Assumption: An extraterrestrial specie, obviously far superior in intellect, engages Earth.
Question: Do you believe that there is a correlation between intellect and philosophical (and in this case more importantly for the human race) ethical awareness? And not only awareness but also following of these advanced principles.
I believe that without impeccable understanding of right and wrong, of ethics and morality, and most importantly unity a race will not be able to achieve a technological capacity to travel light-years, because it will continue to war within itself and stagnate to indecision.
The human race is a perfect example of this, we are all the same yet we cower in fear of our neighbors. The idea of nations is extremely old-fashioned, we are all citizens of the world, but yet we are defined by our location of birth. How can we progress together when do not know how to live together? Apart from being good small talk I am tired of answering the same question every-time I meet someone; I am from Earth just like you my friend.
Continuing with the assumption: Due to the belief I stated I would not be threatened in anyway by a visiting species, because I would be confidant that their advanced moral codes would not allow them to do anything bad to the human race. "With power comes responsibility." Where knowledge is power and responsibility is morality.
Question: Do you believe that there is a correlation between intellect and philosophical (and in this case more importantly for the human race) ethical awareness?
No.
Someone with no education can be a saint.
Meanwhile, Nazi scientists were sought after during the aftermath of World War II.
One's scientific knowledge is no indicator of how good or how wise a person is.
Meanwhile, Nazi scientists were sought after during the aftermath of World War II.
One's scientific knowledge is no indicator of how good or how wise a person is.
I'm totally with you.
The Nazis not only had wicked smart engineers, but they wore Hugo Boss and were the best dressed soldiers ever to walk the earth. But their philosophy didn't seem to recognize non-Germans as 100% human.
-
Not only that, but an alien species with lots of intelligence still may not recognize human values or human life as being meaningful. If aliens view humans the way we view cows, then they might feel "sorry" for us, but still take our land. Hat precludes this? Especially when given the opportunity and technology, we would readily take theirs?
Their philosophy might be to look at us as a potential danger, not worth risking the lives of their babies, to allow us to live.
As far as I know, recognition of human beings of OTHER TRIBES is not a "universally accepted", even philosophically defensible (or commonly practiced) rule.
If we don't recognize illegal aliens (of our own species) as having the same rights as citizens, why would we think aliens (with completely different lineage) would respect our right to exist when we stand between them and resources they need?
-
I think philosophic "equations" may have some Universality, but I am 100% certain there is no universal VALUATION system for objects & entities in the universe.
Life's battle for resources is a zero sum game. Is non-existence better than life in the alien zoo? Is life as a humanely treated food species better than exinction or life in a zoo? Ultimately aliens vlaue alien life over human life. And if you believe in evolution and determinism, and understand game theory at all, why would a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet? Encountering "the other" should result in exploitation of "the other" for maximum utility:
Question: Do you believe that there is a correlation between intellect and philosophical (and in this case more importantly for the human race) ethical awareness? And not only awareness but also following of these advanced principles.
Nope. Some of the biggest monsters of history were also the smartest.
The human race is a perfect example of this, we are all the same yet we cower in fear of our neighbors. The idea of nations is extremely old-fashioned, we are all citizens of the world, but yet we are defined by our location of birth. How can we progress together when do not know how to live together? Apart from being good small talk I am tired of answering the same question every-time I meet someone; I am from Earth just like you my friend.
Again, I'd suggest "Babyeating aliens". Much of our morality is shaped by evolution, then we use logic to justify it. In that story, the aliens evolved with the consumption of their young as necessary to survival. Their entire morality/society/philosophy/theology hinged around this.
Just because you're from earth doesn't mean were the same. We are not a hive mind. Our moralities may be different.
Continuing with the assumption: Due to the belief I stated I would not be threatened in anyway by a visiting species, because I would be confidant that their advanced moral codes would not allow them to do anything bad to the human race. "With power comes responsibility." Where knowledge is power and responsibility is morality.
I'd say that's a pretty dangerous line of thought. Our own history shows that culture clash exists.
I think you're asking too broad of a question. Much of philosophy is not universal to the human species, forget extraterrestrials; ethics around the globe have some things in common but are frequently different to the point of being incomprehensible to us.
And if you believe in evolution and determinism, and understand game theory at all, why would a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet?
I can tell you why humans have evolved in a way that would cause us to feel empathy towards species from another planet: we feel empathy towards things which are sufficiently like us, with all kinds of caveats. We empathize with obvious robots (though the uncanny valley starts to apply once they're too lifelike). We empathize with nonhuman species - dogs and cats would be the most obvious examples. If an alien species is reasonably human-like (and not in the uncanny valley - which shouldn't be a problem), we'd probably empathize with them.
What can evolution really tell us of what should be? It really only tells us of what is. Evolutionary Psychology may just be right up their with Astrology, Reiki and Aromatherapy for quack value.
I can tell you why humans have evolved in a way that would cause us to feel empathy towards species from another planet: we feel empathy towards things which are sufficiently like us, with all kinds of caveats. We empathize with obvious robots (though the uncanny valley starts to apply once they're too lifelike). We empathize with nonhuman species - dogs and cats would be the most obvious examples. If an alien species is reasonably human-like (and not in the uncanny valley - which shouldn't be a problem), we'd probably empathize with them.
i understand and agree.
