Moral Enhancement
-
JasonPalmer
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:10 pm
Re: Moral Enhancement
For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer! At long last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due: — it will want to rule and possess, and you with it! - nietzsche
Re: Moral Enhancement
I am reading two books simultaneously, Unfit For The Future, on which the article for this post is based, and Einstein's Jewish Science. I am thinking there might or could be a connection between the two.
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps our moral unfitness for the future is also relative. Our unfitness could be part of the evolutionary process.
The authors (two) of Unfit are critical of liberal democracy, that it has been too liberal and therefore has thwarted and complicated our moral development. Science is a liberal endeavor that has also complicated and impaired things. There is definitely a bound between liberalism and science. Einstein's science wrought the Atomic Bomb and nuclear warfare, which, according to the authors, has been a contributer to our moral depravation.
.
The Nazis labeled Einstein's science Jewish, as though it was alien because it came from a Jew. The Nazis ruled Jewish science as not real and not theirs (even though Einstein was German), thus taking a selective, authoritarian approach to science and its development. Ironically, the authors of Unfit have recommended that we take a similar authoritarian approach to science so it doesn't continually and morally outpace us. They also recommend something like eugenics (biomedicine - bioengineering), which the Nazis tried on undesirable and uncooperative people, as a way to morally enhance us and make us more morally fit for the future.
There is something alarming and distasteful about both books, although Einstein's Jewish Science is the more positive.
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps our moral unfitness for the future is also relative. Our unfitness could be part of the evolutionary process.
The authors (two) of Unfit are critical of liberal democracy, that it has been too liberal and therefore has thwarted and complicated our moral development. Science is a liberal endeavor that has also complicated and impaired things. There is definitely a bound between liberalism and science. Einstein's science wrought the Atomic Bomb and nuclear warfare, which, according to the authors, has been a contributer to our moral depravation.
.
The Nazis labeled Einstein's science Jewish, as though it was alien because it came from a Jew. The Nazis ruled Jewish science as not real and not theirs (even though Einstein was German), thus taking a selective, authoritarian approach to science and its development. Ironically, the authors of Unfit have recommended that we take a similar authoritarian approach to science so it doesn't continually and morally outpace us. They also recommend something like eugenics (biomedicine - bioengineering), which the Nazis tried on undesirable and uncooperative people, as a way to morally enhance us and make us more morally fit for the future.
There is something alarming and distasteful about both books, although Einstein's Jewish Science is the more positive.
-
JasonPalmer
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:10 pm
Re: Moral Enhancement
PN is very much a humanist publication, if natural selection grinds away morals and empathy then who are we to argue ?
Re: Moral Enhancement
The authors of Unfit For The Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement obviously haven't read Kant. He astutely recognized and declared that "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made". Kant may have extracted that bon mot from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible - "You can't straighten out what is crooked" (1.15).
What our authors are proposing with their moral enhancing scheme for humanity is to straighten out that crooked timber. Good luck. However, that may not be such a good idea since it might ruin the dynamics of the world. If you straighten out humanity too much, removing its conflict and contradictions, it is very likely the world will lose the 'creative tension' that keeps it going. And that may be humanity's reason detre, the constant striving to straighten out the crooked timber. So if that straightening were ever forcibly accomplished as our authors would like, humanity would have nothing to do but just wither away.
Our authors seem to want to make the world utopian. It's unrealistic. They live in sort off a fantasy world. But that's okay, to dream and hope for a better world. Nevertheless, I think in their hearts of hearts they know humanity can't be improved in the way they want. What they are really doing with their book is pointing out all the things they see as wrong in hopes that people will become more aware of humanity's failings and do their bit to improve things. The book is more a provocative think piece, which, as you have noticed, really got me thinking.
One of the authors' proposals for morally enhancing humanity is to do it from the top down. That has been tried before under authoritarianism. Communism was an authoritarianism that tried and failed to mold humankind as it wanted, into a utopia. Nevertheless, the authors are arguing for such an authoritarian system again as a way to morally enhance the world further. Their ideas leave me bewildered and gobsmacked.
Ironically our authors have problems with the leading governing system in the world, liberal democracy. They think it is too liberal and democratic and thus a detriment to humanity's moral enhancement. For them liberal democracy is too flexible and allows for too much choice, which, because of its materialism, contributes to the degradation and depletion of the environment. They would prefer a more authoritarian approach that dictates to us on how we can be better people. That has been tried before. Authoritarian ways of doing things lead to closed societies. Closed societies tend to be less compassionate, less trusting, more corrupt and unsustainable, in the long run making things worse for humanity and the environment. Is that what our authors want, to go backwards?
One more thing. If the authors really thought about it they would see that the governing system they are so critical of, liberal democracy, is itself a product of an historical moral enhancement, and enlightenment. But it wasn't thrust or forced upon us like our authors system would be. It empirically won out over many rivals including the last, communism, not because of a perfection but of a moral superiority in dealing with humans and the environment.
