I've listened to a number of episodes of the podcast "Lives Well Lived" by Peter Singer & Kasia de Lazari Radek.
In their podcast, Kasia and Peter argue that "reason" can lead people to live more "moral" lives.
I think their podcast itself disproves each aspect of that argument.
Kasia and Peter have had seventeen episodes with people chosen to show a well-lived life. But the majority of the interviews I have heard have been with very smart people who understand the horrors of factory farms and still are not vegetarians; e.g., psychologist Paul Bloom, economist Tyler Cowen, and most absurd (in his rationalizations) Neil deGrasse Tyson (And Jonathan Haidt, with whom I had a personal connection as discussed in Losing. And probably Danny Kahneman.)
(This is not a "People are hypocrites!" or a "Why can't people be as smart as me?!" post.)
Longtime readers know that, over time, I've realized we are each just a bag of chemical reactions. These bags exist to get a certain combination of atoms - genes - into the next generation.
All of our feelings and thoughts come from bodies and brains that evolved over unfathomable eons of time. And these bodies and brains evolved for a singular purpose - to get genes to the next generation.
Not to be rational. Not to be moral. Not to be "good."
Just to reproduce.
How humans think and feel evolved to keep us alive, gather resources, be liked, and get our genes to the next generation.
Our feelings come first.
We then employ our thoughts to "justify" our feelings.
We are not rational animals; we are rationalizing animals.
For many reasons, we are confused and deluded about this.
One illusion comes from our sense of "moral outrage." But these feelings are simply the product of evolution. Not only do we "love" our family (they share our genes!) and our mates (obv), but we also do better (have more babies) when we work together. So we are angry at and demand "justice" for those who lie or cheat or steal or otherwise attempt to freeload on cooperation.
But this isn't "morality" in any real sense. It is all just chemical reactions to driven by the most successful chemicals on earth.
The counter is: If reason and morality don't exist, how has there been "moral progress"? Why have we "expanded the circle"?
Because it benefits us.
Just as bands of hunter-gatherers did better when they worked together (and policed offenders), bigger and bigger groups did better and better via trade and division of labor. We then came up with rationalizations for why we are no longer at war with Eastasia, and developed treaties and laws to get a "fair" deal. However, respecting and working with more people all comes down to how it benefits us.
For example: If everyone with power had had a decline in living standards because of an end to slavery, slavery wouldn't have ended. However, the North developed a non-slave-centric economy, so they could then "morally" oppose slavery.
And, as I've noted, there are still about as many human beings living in slavery today in our "morally evolved" world.
(Whenever we try something not based in self-interest / incentives (e.g., "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need") it ends up a bloody, regressive failure.)
And even as we have evolved to be an interconnected global market with rules and institutions to mutually benefit most (wrongly interpreted as a morally advanced society), we still regularly descend into savage and brutal tribalism.
Are there people who "do good"? There are people who are celebrated for being "good" and "moral," whose actions are outside the current norms of society. Our brains are big and complicated and can be programmed to do many things.
But it is all just programming. There is no "choice" to be good.
Even if there are people who "do good," that doesn't mean morality exists or that reason matters. "Moral" people following "reason" do crazy and even criminal stuff.
No judgment! They are just following their programming!
(We should also ask: Are the people we admire actually making the world a better place in terms of overall suffering? It is rarely clear, especially when you consider all sentient beings.)
Just like those who go off the "ethical" deep end or those who create terrible unintended consequences (like me for decades, as documented in Losing), I think it is actively harmful to operate under the delusion that reason matters.
It is harmful because this delusion leads to wasted effort and more suffering than there needs to be. If we honestly face facts and deal with people as they actually are, we could reduce suffering more efficiently.
(This isn't a contradiction. It is entirely possible to realize that we are just bags of chemical reactions and to still want less suffering. Suffering actually exists.)
1 comment:
Hey Matt, I’m on board with this, and I think you put the argument across well. All the evolutionary drives considered though, I do find the term “morality” useful to describe the extent to which someone considers others in seeking their goals, this is both a cognitive and empathetic exercise which can make our enlightened self-interest more enlightened. Someone who does this more consistently and effectively than others I consider more moral, and I am attracted to, or repulsed by them to relative to this measure. In this way, reason becomes important in as much as it enables us to better consider multiple variables and longer timeframes to make more effective choices that benefit ourselves and those around us. At the same time I see your point about everyone not using reason to become vegetarian (all though I know some that do, and my own consumption is influenced by reason, my tummy does want to eat a lot more meat than it does), I also share your concerns about the limits of reason when it comes to longtermism—I actually think it’s a lack of reason that leads people to think they can accurately predict outcomes that they have no business predicting. Nice writing :)
Post a Comment