I meant that as "why would (as in "why must" or "why necessarily would" ) a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet?"
And feeling some empathy or anthropomorphizing aliens doesn't mean we wouldn't readily destroy them as a threat. Or have differing opinions about what to do with them.
What non-human species have we ever NOT exploited or encroached when it was beneficial to us? There are extremely few human-habitable habitats we do not simply take over. We suffer a billion cows and pigs to live because they are food. Pretty much the only creatures that live are the ones that can survive despite us, or that we preserve in small numbers. And that goes for smart & cute ones like baby seals, dolphins, and primates.
It seems quite possible or even likely that an alien race of superior intellect and technology could just view saving a few hundred of us as the pinnacle of ethical decisions.
Meanwhile, Nazi scientists were sought after during the aftermath of World War II.
One's scientific knowledge is no indicator of how good or how wise a person is.
You are correct. Let me rephrase.
Look where the lack of an understanding of morality got the Nazis. Intellect alone is not enough to advance, it goes hand in hand with morality.
So is morality not as much a prerequisite for advancement as intellect?
@dcartist: In your response you heavily emphasize how we do things, (how we view cows, how we view other tribes, how we would view other species). But we view things the way we do because we are not very developed in terms of morality or ethics. Scratch everything, start from a clean slate, would you really base ethics on how mankind does right now?
"Ultimately aliens vlaue alien life over human life. And if you believe in evolution and determinism, and understand game theory at all, why would a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet? Encountering "the other" should result in exploitation of "the other" for maximum utility."
But that is exactly my point, by universal ethics I mean, the realization of universal equality; disregard of differences in specie, and thereby achieving maximum utility as a whole. You feel as much empathy towards everyone as you do towards yourself.
Nope. Some of the biggest monsters of history were also the smartest.
Again, I'd suggest "Babyeating aliens". Much of our morality is shaped by evolution, then we use logic to justify it. In that story, the aliens evolved with the consumption of their young as necessary to survival. Their entire morality/society/philosophy/theology hinged around this.
Just because you're from earth doesn't mean were the same. We are not a hive mind. Our moralities may be different.
I'd say that's a pretty dangerous line of thought. Our own history shows that culture clash exists.
Interesting read, although I only had enough time to read the chapter you linked so far. But ultimately the "Babyeating aliens" advanced because they aligned their morality and became one.
Our history is our evolution, culture clashes taught us.
Look where the lack of an understanding of morality got the Nazis. Intellect alone is not enough to advance, it goes hand in hand with morality.
So is morality not as much a prerequisite for advancement as intellect?
Man is a social animal. Just like a tiger's strategy for survival uses speed and power, our strategy for survival involves cooperation with the other members of our communities. We coordinate group activities and share ideas through language, allowing us to accomplish things none of us could have done on our own. But of course the social stability necessary to do this requires that we not be constantly trying to kill each other or avoid being killed. Hence, morality.
So this basic form of morality is needed for advancement. The problem with the Nazis was not that they were ignorant of morality - they weren't. They for the most part acted like human beings ought towards people they considered members of their community. The problem with the Nazis was that their community was very strictly defined, and outsiders were seen as literally subhuman and therefore unentitled to human moral respect. But when dealing with other "Aryans", they could do the cooperative things a human community needs to do in order to persist: running factories and organizing militaries, most notably, given the history.
Of course, their strict exclusionary vision of morality really bit them in the ass in the end. After all, the "conquer everything in sight" approach to life tends to leave you with a lot of enemies and no guarantee that you can handle them all. And in a development that would seem too storybook to be believed if it weren't true, they drove the Jewish-descended Einstein out of the country.
Now, all of this pertains to the human survival strategy of social cooperation. We know this strategy works, and we can probably expect some other sapient species to have a similar strategy, much as sharks and dolphins have a similar shape because that shape works well for swimming. But is this the only possible strategy for a sapient species? With a sample size of one, the data is far too scarce to tell. We probably won't be able to conceptualize a truly alien strategy until we actually meet and study them. We certainly can't say that it's impossible.
Now, all of this pertains to the human survival strategy of social cooperation. We know this strategy works, and we can probably expect some other sapient species to have a similar strategy, much as sharks and dolphins have a similar shape because that shape works well for swimming. But is this the only possible strategy for a sapient species? With a sample size of one, the data is far too scarce to tell. We probably won't be able to conceptualize a truly alien strategy until we actually meet and study them. We certainly can't say that it's impossible.
Best we end up with are some pastiche like Formians, which really aren't all that "alien" when you get to the higher ups like the queen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You are correct. Let me rephrase.
Look where the lack of an understanding of morality got the Nazis.
The Nazis didn't receive the fate they did because of a lack of understanding of morality. They received the fate they did because they pissed off Britain, the USSR, and the United States, and got themselves caught in a two-front war which they came very close to winning.
By contrast, the USSR would continue to endure until the early 90s, North Korea still endures, and China is a world power.
Look at where the lack of understanding of morality got Rome. By not understanding that slavery is unethical, they were only able to have empire that lasted for 1,480 years and were the height of education and knowledge.
Then there's the British Empire. Is anyone going to argue they conquered a worldwide empire by being morally superior to those they oppressed? They were certainly technically superior.
I'm not saying a moral species isn't certainly preferable and better than an immoral one, but you're arguing for a correlation between technological ability and morality. That very clearly does not exist in humanity.