What our authors are proposing with their moral enhancing scheme for humanity is to straighten out that crooked timber. Good luck. However, that may not be such a good idea since it might ruin the dynamics of the world. If you straighten out humanity too much, removing its conflict and contradictions, it is very likely the world will lose the 'creative tension' that keeps it going. And that may be humanity's reason detre, the constant striving to straighten out the crooked timber. So if that straightening were ever forcibly accomplished as our authors would like, humanity would have nothing to do but just wither away.
Our authors seem to want to make the world utopian. It's unrealistic. They live in sort off a fantasy world. But that's okay, to dream and hope for a better world. Nevertheless, I think in their hearts of hearts they know humanity can't be improved in the way they want. What they are really doing with their book is pointing out all the things they see as wrong in hopes that people will become more aware of humanity's failings and do their bit to improve things. The book is more a provocative think piece, which, as you have noticed, really got me thinking.
One of the authors' proposals for morally enhancing humanity is to do it from the top down. That has been tried before under authoritarianism. Communism was an authoritarianism that tried and failed to mold humankind as it wanted, into a utopia. Nevertheless, the authors are arguing for such an authoritarian system again as a way to morally enhance the world further. Their ideas leave me bewildered and gobsmacked.
Ironically our authors have problems with the leading governing system in the world, liberal democracy. They think it is too liberal and democratic and thus a detriment to humanity's moral enhancement. For them liberal democracy is too flexible and allows for too much choice, which, because of its materialism, contributes to the degradation and depletion of the environment. They would prefer a more authoritarian approach that dictates to us on how we can be better people. That has been tried before. Authoritarian ways of doing things lead to closed societies. Closed societies tend to be less compassionate, less trusting, more corrupt and unsustainable, in the long run making things worse for humanity and the environment. Is that what our authors want, to go backwards?
One more thing. If the authors really thought about it they would see that the governing system they are so critical of, liberal democracy, is itself a product of an historical moral enhancement, and enlightenment. But it wasn't thrust or forced upon us like our authors system would be. It empirically won out over many rivals including the last, communism, not because of a perfection but of a moral superiority in dealing with humans and the environment.
-
JasonPalmer
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:10 pm
Re: Moral Enhancement
liberal democracies are a passing fad
Re: Moral Enhancement
Extraordinary rubbish!JasonPalmer wrote:liberal democracies are a passing fad
And Jason, if you have anything to add why don't you add something of substance, not just one liners.
Re: Moral Enhancement
The authors of Moral Enhancement bring up a problem called 'the tragedy of the commons'. And because of this tragedy they think we are all doomed. It involves a lack of trust and faith in other people. You should read it for yourself to truly get the gist of it. In their article in PN it comes directly under the the caption "Case Study: Climate Change and the Tragedy of the Commons".
The lack of trust and faith that our authors see in humanity shows me how removed and distorted they are in their thinking. They are not being realistic. They argue for a more authoritarian means of dealing with the environment because they believe we common folks are not able to cooperate or coordinate sufficiently to tackle the problem. However, I believe that trust, cooperation and coordination are attitudes that come voluntarily and not from authoritarian rule.
Let's talk about a real tragedy of the commons, communism. As an authoritarian state communism collapsed because it didn't instill in its citizens either trust, or cooperation. If those attitudes did exist under communism they were forced on people - either you trust the state and cooperate or else. It certainly didn't happen voluntarily. Another reason why those attitudes didn't develop is because people were not free to engage each other openly. Nevertheless, our authors (Hobbesians) want to go back and implement authoritarianism again. However, as communism showed by default, solutions to problems don't come from authoritarian rule or central planning but from free thinking and engaging people (Lockeans) who can network freely and develop independent systems of sustainability.
This is why I argue that liberal democracy is the governance of sustainability, because it freely fosters the trust, cooperation and free thinking that can best develop the instruments and institutions that are truly mutually beneficial.
The lack of trust and faith that our authors see in humanity shows me how removed and distorted they are in their thinking. They are not being realistic. They argue for a more authoritarian means of dealing with the environment because they believe we common folks are not able to cooperate or coordinate sufficiently to tackle the problem. However, I believe that trust, cooperation and coordination are attitudes that come voluntarily and not from authoritarian rule.
Let's talk about a real tragedy of the commons, communism. As an authoritarian state communism collapsed because it didn't instill in its citizens either trust, or cooperation. If those attitudes did exist under communism they were forced on people - either you trust the state and cooperate or else. It certainly didn't happen voluntarily. Another reason why those attitudes didn't develop is because people were not free to engage each other openly. Nevertheless, our authors (Hobbesians) want to go back and implement authoritarianism again. However, as communism showed by default, solutions to problems don't come from authoritarian rule or central planning but from free thinking and engaging people (Lockeans) who can network freely and develop independent systems of sustainability.
