not what makes it
evolution by natural selection. It can instantiate in arrangements of
protein neural networks (ie our brains). I got a lot warmer on memetics
once that was pointed out to me.


> . . . you can never convince anyone with the argument that your
> morality is the better solution if you're going to say that there's no
> real reason for this to be so other than that you would like it to be
> that way. "Everyone should be nice to people because it would be nicer
> if everyone were nice to people" for instance will never fly in the
> marketplace of ideas because it doesn't have any emotional impact.
> People might agree but they'll never _believe_ it deep down.

Granted. BUT . . . are we really better off with people believing
fervently in an absolute morality? I don't have to point out all the
shit THAT has gotten us historically. What if we all just agreed that we
need to agree on some basic (or, heck, even specific) moral principles
in order to go on with things (our lives, having a nation, etc.)?

I'm an interesting proponent of this idea--because I cling pretty
strongly to some absolute moral beliefs. For instance, I believe it is
always wrong to lie, cheat, or steal. But is it important to me that
these be *absolutely* wrong? What if I just said that lying, cheating,
and stealing suck? What have I lost?

What have I maybe even gained?

These, imo, are very interesting questions.


> . . . tends to make me think
> that there really is a god but he only cares about comedy.

That goes straight to my quotes collection.


> The only problem is that genetic
> imperatives almost never produce happiness for very long. As mentioned
> in TMA they almost invariably compel you on to further striving and
> conflict. The long sought after goal of most people I think is
> contentment but contentment is death in the eyes of evolution. Without
> the striving and growing there is an inexorable decline.

True, true, true. Ye old happiness treadmill. Jeremy has had a great
insight on what we do about the HT. He noted that there are two
solutions. 1) You can just get the fuck off. This is renunciation, the
path taken by Sidartha, Lao Tzu, monks, etc. They deny the "acquisitive
monkey" of the ego, shut their ears to his cries. 2), and this is very
interesting, is you can *match your pace to that of the treadmill*. Ie,
you make sure you're always making measured progress, thus constantly
triggering the "happiness module" (whose job it is to keep us making
progress). Jeremy (borrowing from I forget who) calls this "flow."


> to play devil's advocate for a moment, making ethics subjective
> completely destroys the idea of ethics/morality/whatever. There isn't
> any point in ever mentioning the word if it can take on any feature at
> all.

Here comes the (previously foreshadowed) assault. And it's got some
momentum.


> In the earliest days of humanity "one of us" was totally gene dependent.
> Small groups of people were small pockets of similar genes. As minds
> evolved memes took over and turned "one of us" into a much larger
> notion.

The "expanding circle of compassion," right. Moreover, you've touched on
what I think is the only refutation to Wright's refutation of group
selection: Group selection works if the members of the group, for the
most part, have genes in common. The tribe functions as an organism.


> There is no inconsistency with toturing of slaves and ethics in that
> context because slaves were never one of the group. They simply didn't
> matter and only matter now that memes which encompass all human beings
> have taken over the Western world. Gengis Khan could pile 40,000 heads
> at a city gate with little compunction because those people never fit
> into the one of us category

True, true. This is actually a good example (or, rather, I am) of using
knowledge of this to make improvements. I've always perceived a very
strong clannish streak in myself. There are a few people with whom I'm
intimate and care for deeply, and the other 6 billion I just don't give
a fuck about. However, once I realized this was just a product of the
ancestral environment, and my genes jerking my chain--and not some
interesting, noble part of my personality--I was able to question whether
that clannishness was in any way a *good* thing. I'm not sure I see
where it is. In fact, it seems to make us act badly toward people
outside of the "tribe." Good for our genes, maybe--but who gives a fuck?
Wouldn't it be nicer to be nice to everybody? What is it that's so great
about our fellow tribe-members that we adore them? In large part, it's
simply their membership in the tribe. In other words, all the other
people out there probably have some really nice qualities that we could
appreciate if we opened our fucking eyes.

We should really be on Slate's Dialogues section.

mf