It doesn't sound horrible, it's clearly true. But given everything that still happens in the world, it doesn't seem to be leading up to some universal ethical understanding, in actual practice. I'm also highly skeptical that there is any such universal ethical principle on philosophical grounds, but even if we keep this in the ballpark of historical trends...
Our society has progressed towards greater order, and towards greater enfranchisement. Those are the two clearly visible trends. But it's still basically a tribal 'in-group'/'out-group' perspective - we're extending our 'in-group' to include women, blacks, gays, etc. We still don't give a damn what happens in central Africa except when it matters to our own interests. A relative handful of people are addressing those issues, and they're largely ignored by the mainstream of our culture.
It is possible that someday we as a culture will extend our 'in-group' to include all humans or even all living things. We have made great strides in that effort and I view it as a morally good thing, since that's the process by which we view other creatures as human, or persons, or in any case to have real moral standing of any kind; the fact that there are lots of creatures and lots of humans who are capable of feeling pain and pleasure but to whom we assign either limited or effectively zero moral standing bothers me, occasionally (though I try not to think about it... yeah). But it's still basically an extension of the in-group bias that has been evolutionarily selected for in our distant past. The fact remains that there's no guarantee that it will be selected for on different worlds. Some, sure. All? Probably not.
How would you go about convincing a totally alien psyche to view morality the way we view it? Altruism is a very specifically evolved mechanism. Most species don't have it in any shape or form. I find the objection that only a harmonious species could reach the stars utterly unconvincing; we got to around the 17th century with most parts of the world practicing no loyalty at all beyond their family and friends, and we've come the rest of the way with most of the world practicing no loyalty at all beyond family, friends, and ideology or nation. There are many interesting and plausible scenarios for space travel that don't involve any kind of universal harmony, and indeed quite a few that involve moral degradation - as in most cyberpunk scenarios, or the Alien movies.
And in any event we don't know what is needed. It could turn out to be incredibly cheap to go to the stars, once some genius discovers the requisite technologies (which could happen tomorrow for all we know), or it could prove totally impossible to ever get close to or beyond light speed, in which case, harmony or not, you're stuck at home. It's even conceivable that on some worlds, interstellar travel could be stumbled on without any scientific method, totally by accident. Unlikely, yes, but not to be ruled out, and until you rule it out, there can't be an argument that achieving interstellar travel is self-selecting for a certain level of societal development.
In any event, I'm not claiming that the dog-eat-dog nature of the universe makes altruism ultimately impossible. I follow the 'nonzero' claim perfectly. It's probably true that humanity could get to space fastest by eliminating all rivalries (or, more probably, all rivalries except friendly competition to achieve first). I'm just saying that it's an historical accident that we view that as a reasonable goal to ever, ever achieve in the first place.
I guess the strongest I can put it is this: A highly intelligent, social creature that had evolved under conditions that didn't favor altruism might be able to correctly reason out the Prisoner's Dilemma, but could quite possibly find it inconceivable to actually put a solution to a practical Prisoner's Dilemma into effect, and even if they did overcome that bias, it wouldn't be on ethical grounds, it would be on purely practical grounds. Even if they did practice ethics, they would view it so differently that it wouldn't look like any reasonable ethics at all to us. This isn't because they're defective, it's because the historical circumstances that led to our psychological development are inextricably tied to our moral sense. We would view morality differently, if we thought of it at all, if our evolutionary history was different. I don't see any principled reason to claim that creatures in that position could not achieve interstellar flight, particularly without knowing what achieving interstellar flight actually entails.
A highly intelligent, social creature that had evolved under conditions that didn't favor altruism...
This sounds like an oxymoron. Social behavior is altruism. Social animals form groups and work for the good of the group. Solitary animals don't. Altruism is the defining difference.
An alien social animal's expression of altruism may differ in detail from our own. And when I say "in detail" I do include differences with major and potentially tragic consequences, like strict Nazi-style ingrouping/outgrouping. However, I maintain that even if these aliens show up and promptly try to exterminate us all, they will still exhibit behavior that is recognizably altruistic - just not towards us. The emotions governing that behavior may be completely foreign; indeed, they almost certainly will be. I could write at some length on the peculiar accidents of human moral motivation, such as the mechanism of empathy, or the equation of wrongdoing to physical dirtiness with similar reactions to both. There's no reason for aliens to feel any of those, any more than there's reason for them to have ten fingers on two hands. But whatever they feel, the results will be prosocial, altruistic behavior that enables their group to function. They may not be empathetic as we understand it, but they will not be sociopathic either.
Of course, all this applies only to social species. For a nonsocial species, anything goes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes. But then they are using moral means to an immoral end. There's still morality in the picture, is the point. A species that was completely devoid of moral psychology - or a community of sociopaths - could not do this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes. But then they are using moral means to an immoral end. There's still morality in the picture, is the point. A species that was completely devoid of moral psychology - or a community of sociopaths - could not do this.
Define "morality" and "moral means" in this case?
I disagree that social behavior = altruism. People who cooperate with others to further their own selfish ends are not necessarily being good. Nor are they being altruistic by very definition. They are behaving in a logical manner to get what they want, but that isn't being moral.