This is why I argue that liberal democracy is the governance of sustainability, because it freely fosters the trust, cooperation and free thinking that can best develop the instruments and institutions that are truly mutually beneficial.
Re: Moral Enhancement
A plank of this essay on Moral Enhancement is the tragedy of the commons. I am surprised that I never heard of the idea before, which was popularized in 1968 by Garrett Hardin. At first I thought it was referring to the common people, as in the masses, like in the tragedy of the masses. But it is really about a communal pastureland called the 'commons' on which the village herdsmen of yore fed their flocks. The tragedy in the parable is that the herdsmen can't refrain from overusing the pasture until there is no grass left to feed on. The tragedy is also about the herdsmen not having the wherewithal or insight to reach a cooperative agreement to preserve the pasture for future flocks. The authors use this parable to illustrate their ideas that humankind, like the herdsmen, is so driven by self-interest that there is no way it can come to an agreement on saving the ecology of the planet. Hidden in the parable is a lack of trust between the herdsmen, thus a mistrust among humans involving the environment, like who will take the first step in the cutting back on fossil fuels; if I do will you? (I don't trust you will stand by your word.)
My idea that the 'commons' referred to the people is nevertheless interesting. In my interpretation the tragedy of the commons refers to the mess the common people have created. Philosophers like Nietzsche have referred to rule by the common people as 'mob rule', from which nothing good can be made or hoped for. Nietzsche believed that democracy, in which the common people are emancipated, would be nothing more than a tragedy. Similarly, the authors of this essay are not that enamored with more democracy because with it come increased freedoms that exacerbate materialism, consumerism and the further degradation of the planet. And as the authors see it, democracy is synonymous with the common folk- the commons, and therefore a tragedy for the environment as more countries adopt its governance and its attendant liberal economics.
(Nietzsche, like the authors of this essay, argued for a benevolent authority to govern rather than a democracy of the people. But I am surprised that the authors never explored the idea of Leadership within democracies to overcome 'the tragedy of the commons', which there has been incidents of in resent history.)
One example I have of my interpretation of the tragedy of the commons is the events that led up to the economic and financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath. The whole thing was and has been a tragedy that was perpetuated in large part by the self-interest and selfishness of the the common people, simultaneously acting like sheep and going off a cliff. But it was also a tragedy in the sense of the herdsmen's use of the commons, consistently feeding at the trough with no consequences for the future.
My idea that the 'commons' referred to the people is nevertheless interesting. In my interpretation the tragedy of the commons refers to the mess the common people have created. Philosophers like Nietzsche have referred to rule by the common people as 'mob rule', from which nothing good can be made or hoped for. Nietzsche believed that democracy, in which the common people are emancipated, would be nothing more than a tragedy. Similarly, the authors of this essay are not that enamored with more democracy because with it come increased freedoms that exacerbate materialism, consumerism and the further degradation of the planet. And as the authors see it, democracy is synonymous with the common folk- the commons, and therefore a tragedy for the environment as more countries adopt its governance and its attendant liberal economics.
(Nietzsche, like the authors of this essay, argued for a benevolent authority to govern rather than a democracy of the people. But I am surprised that the authors never explored the idea of Leadership within democracies to overcome 'the tragedy of the commons', which there has been incidents of in resent history.)
One example I have of my interpretation of the tragedy of the commons is the events that led up to the economic and financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath. The whole thing was and has been a tragedy that was perpetuated in large part by the self-interest and selfishness of the the common people, simultaneously acting like sheep and going off a cliff. But it was also a tragedy in the sense of the herdsmen's use of the commons, consistently feeding at the trough with no consequences for the future.
Re: Moral Enhancement
Moral Enhancement is an intellectual piece of work. It is an honest attempt at pointing out our moral shortcomings, especially concerning the environment. But some of the conclusions it makes are, well, laughable. For instance, in closing it concludes that humans ought to be morally enhanced through biomedical techniques and the alteration of hormones. It proposes these measures because it believes that our moral standing is such that it can't be remedied or enhanced any further through the conventional means of education, experience or government fiat.
I think what the authors are proposing is ludicrous, in having the human race biomedically altered in order that we become more environmentally and ecologically conscious. Who knows where that would lead? They do concede that there might be problems, side effects and other unintended consequences. One unintended consequence our authors didn't consider is the monstrous apparatus it would take to biomedically altering the human race. By their attitude I can believe our authors are anti-corporations. Yet what they propose for the human race would require massive corporate assistance and intrusion on a grand scale because corporations would be the only institution that could muster the resources to produce and distribute the biomedical technology needed to transform the human race.
Our authors foresee the day when the world will break out into conflict over resources. They give two examples in their book, from which this essay is drawn, of recent conflicts over resources, though not very convincingly, in the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda. They also mention xenophobia as a reason for those conflicts, which is more the scenario than the fight over resources. In Yugoslavia the conflict that tore the country apart certainly wasn't over the scarcity of resource. It was about race, religion, bad blood and ethnicity. In Rwanda it was a similar situation, although resources may have played more of a role in that conflict. They also mention the conflict in Dafur as resource based. But Rwanda and Darfur are poor examples because these countries were and are extremely underdeveloped, having no wherewithal or sophistication to resolve disputes peacefully.