If I agree to work with someone to commit a crime and I choose not to betray them, that's cooperation, and it might even by accident be considered somewhat moral, but it's not altruism, as the only thing keeping me from betraying him is benefit to myself. I don't give a crap about him, and I am actively using him to get what I want. That's not altruism.
If I agree to work with someone to commit a crime and I choose not to betray them, that's cooperation, and it might even by accident be considered somewhat moral, but it's not altruism, as the only thing keeping me from betraying him is benefit to myself. I don't give a crap about him, and I am actively using him to get what I want. That's not altruism.
You don't think there is honor among thieves? That gang communities are built on the same sort of ingrouping moral psychology that holds together neighborhoods and nations? I fortunately have had no direct experience of the culture, but even so I'm pretty confident in stating that the sense of community is a major attraction to it, if not the entire point.
Yes, you can find rational reasons to cooperate with somebody. But if a group or a species is going to do it habitually, as its predominant survival strategy, there is going to be some psychology in place to encourage cooperation beyond the conscious calculation of rational self-interest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why should any such feelings extend beyond species barriers though?
Maybe ultimate clarity in ethics would dictate that those outside of an intelligent species boundaries can only potentially be competition for the species in the long term, and should therefore not be treated in any way other than as food that complains before you eat it?
The fight for resources is a zero sum game. What is the upside of raising up an intelligent technologically inferior species, especially one as aggressive as ours?
This sounds like an oxymoron. Social behavior is altruism. Social animals form groups and work for the good of the group. Solitary animals don't. Altruism is the defining difference.
I don't think so.
Social behavior is often altruistic. Other social behavior is often cutthroat and selfish. In some cases, social behavior can even look totally harmonious and cooperative with no altruistic basis.
For one example of hugely social behavior on earth without altruism, see schooling fish. The principle on which they school is that each fish has evolved to react in specific ways to the movement of its immediate neighbors, with the result that they give the impression of moving in extreme harmony and with the result that the 'society' does in fact work for the good of its members.
The circumstances required to evolve a highly intelligent species with enough cooperation to reach space travel without altruism would certainly be extraordinary, but the claim that it'd be in principle impossible is also extraordinary. I'm quite certain that I could tell an evolutionary story that is at least plausible that would result in that.
Incidentally, this is merely defending the highly speculative idea that a society could arise with NO concept of morality. To see that a society could arise with a concept of morality which is extremely different from ours, we need only look at our nearest relatives. It would be difficult to explain the concept of rape to a chimpanzee, nevermind convince the chimp that rape is 'wrong'. When female chimpanzees come into heat, most or all of the nearby males simply come over and have sex with her. 'Choice' and 'consent' never really enter into it.
(Actually, as a total tangent, our sexual habits are so freakish within the animal kingdom that they shouldn't be taken as evidence for how reproduction is anywhere but humans. I even question the old thought that "Of course sex feels good; if it didn't we'd be extinct." There are lots of behaviors that we - and animals - feel utterly compelled to do without any kind of intense pleasure.)
There could be, but that's not the point. There are many aquariums where sharks swim with other fish. There are many times when zebra come very close to lion packs. The fact that the sharks and the lions do not go after the animals is satiation and lack of need, not altruism.
Similarly, there are times that human beings can be kept in check from outright violence and instead choose cooperation not out of altruism or benevolence but either lack of need or ability.
Yes, you can find rational reasons to cooperate with somebody. But if a group or a species is going to do it habitually, as its predominant survival strategy, there is going to be some psychology in place to encourage cooperation beyond the conscious calculation of rational self-interest.
I'm not saying there isn't, but examples in which cooperation exists purely out of rational self-interest and nothing else contradict the position that social behavior and cooperation = altruism.
I think we can state that without descending into psychological egoism and needing you to type this post out again, which may I say is easily one of my favorites on this forum.
For one example of hugely social behavior on earth without altruism, see schooling fish. The principle on which they school is that each fish has evolved to react in specific ways to the movement of its immediate neighbors, with the result that they give the impression of moving in extreme harmony and with the result that the 'society' does in fact work for the good of its members.
And this is exactly how altruism works, just with a bit more complexity because, y'know, we're smarter. Empathy is our innate reaction to the emotional cues we receive from those around us, motivating us to act for the greater good even if that's not what we're consciously thinking about. (In fact, consciously thinking about the greater good is an excellent way to rationalize behavior that isn't in the greater good. Isn't human psychology wonderful?)
To see that a society could arise with a concept of morality which is extremely different from ours, we need only look at our nearest relatives. It would be difficult to explain the concept of rape to a chimpanzee, nevermind convince the chimp that rape is 'wrong'. When female chimpanzees come into heat, most or all of the nearby males simply come over and have sex with her. 'Choice' and 'consent' never really enter into it.
Well, of course it would be difficult to explain the concept of rape to a chimpanzee. The animal's capacity for language and for abstract thought are both extremely limited compared to our own, however they may tower over most of the rest of the animal kingdom. But setting that aside, what you're basically saying here is that since chimpanzees do it, it must be "right" according to them to do it. And that just doesn't fly. Not to put too fine a point on it, but humans rape too.
There could be, but that's not the point. There are many aquariums where sharks swim with other fish.
Side note: the aquariums don't always like to admit this in front of the kiddies, but those sharks do regularly eat their roommates. In that kind of very large tank, the trick is to balance the numbers so you actually have something close to a stable breeding population of fish, and thus don't have to restock it so much. (There can be a much higher ratio of predators to prey than in the wild, of course, because the sharks still get most of their nutrition from what the keepers feed them.)
Similarly, there are times that human beings can be kept in check from outright violence and instead choose cooperation not out of altruism or benevolence but either lack of need or ability.
Well, sure. But it's a common misconception to think that the Hobbesian state of nature, the "state of war of every man against every man", must always be a hot war. It isn't. It is, for the most part, precisely this sort of inactivity you describe. The problem is nobody has any assurance that the inactivity will continue, or protection if it doesn't. Hobbes isn't telling you that everyone else is actually trying to kill you; he's telling you that anyone might.
To jump forward a few centuries: "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
I'm not saying there isn't, but examples in which cooperation exists purely out of rational self-interest and nothing else contradict the position that social behavior and cooperation = altruism.
I was saying that social behavior as a species trait was altruism. Not that every instance of two people cooperating was altruism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And this is exactly how altruism works, just with a bit more complexity because, y'know, we're smarter. Empathy is our innate reaction to the emotional cues we receive from those around us, motivating us to act for the greater good even if that's not what we're consciously thinking about. (In fact, consciously thinking about the greater good is an excellent way to rationalize behavior that isn't in the greater good. Isn't human psychology wonderful?)
I think there's an important difference, though I will admit that there's some possibility that we need to have a short semantic discussion to continue.
Basically, in human and chimp altruism, it would occur to me to give you something without any immediate payoff, and later, if you had an abundance, you would share, and we would jointly punish anyone who shirked (had plenty, didn't share it, shades of Occupy Wall Street). In fish schooling, there is neither giving nor payoff. My actions are made without thought of you at all. I don't think this is just because they're less intelligent; I think it's because one-to-one relationships are totally irrelevant to that kind of organization. It's not immoral in the sense that "I will put my own needs ahead of yours", it's amoral in the sense that "I am not even aware of your needs, and if I'm conscious that they exist, they still don't make any difference at all to me."
Now, I'm not at all sure that a complex, scientific society could be built on that principle. I raise it simply as a point that evolution is capable of building group cooperation on all sorts of different models under strange conditions, and that the claim of philosophical universality is a very large one.
Well, of course it would be difficult to explain the concept of rape to a chimpanzee. The animal's capacity for language and for abstract thought are both extremely limited compared to our own, however they may tower over most of the rest of the animal kingdom. But setting that aside, what you're basically saying here is that since chimpanzees do it, it must be "right" according to them to do it. And that just doesn't fly. Not to put too fine a point on it, but humans rape too.
You've missed the point.
First, a quick clarification. I meant chimps-with-humanlike-intelligence. I realize I didn't say that anywhere, so I apologize.
Human sexual relations are built on a concept of sex as reinforcement of pair bonding. We have sex at least as much for pleasure as for reproduction, and this is likely NOT a modern invention. We've made sex the center of our most important relationships; even phrases like "Marriage isn't about sex" reinforce the central place of sex in relationships, since presumably "Marriage is about sex" is an intuitive enough concept that people feel the need to try and convince us otherwise.
Chimps have no analog to our sex-as-peer-bonding. They can't rape not because they're dumb animals but because the concept of consent wouldn't make sense to them, because sex and fidelity have no particular importance to them. We view rape as a heinous offense precisely because of the importance we place on fidelity and on sexual relations. Contrast this with an gibbon; they're typically monogamous, and if raised to human intelligence, would easily and intuitively grasp at least fidelity and probably also rape.
Question: Do you believe that there is a correlation between intellect and philosophical (and in this case more importantly for the human race) ethical awareness? And not only awareness but also following of these advanced principles.
I believe that without impeccable understanding of right and wrong, of ethics and morality, and most importantly unity a race will not be able to achieve a technological capacity to travel light-years, because it will continue to war within itself and stagnate to indecision.
The human race is a perfect example of this, we are all the same yet we cower in fear of our neighbors. The idea of nations is extremely old-fashioned, we are all citizens of the world, but yet we are defined by our location of birth. How can we progress together when do not know how to live together? Apart from being good small talk I am tired of answering the same question every-time I meet someone; I am from Earth just like you my friend.
Continuing with the assumption: Due to the belief I stated I would not be threatened in anyway by a visiting species, because I would be confidant that their advanced moral codes would not allow them to do anything bad to the human race. "With power comes responsibility." Where knowledge is power and responsibility is morality.
No.
Someone with no education can be a saint.
Meanwhile, Nazi scientists were sought after during the aftermath of World War II.
One's scientific knowledge is no indicator of how good or how wise a person is.
The Nazis not only had wicked smart engineers, but they wore Hugo Boss and were the best dressed soldiers ever to walk the earth. But their philosophy didn't seem to recognize non-Germans as 100% human.
-
Not only that, but an alien species with lots of intelligence still may not recognize human values or human life as being meaningful. If aliens view humans the way we view cows, then they might feel "sorry" for us, but still take our land. Hat precludes this? Especially when given the opportunity and technology, we would readily take theirs?
Their philosophy might be to look at us as a potential danger, not worth risking the lives of their babies, to allow us to live.