Recent conflicts between nations over resources have mostly been economic or political, not bloody. One famous acrimonious but peaceful dispute over resources was the Oil Embargo of 1973. The last really bloody conflict over resources occurred during WW2. A major events that lead to WW2 was Europe's and America's blockading Germany and Japan from acquiring strategic resources. Both countries formed an alliance and struck back with force. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep America's Pacific Fleet at bay while it expanded in Asia and trolled for resources.
Today Japan and Germany are liberal democracies. And if you can believe the record, liberal democracies don't go to war with each other. They work out disputes and cooperate. But our authors would like to curtail liberal democracy because it expands materialism and consumerism, which they insist contributes to the degradation of the environment and depletion of natural resources. However, the authoritarianism they propose instead is more likely to increase friction and start wars. At least with liberal democracies there is a much better chance of resoling problems and discovering solutions than there is under authoritarianism. Liberalism may contribute to the degradation and depletion of natural resources. But one thing liberalism is exceptional at is developing other resources, such as human resources, resources that work to combat and improve the situation, unlike the authoritarianism our authors would like to revert to, which stifles human innovation and ingenuity in finding alternatives. History attests to this.
I think what the authors are proposing is ludicrous, in having the human race biomedically altered in order that we become more environmentally and ecologically conscious. Who knows where that would lead? They do concede that there might be problems, side effects and other unintended consequences. One unintended consequence our authors didn't consider is the monstrous apparatus it would take to biomedically altering the human race. By their attitude I can believe our authors are anti-corporations. Yet what they propose for the human race would require massive corporate assistance and intrusion on a grand scale because corporations would be the only institution that could muster the resources to produce and distribute the biomedical technology needed to transform the human race.
Our authors foresee the day when the world will break out into conflict over resources. They give two examples in their book, from which this essay is drawn, of recent conflicts over resources, though not very convincingly, in the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda. They also mention xenophobia as a reason for those conflicts, which is more the scenario than the fight over resources. In Yugoslavia the conflict that tore the country apart certainly wasn't over the scarcity of resource. It was about race, religion, bad blood and ethnicity. In Rwanda it was a similar situation, although resources may have played more of a role in that conflict. They also mention the conflict in Dafur as resource based. But Rwanda and Darfur are poor examples because these countries were and are extremely underdeveloped, having no wherewithal or sophistication to resolve disputes peacefully.
Recent conflicts between nations over resources have mostly been economic or political, not bloody. One famous acrimonious but peaceful dispute over resources was the Oil Embargo of 1973. The last really bloody conflict over resources occurred during WW2. A major events that lead to WW2 was Europe's and America's blockading Germany and Japan from acquiring strategic resources. Both countries formed an alliance and struck back with force. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep America's Pacific Fleet at bay while it expanded in Asia and trolled for resources.
Today Japan and Germany are liberal democracies. And if you can believe the record, liberal democracies don't go to war with each other. They work out disputes and cooperate. But our authors would like to curtail liberal democracy because it expands materialism and consumerism, which they insist contributes to the degradation of the environment and depletion of natural resources. However, the authoritarianism they propose instead is more likely to increase friction and start wars. At least with liberal democracies there is a much better chance of resoling problems and discovering solutions than there is under authoritarianism. Liberalism may contribute to the degradation and depletion of natural resources. But one thing liberalism is exceptional at is developing other resources, such as human resources, resources that work to combat and improve the situation, unlike the authoritarianism our authors would like to revert to, which stifles human innovation and ingenuity in finding alternatives. History attests to this.
Re: Moral Enhancement
As you see I can't leave this article alone. At times it leaves me speechless and awake at night.
In thinking about this essay I wanted to crack a joke that started like: Two Moral Enhancement essayists walk into a bar..... That didn't work so I thought of a knock-knock joke but couldn't think of a very clever punch line: Knock, knock! Who's there? Two moral enhancers!. Two moral enhancers, who? Two moral enhancers who want to alter your oxytocin hormones so you're more in tune with the environment. Response: Go away and leave my hormones alone! In tune, in smune!
Perhaps I should try a limerick.
I was reading Roger Scruton's book "How To Think Seriously About The Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservative". It's totally opposite to Moral Enhancement and the book it's based on, "Unfit For The Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement". Scruton's book is more about taking local and individual responsibility for the environment. Persson's and Savulescu's view is more about taking a collective, global stance. Scruton's thinks more about the cost of being environmental while P&S aren't concerned about monetary costs at all. I am thinking that Scruton would not take Moral Enhancement and its recommendations very seriously, especial the biomedical enhancing part, which seems far fetched. My feelings about the environment are somewhere between the two books. I am not as right-wing as Scruton nor as left-wing as P&S.