As far as I know, recognition of human beings of OTHER TRIBES is not a "universally accepted", even philosophically defensible (or commonly practiced) rule.
If we don't recognize illegal aliens (of our own species) as having the same rights as citizens, why would we think aliens (with completely different lineage) would respect our right to exist when we stand between them and resources they need?
-
I think philosophic "equations" may have some Universality, but I am 100% certain there is no universal VALUATION system for objects & entities in the universe.
Life's battle for resources is a zero sum game. Is non-existence better than life in the alien zoo? Is life as a humanely treated food species better than exinction or life in a zoo? Ultimately aliens vlaue alien life over human life. And if you believe in evolution and determinism, and understand game theory at all, why would a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet? Encountering "the other" should result in exploitation of "the other" for maximum utility:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=430151&page=3
I highly suggest this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/
Nope. Some of the biggest monsters of history were also the smartest.
Again, I'd suggest "Babyeating aliens". Much of our morality is shaped by evolution, then we use logic to justify it. In that story, the aliens evolved with the consumption of their young as necessary to survival. Their entire morality/society/philosophy/theology hinged around this.
Just because you're from earth doesn't mean were the same. We are not a hive mind. Our moralities may be different.
I'd say that's a pretty dangerous line of thought. Our own history shows that culture clash exists.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I can tell you why humans have evolved in a way that would cause us to feel empathy towards species from another planet: we feel empathy towards things which are sufficiently like us, with all kinds of caveats. We empathize with obvious robots (though the uncanny valley starts to apply once they're too lifelike). We empathize with nonhuman species - dogs and cats would be the most obvious examples. If an alien species is reasonably human-like (and not in the uncanny valley - which shouldn't be a problem), we'd probably empathize with them.
I meant that as "why would (as in "why must" or "why necessarily would" ) a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet?"
And feeling some empathy or anthropomorphizing aliens doesn't mean we wouldn't readily destroy them as a threat. Or have differing opinions about what to do with them.
What non-human species have we ever NOT exploited or encroached when it was beneficial to us? There are extremely few human-habitable habitats we do not simply take over. We suffer a billion cows and pigs to live because they are food. Pretty much the only creatures that live are the ones that can survive despite us, or that we preserve in small numbers. And that goes for smart & cute ones like baby seals, dolphins, and primates.
It seems quite possible or even likely that an alien race of superior intellect and technology could just view saving a few hundred of us as the pinnacle of ethical decisions.
You are correct. Let me rephrase.
Look where the lack of an understanding of morality got the Nazis. Intellect alone is not enough to advance, it goes hand in hand with morality.
So is morality not as much a prerequisite for advancement as intellect?
@dcartist: In your response you heavily emphasize how we do things, (how we view cows, how we view other tribes, how we would view other species). But we view things the way we do because we are not very developed in terms of morality or ethics. Scratch everything, start from a clean slate, would you really base ethics on how mankind does right now?
"Ultimately aliens vlaue alien life over human life. And if you believe in evolution and determinism, and understand game theory at all, why would a species evolve to feel empathy for a species from another planet? Encountering "the other" should result in exploitation of "the other" for maximum utility."
But that is exactly my point, by universal ethics I mean, the realization of universal equality; disregard of differences in specie, and thereby achieving maximum utility as a whole. You feel as much empathy towards everyone as you do towards yourself.
Interesting read, although I only had enough time to read the chapter you linked so far. But ultimately the "Babyeating aliens" advanced because they aligned their morality and became one.
Our history is our evolution, culture clashes taught us.
What does this mean?
So this basic form of morality is needed for advancement. The problem with the Nazis was not that they were ignorant of morality - they weren't. They for the most part acted like human beings ought towards people they considered members of their community. The problem with the Nazis was that their community was very strictly defined, and outsiders were seen as literally subhuman and therefore unentitled to human moral respect. But when dealing with other "Aryans", they could do the cooperative things a human community needs to do in order to persist: running factories and organizing militaries, most notably, given the history.
Of course, their strict exclusionary vision of morality really bit them in the ass in the end. After all, the "conquer everything in sight" approach to life tends to leave you with a lot of enemies and no guarantee that you can handle them all. And in a development that would seem too storybook to be believed if it weren't true, they drove the Jewish-descended Einstein out of the country.
Now, all of this pertains to the human survival strategy of social cooperation. We know this strategy works, and we can probably expect some other sapient species to have a similar strategy, much as sharks and dolphins have a similar shape because that shape works well for swimming. But is this the only possible strategy for a sapient species? With a sample size of one, the data is far too scarce to tell. We probably won't be able to conceptualize a truly alien strategy until we actually meet and study them. We certainly can't say that it's impossible.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Best we end up with are some pastiche like Formians, which really aren't all that "alien" when you get to the higher ups like the queen.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The Nazis didn't receive the fate they did because of a lack of understanding of morality. They received the fate they did because they pissed off Britain, the USSR, and the United States, and got themselves caught in a two-front war which they came very close to winning.
By contrast, the USSR would continue to endure until the early 90s, North Korea still endures, and China is a world power.
Look at where the lack of understanding of morality got Rome. By not understanding that slavery is unethical, they were only able to have empire that lasted for 1,480 years and were the height of education and knowledge.
Then there's the British Empire. Is anyone going to argue they conquered a worldwide empire by being morally superior to those they oppressed? They were certainly technically superior.
I'm not saying a moral species isn't certainly preferable and better than an immoral one, but you're arguing for a correlation between technological ability and morality. That very clearly does not exist in humanity.
It would be comforting, if the opposite hadn't been born out by history so many times.
Our society has progressed towards greater order, and towards greater enfranchisement. Those are the two clearly visible trends. But it's still basically a tribal 'in-group'/'out-group' perspective - we're extending our 'in-group' to include women, blacks, gays, etc. We still don't give a damn what happens in central Africa except when it matters to our own interests. A relative handful of people are addressing those issues, and they're largely ignored by the mainstream of our culture.
It is possible that someday we as a culture will extend our 'in-group' to include all humans or even all living things. We have made great strides in that effort and I view it as a morally good thing, since that's the process by which we view other creatures as human, or persons, or in any case to have real moral standing of any kind; the fact that there are lots of creatures and lots of humans who are capable of feeling pain and pleasure but to whom we assign either limited or effectively zero moral standing bothers me, occasionally (though I try not to think about it... yeah). But it's still basically an extension of the in-group bias that has been evolutionarily selected for in our distant past. The fact remains that there's no guarantee that it will be selected for on different worlds. Some, sure. All? Probably not.
How would you go about convincing a totally alien psyche to view morality the way we view it? Altruism is a very specifically evolved mechanism. Most species don't have it in any shape or form. I find the objection that only a harmonious species could reach the stars utterly unconvincing; we got to around the 17th century with most parts of the world practicing no loyalty at all beyond their family and friends, and we've come the rest of the way with most of the world practicing no loyalty at all beyond family, friends, and ideology or nation. There are many interesting and plausible scenarios for space travel that don't involve any kind of universal harmony, and indeed quite a few that involve moral degradation - as in most cyberpunk scenarios, or the Alien movies.
And in any event we don't know what is needed. It could turn out to be incredibly cheap to go to the stars, once some genius discovers the requisite technologies (which could happen tomorrow for all we know), or it could prove totally impossible to ever get close to or beyond light speed, in which case, harmony or not, you're stuck at home. It's even conceivable that on some worlds, interstellar travel could be stumbled on without any scientific method, totally by accident. Unlikely, yes, but not to be ruled out, and until you rule it out, there can't be an argument that achieving interstellar travel is self-selecting for a certain level of societal development.
In any event, I'm not claiming that the dog-eat-dog nature of the universe makes altruism ultimately impossible. I follow the 'nonzero' claim perfectly. It's probably true that humanity could get to space fastest by eliminating all rivalries (or, more probably, all rivalries except friendly competition to achieve first). I'm just saying that it's an historical accident that we view that as a reasonable goal to ever, ever achieve in the first place.
I guess the strongest I can put it is this: A highly intelligent, social creature that had evolved under conditions that didn't favor altruism might be able to correctly reason out the Prisoner's Dilemma, but could quite possibly find it inconceivable to actually put a solution to a practical Prisoner's Dilemma into effect, and even if they did overcome that bias, it wouldn't be on ethical grounds, it would be on purely practical grounds. Even if they did practice ethics, they would view it so differently that it wouldn't look like any reasonable ethics at all to us. This isn't because they're defective, it's because the historical circumstances that led to our psychological development are inextricably tied to our moral sense. We would view morality differently, if we thought of it at all, if our evolutionary history was different. I don't see any principled reason to claim that creatures in that position could not achieve interstellar flight, particularly without knowing what achieving interstellar flight actually entails.
An alien social animal's expression of altruism may differ in detail from our own. And when I say "in detail" I do include differences with major and potentially tragic consequences, like strict Nazi-style ingrouping/outgrouping. However, I maintain that even if these aliens show up and promptly try to exterminate us all, they will still exhibit behavior that is recognizably altruistic - just not towards us. The emotions governing that behavior may be completely foreign; indeed, they almost certainly will be. I could write at some length on the peculiar accidents of human moral motivation, such as the mechanism of empathy, or the equation of wrongdoing to physical dirtiness with similar reactions to both. There's no reason for aliens to feel any of those, any more than there's reason for them to have ten fingers on two hands. But whatever they feel, the results will be prosocial, altruistic behavior that enables their group to function. They may not be empathetic as we understand it, but they will not be sociopathic either.
Of course, all this applies only to social species. For a nonsocial species, anything goes.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
People can work together to be immoral, Harkius.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Define "morality" and "moral means" in this case?
I disagree that social behavior = altruism. People who cooperate with others to further their own selfish ends are not necessarily being good. Nor are they being altruistic by very definition. They are behaving in a logical manner to get what they want, but that isn't being moral.
If I agree to work with someone to commit a crime and I choose not to betray them, that's cooperation, and it might even by accident be considered somewhat moral, but it's not altruism, as the only thing keeping me from betraying him is benefit to myself. I don't give a crap about him, and I am actively using him to get what I want. That's not altruism.
Yes, you can find rational reasons to cooperate with somebody. But if a group or a species is going to do it habitually, as its predominant survival strategy, there is going to be some psychology in place to encourage cooperation beyond the conscious calculation of rational self-interest.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe ultimate clarity in ethics would dictate that those outside of an intelligent species boundaries can only potentially be competition for the species in the long term, and should therefore not be treated in any way other than as food that complains before you eat it?