The authors of Moral Enhancement/Unfit For The Future don't mention the idea of "sustainability" at all in their writings. Radical environmentalists hate the idea because for them it implies 'business as usual'. They don't want business as usual because that means nothing will change and we will continue to denigrate and deplete the environment. However, sustainability is a pragmatic, balanced approach that is meant to protect the environment while maintaining economic life. People need jobs to make a living. But the way anti-sustainability environmentalists would have it there would be millions of jobs eliminated to protect the environment. They don't think about the social consequences of their ideas, which could cause social upheavals on a scale that would make their efforts to protect the environment irrelevant.
Sustainability is also about renewal and rejuvenation, which all ecological systems need to survive and continue. If the authors of Moral Enhancement had their way things would virtually come to a standstill because the equilibrium they propose would gut the dynamics of life. Their kind of enhancement would be more like an emasculation since their ideas would derail the evolutionary process. And who's to say that human activity and its give and take is not part of the evolutionary process?
Conservatives like Scruton are suspicious of ideas. So I was thinking he might also be suspicious of sustainability. Yet he embraces the idea more than the 'lefties' of Moral Enhancement. But, then, sustainability is more a conservative notion, chiefly about preserving and maintaining the status quo. But the status quo needs shaking up periodically because it can't always remain business as usual, which can also be disastrous since things that remain the same eventually break down and collapse. And that is what sustainability is really about, keeping the status quo while shaking things up so as to reinvigorate, renew and continue. It's an essential dichotomy. However, the ordeal can feel like being between a rock and a hard place as we try to do the right thing.
In thinking about this essay I wanted to crack a joke that started like: Two Moral Enhancement essayists walk into a bar..... That didn't work so I thought of a knock-knock joke but couldn't think of a very clever punch line: Knock, knock! Who's there? Two moral enhancers!. Two moral enhancers, who? Two moral enhancers who want to alter your oxytocin hormones so you're more in tune with the environment. Response: Go away and leave my hormones alone! In tune, in smune!
Perhaps I should try a limerick.
I was reading Roger Scruton's book "How To Think Seriously About The Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservative". It's totally opposite to Moral Enhancement and the book it's based on, "Unfit For The Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement". Scruton's book is more about taking local and individual responsibility for the environment. Persson's and Savulescu's view is more about taking a collective, global stance. Scruton's thinks more about the cost of being environmental while P&S aren't concerned about monetary costs at all. I am thinking that Scruton would not take Moral Enhancement and its recommendations very seriously, especial the biomedical enhancing part, which seems far fetched. My feelings about the environment are somewhere between the two books. I am not as right-wing as Scruton nor as left-wing as P&S.
The authors of Moral Enhancement/Unfit For The Future don't mention the idea of "sustainability" at all in their writings. Radical environmentalists hate the idea because for them it implies 'business as usual'. They don't want business as usual because that means nothing will change and we will continue to denigrate and deplete the environment. However, sustainability is a pragmatic, balanced approach that is meant to protect the environment while maintaining economic life. People need jobs to make a living. But the way anti-sustainability environmentalists would have it there would be millions of jobs eliminated to protect the environment. They don't think about the social consequences of their ideas, which could cause social upheavals on a scale that would make their efforts to protect the environment irrelevant.
Sustainability is also about renewal and rejuvenation, which all ecological systems need to survive and continue. If the authors of Moral Enhancement had their way things would virtually come to a standstill because the equilibrium they propose would gut the dynamics of life. Their kind of enhancement would be more like an emasculation since their ideas would derail the evolutionary process. And who's to say that human activity and its give and take is not part of the evolutionary process?
Conservatives like Scruton are suspicious of ideas. So I was thinking he might also be suspicious of sustainability. Yet he embraces the idea more than the 'lefties' of Moral Enhancement. But, then, sustainability is more a conservative notion, chiefly about preserving and maintaining the status quo. But the status quo needs shaking up periodically because it can't always remain business as usual, which can also be disastrous since things that remain the same eventually break down and collapse. And that is what sustainability is really about, keeping the status quo while shaking things up so as to reinvigorate, renew and continue. It's an essential dichotomy. However, the ordeal can feel like being between a rock and a hard place as we try to do the right thing.
Re: Moral Enhancement
The Moral Enhancement Persson and Savulescu (P&S) want is probably already occurring. It is not of the biomedical technology nature P&S are proposing (thank God). It is occurring in an old fashion way, through communications. It is of the cell-phone, Internet, cyberspace nature.
Studies have shown people can not live without being connected by cell-phones or the Internet. Studies have also shown that brain active is enhanced when connected or searching on the Internet. Enhanced brain activity is essential to our becoming more morally aware as P&S believe we should be.
Being interconnected as we are is making us more aware and sensitive to the bad things that are going on in the world. It is making us all think more alike. So it is conceivable that this mass interconnectedness is slowly coercing us to be morally the same and do the right, mutually beneficial thing by the environment. In most respect the mass communications of today is brainwashing us to think collectively. This kind of collective thinking can only be good for the future and how we treat our environment.
The Internet presents us with images we can all identify with. A similar imaging happen during the early days of space exploration with a picture of the Earth from outer space. That image of our planet alone in space stirred and left many of us the impression that it was our only home and needed looking after. That image launched Earth Day and the present environmental movement. Present day mass communications and the Internet is continually expanding on that movement and our moral sensibilities to the world.
Studies have shown people can not live without being connected by cell-phones or the Internet. Studies have also shown that brain active is enhanced when connected or searching on the Internet. Enhanced brain activity is essential to our becoming more morally aware as P&S believe we should be.
Being interconnected as we are is making us more aware and sensitive to the bad things that are going on in the world. It is making us all think more alike. So it is conceivable that this mass interconnectedness is slowly coercing us to be morally the same and do the right, mutually beneficial thing by the environment. In most respect the mass communications of today is brainwashing us to think collectively. This kind of collective thinking can only be good for the future and how we treat our environment.
The Internet presents us with images we can all identify with. A similar imaging happen during the early days of space exploration with a picture of the Earth from outer space. That image of our planet alone in space stirred and left many of us the impression that it was our only home and needed looking after. That image launched Earth Day and the present environmental movement. Present day mass communications and the Internet is continually expanding on that movement and our moral sensibilities to the world.
Re: Moral Enhancement
Persson and Savulescu (P&S) write. "A basic fact about the human condition is that it is easier for us to harm each other than to benefit each other". They also admonish liberal democracy for the same reason, for being too liberal and free, allowing people to pursue their own self-interest above the common good. In other words, P&S think that liberal democracy gives us too much freedom, a freedom that is more apt to harm others than to mutually benefit others. According to them liberal democracy no longer seek the moral high ground, if it ever did.
I think P&S have it wrong. True, it has always been easier for us to do harm than do good, especially to outsider and people not of the same kind. But that is why liberal democracy was devised, to enlighten humankind and contain our disposition to do harm. It has championed universal human rights, something no other governing system has done. That championing has made the world a more peaceful and secure place through the promotion of interdependence and interconnectedness. Now P&S want to revert to a kind of authoritarianism because they believe our moral development has come to a standstill. But the world has already tried authoritarian regimes and tactics to improve humankind and failed. They failed because they were divisive, cruel and unimaginative in their approaches.
P&S are disenchanted with liberal democracy. It hasn't lived up to their expectations. It hasn't amounted to the end of history where all-of-humankind's-problems-would-go-away as they were led to believe. All I can say is, how naive.
Marx was right about one thing, that humankind had to constantly be in a revolutionary state to remain vital. What is great about liberal democracy is that it is constantly in a revolutionary state but without the violence. But P&S want to emasculate liberal democracy and take its liberties and freedoms in the misplaced believe that it will enhance our morals. All I can say is, how doubly naive.
I think P&S have it wrong. True, it has always been easier for us to do harm than do good, especially to outsider and people not of the same kind. But that is why liberal democracy was devised, to enlighten humankind and contain our disposition to do harm. It has championed universal human rights, something no other governing system has done. That championing has made the world a more peaceful and secure place through the promotion of interdependence and interconnectedness. Now P&S want to revert to a kind of authoritarianism because they believe our moral development has come to a standstill. But the world has already tried authoritarian regimes and tactics to improve humankind and failed. They failed because they were divisive, cruel and unimaginative in their approaches.
P&S are disenchanted with liberal democracy. It hasn't lived up to their expectations. It hasn't amounted to the end of history where all-of-humankind's-problems-would-go-away as they were led to believe. All I can say is, how naive.
Marx was right about one thing, that humankind had to constantly be in a revolutionary state to remain vital. What is great about liberal democracy is that it is constantly in a revolutionary state but without the violence. But P&S want to emasculate liberal democracy and take its liberties and freedoms in the misplaced believe that it will enhance our morals. All I can say is, how doubly naive.
Re: Moral Enhancement
I am thinking of the Arab/Muslim world and what happens when moral enhancement happens too fast and not naturally. You have riots and unprecedented social upheavals.
P&S's argument for moral enhancement seems more applicable to the Arab/Muslim world than to the liberal democracies they single out. We in the West don't practice tribalism as they still do in the Arab/Muslim world, which P&S say is a major hinderance to moral enhancement. Societies that are tribal, P&S rightly argue, are xenophobic and more apt to do harm to outsiders, discriminate and thwart egalitarianism, behaviors that fly in the face of comprehensive moral enhancement. Tribal and non-secular societies are not inclined to cultivate moral values that are universal or mutually beneficial like they are in liberal democracies, which in comparison are accommodating and pluralistic. (Tribal philosophy has been "rule or die". This explains the violence in Syria.)