The fight for resources is a zero sum game. What is the upside of raising up an intelligent technologically inferior species, especially one as aggressive as ours?
I don't think so.
Social behavior is often altruistic. Other social behavior is often cutthroat and selfish. In some cases, social behavior can even look totally harmonious and cooperative with no altruistic basis.
For one example of hugely social behavior on earth without altruism, see schooling fish. The principle on which they school is that each fish has evolved to react in specific ways to the movement of its immediate neighbors, with the result that they give the impression of moving in extreme harmony and with the result that the 'society' does in fact work for the good of its members.
The circumstances required to evolve a highly intelligent species with enough cooperation to reach space travel without altruism would certainly be extraordinary, but the claim that it'd be in principle impossible is also extraordinary. I'm quite certain that I could tell an evolutionary story that is at least plausible that would result in that.
Incidentally, this is merely defending the highly speculative idea that a society could arise with NO concept of morality. To see that a society could arise with a concept of morality which is extremely different from ours, we need only look at our nearest relatives. It would be difficult to explain the concept of rape to a chimpanzee, nevermind convince the chimp that rape is 'wrong'. When female chimpanzees come into heat, most or all of the nearby males simply come over and have sex with her. 'Choice' and 'consent' never really enter into it.
(Actually, as a total tangent, our sexual habits are so freakish within the animal kingdom that they shouldn't be taken as evidence for how reproduction is anywhere but humans. I even question the old thought that "Of course sex feels good; if it didn't we'd be extinct." There are lots of behaviors that we - and animals - feel utterly compelled to do without any kind of intense pleasure.)
There could be, but that's not the point. There are many aquariums where sharks swim with other fish. There are many times when zebra come very close to lion packs. The fact that the sharks and the lions do not go after the animals is satiation and lack of need, not altruism.
Similarly, there are times that human beings can be kept in check from outright violence and instead choose cooperation not out of altruism or benevolence but either lack of need or ability.
I'm not saying there isn't, but examples in which cooperation exists purely out of rational self-interest and nothing else contradict the position that social behavior and cooperation = altruism.
I think we can state that without descending into psychological egoism and needing you to type this post out again, which may I say is easily one of my favorites on this forum.
Well, of course it would be difficult to explain the concept of rape to a chimpanzee. The animal's capacity for language and for abstract thought are both extremely limited compared to our own, however they may tower over most of the rest of the animal kingdom. But setting that aside, what you're basically saying here is that since chimpanzees do it, it must be "right" according to them to do it. And that just doesn't fly. Not to put too fine a point on it, but humans rape too.
Side note: the aquariums don't always like to admit this in front of the kiddies, but those sharks do regularly eat their roommates. In that kind of very large tank, the trick is to balance the numbers so you actually have something close to a stable breeding population of fish, and thus don't have to restock it so much. (There can be a much higher ratio of predators to prey than in the wild, of course, because the sharks still get most of their nutrition from what the keepers feed them.)
Well, sure. But it's a common misconception to think that the Hobbesian state of nature, the "state of war of every man against every man", must always be a hot war. It isn't. It is, for the most part, precisely this sort of inactivity you describe. The problem is nobody has any assurance that the inactivity will continue, or protection if it doesn't. Hobbes isn't telling you that everyone else is actually trying to kill you; he's telling you that anyone might.
To jump forward a few centuries: "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
I was saying that social behavior as a species trait was altruism. Not that every instance of two people cooperating was altruism.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think there's an important difference, though I will admit that there's some possibility that we need to have a short semantic discussion to continue.
Basically, in human and chimp altruism, it would occur to me to give you something without any immediate payoff, and later, if you had an abundance, you would share, and we would jointly punish anyone who shirked (had plenty, didn't share it, shades of Occupy Wall Street). In fish schooling, there is neither giving nor payoff. My actions are made without thought of you at all. I don't think this is just because they're less intelligent; I think it's because one-to-one relationships are totally irrelevant to that kind of organization. It's not immoral in the sense that "I will put my own needs ahead of yours", it's amoral in the sense that "I am not even aware of your needs, and if I'm conscious that they exist, they still don't make any difference at all to me."
Now, I'm not at all sure that a complex, scientific society could be built on that principle. I raise it simply as a point that evolution is capable of building group cooperation on all sorts of different models under strange conditions, and that the claim of philosophical universality is a very large one.
You've missed the point.
First, a quick clarification. I meant chimps-with-humanlike-intelligence. I realize I didn't say that anywhere, so I apologize.
Human sexual relations are built on a concept of sex as reinforcement of pair bonding. We have sex at least as much for pleasure as for reproduction, and this is likely NOT a modern invention. We've made sex the center of our most important relationships; even phrases like "Marriage isn't about sex" reinforce the central place of sex in relationships, since presumably "Marriage is about sex" is an intuitive enough concept that people feel the need to try and convince us otherwise.
Chimps have no analog to our sex-as-peer-bonding. They can't rape not because they're dumb animals but because the concept of consent wouldn't make sense to them, because sex and fidelity have no particular importance to them. We view rape as a heinous offense precisely because of the importance we place on fidelity and on sexual relations. Contrast this with an gibbon; they're typically monogamous, and if raised to human intelligence, would easily and intuitively grasp at least fidelity and probably also rape.