Secularism is a scarce commodity in the Arab/Muslim world. Thus any attempt at moral enhancement in that world is going to be extremely difficult. Without secularism and the respect for other peoples' religion and beliefs moral enhancement is just a dream. Furthermore, how can one seriously entertain the idea of a legitimate moral enhancement in a world that doesn't practice gender equality but instead segregation. In light of this I recommend that P&S reexamine their hostility towards liberal democracy and praise it for the moral enhancement potential it has.
A moral enhancement is coming to the Arab/Muslim world. But it has been thrust upon them in a quick, tumultuous fashion. (To bad it couldn't have occurred in a transitional, peaceful way but I guess that just wasn't in them.) Moreover, they don't yet have the institution to uphold and secure the democratic, secular morals and values they are seeking, thus all the more difficult the process. Establishing those institutions will take time and serious commitment. So no wonder the continuing turmoil.
When you think about it much of our moral enhancement has come from science and technological advances, mostly in the form of communications. And it has been liberating. It started with the printing press, then movies, television and now the Internet. The Western world adapted well to these advances. But for many reasons the Arab/Muslim world did not. As a result the West developed mutually beneficial systems of communication and social networking. Only now are these systems and freedoms starting to come to the Arab/Muslim world. But since they are fairly new to it there is going to be many years of internal upheavals and wrenching moments as they embrace and adapt to it.
P&S argue for the use of authoritarianism (from their book, Unfit For The Future) as a means of forcing moral enhancement on us, to make us more morally fit for the future. The Arab/Muslim world was cock-a-block with authoritarian regimes. But that didn't prepare them for the future as we can see by the unwinding and collapse of their societies. No, moral enhancement comes the hard way, devised and earned through the process of free human activity and social networking, things that have been in very shot supply in the Arab/Muslim world.
I am flabbergasted that P&S brought up the notion of authoritarianism as a means of moral enhancement in view the damage authoritarianism has done in the world. Shame on them! But if there is to be authoritarianism it should be mutually agreed upon like it is in liberal democracies, such as in health, monitary policy and security.
P&S's argument for moral enhancement seems more applicable to the Arab/Muslim world than to the liberal democracies they single out. We in the West don't practice tribalism as they still do in the Arab/Muslim world, which P&S say is a major hinderance to moral enhancement. Societies that are tribal, P&S rightly argue, are xenophobic and more apt to do harm to outsiders, discriminate and thwart egalitarianism, behaviors that fly in the face of comprehensive moral enhancement. Tribal and non-secular societies are not inclined to cultivate moral values that are universal or mutually beneficial like they are in liberal democracies, which in comparison are accommodating and pluralistic. (Tribal philosophy has been "rule or die". This explains the violence in Syria.)
Secularism is a scarce commodity in the Arab/Muslim world. Thus any attempt at moral enhancement in that world is going to be extremely difficult. Without secularism and the respect for other peoples' religion and beliefs moral enhancement is just a dream. Furthermore, how can one seriously entertain the idea of a legitimate moral enhancement in a world that doesn't practice gender equality but instead segregation. In light of this I recommend that P&S reexamine their hostility towards liberal democracy and praise it for the moral enhancement potential it has.
A moral enhancement is coming to the Arab/Muslim world. But it has been thrust upon them in a quick, tumultuous fashion. (To bad it couldn't have occurred in a transitional, peaceful way but I guess that just wasn't in them.) Moreover, they don't yet have the institution to uphold and secure the democratic, secular morals and values they are seeking, thus all the more difficult the process. Establishing those institutions will take time and serious commitment. So no wonder the continuing turmoil.
When you think about it much of our moral enhancement has come from science and technological advances, mostly in the form of communications. And it has been liberating. It started with the printing press, then movies, television and now the Internet. The Western world adapted well to these advances. But for many reasons the Arab/Muslim world did not. As a result the West developed mutually beneficial systems of communication and social networking. Only now are these systems and freedoms starting to come to the Arab/Muslim world. But since they are fairly new to it there is going to be many years of internal upheavals and wrenching moments as they embrace and adapt to it.
P&S argue for the use of authoritarianism (from their book, Unfit For The Future) as a means of forcing moral enhancement on us, to make us more morally fit for the future. The Arab/Muslim world was cock-a-block with authoritarian regimes. But that didn't prepare them for the future as we can see by the unwinding and collapse of their societies. No, moral enhancement comes the hard way, devised and earned through the process of free human activity and social networking, things that have been in very shot supply in the Arab/Muslim world.
I am flabbergasted that P&S brought up the notion of authoritarianism as a means of moral enhancement in view the damage authoritarianism has done in the world. Shame on them! But if there is to be authoritarianism it should be mutually agreed upon like it is in liberal democracies, such as in health, monitary policy and security.
Re: Moral Enhancement
The twentieth century may have been the bloodiest on record. But by most accounts it was also the most enlightening and moral enhancing. The major enhancement to occur in the last century was the ascendency of liberal democracy, ironically the enhancement the authors of this essay, Moral Enhancement, speak disparagingly of.
Why should the ascendency of liberal democracy be seen as a moral achievement for the people of the world? For one, it has been a vast improvement on the other form of governments it dislodged, which were hierarchal and authoritarian. Of all the other forms of human governance it is the only one that has championed and expanded human rights and universal suffrage. Under its auspices the world has become a more integrated and peaceful place. And of all the other systems it has been the one that has developed the human capital and resources to achieve sustainability, hence its triumph and the collapse of all the other governing systems, from monarchies to communism.
The authors of this article will argue that sustainability is not one of liberal democracy's great achievements. In fact they argue that the liberties and freedoms liberal democracy has bestowed on us is the very thing that is threatening the sustainability of the world's ecological systems. However, even though liberal democracy is the problem it is also the solution. Sadly, the authors of this article do not recognize this fact about liberal democracy, its duality and the potential it has for achieving sustainability. The return to authoritarianism they suggest would only make things worse by eliminating a vibrancy and dynamics that now exist in liberal democracy.
Why should the ascendency of liberal democracy be seen as a moral achievement for the people of the world? For one, it has been a vast improvement on the other form of governments it dislodged, which were hierarchal and authoritarian. Of all the other forms of human governance it is the only one that has championed and expanded human rights and universal suffrage. Under its auspices the world has become a more integrated and peaceful place. And of all the other systems it has been the one that has developed the human capital and resources to achieve sustainability, hence its triumph and the collapse of all the other governing systems, from monarchies to communism.
The authors of this article will argue that sustainability is not one of liberal democracy's great achievements. In fact they argue that the liberties and freedoms liberal democracy has bestowed on us is the very thing that is threatening the sustainability of the world's ecological systems. However, even though liberal democracy is the problem it is also the solution. Sadly, the authors of this article do not recognize this fact about liberal democracy, its duality and the potential it has for achieving sustainability. The return to authoritarianism they suggest would only make things worse by eliminating a vibrancy and dynamics that now exist in liberal democracy.
Re: Moral Enhancement
As we are touring Europe, Germany and Austria in particular, I am contemplating the Moral Enhancement that has occurred on this continent over the last sixty years. The Moral Enhancement I speak of amounts to a union - the EU, of countries that has managed to contain and keep at bay the extremism and nationalism that has ravaged this continent for so long. Today there is a peace on the continent of Europe that is historically unprecedented. This union started with a handful of countries which today has grown to twenty-seven.
The EU recently was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Many pundits think this is a joke in view of the economic crises that has engulfed many countries in the Union. But these people are petit intellectuals and shortsighted since the award was given to the EU for its past achievements of uniting Europe and keeping it peaceful for sixty years. The Union was at its start an economic one that has blossomed and expanded into a greater social and political one. I don't think there are many other instances of Moral Enhancements in the annals of humankind like the one of the EU and the common values it evoked to establish a lasting peace. The naysayers in this case have it all wrong.
The early Union was based on an economic union of five countries. It was a pragmatic union based on the economic life of trade and commerce, the same expansive common values that are uniting the world today. And what could be a more pragmatic place to start than with economic activity, which is so universal?
This got me thinking that pragmatism is itself a moral enhancement. The philosophy of pragmatism, first introduced and practiced in America, is a transcendental philosophy that finds common ground between peoples of differing views. After WW2 it crossed the Atlantic and became the catalyst for the European Union, which was quite a departure from the ideology of past.
The authors of Moral Enhancement should go back and reexamine their findings and conclusions, for under their noses exists an invisible moral enhancement that is slowly working away, while they continue to despair.
The EU recently was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Many pundits think this is a joke in view of the economic crises that has engulfed many countries in the Union. But these people are petit intellectuals and shortsighted since the award was given to the EU for its past achievements of uniting Europe and keeping it peaceful for sixty years. The Union was at its start an economic one that has blossomed and expanded into a greater social and political one. I don't think there are many other instances of Moral Enhancements in the annals of humankind like the one of the EU and the common values it evoked to establish a lasting peace. The naysayers in this case have it all wrong.
The early Union was based on an economic union of five countries. It was a pragmatic union based on the economic life of trade and commerce, the same expansive common values that are uniting the world today. And what could be a more pragmatic place to start than with economic activity, which is so universal?
This got me thinking that pragmatism is itself a moral enhancement. The philosophy of pragmatism, first introduced and practiced in America, is a transcendental philosophy that finds common ground between peoples of differing views. After WW2 it crossed the Atlantic and became the catalyst for the European Union, which was quite a departure from the ideology of past.
The authors of Moral Enhancement should go back and reexamine their findings and conclusions, for under their noses exists an invisible moral enhancement that is slowly working away, while they continue to despair.