The way the authors write about Moral Enhancement there was once a gold age of moral enhancement. It came to an end with the rise of liberal democracy. For them liberal democracy is too liberal and not democratic enough. They want to restore a measure of authoritarianism to the process of human governance so we are restricted from being too liberal and therefore become more democratic. The way it is now, as they see it, there is to much materialism and self-interest (read liberal) in the world and not enough idealism (read democracy) or interest in the common good. However, we have seen more damage done in the name of idealism than under materialism. Idealism more often than not has given way to authoritarianism and brutal regimes. Remember when communism and it idealism was in power? Idealism is imposed from the top. There were many states that began with names like The Democratic Republic of this or The Democratic Republic of that, which were sham democracies.
Democracy can itself be repressive and authoritarian. We experience it even under governments that are duly elected and basically liberal democracies; elected governments telling us we can't do this are that. It is not always bad but sometimes it can become quite oppressive and restrictive under democratically elected government. It seems to come with the territory. And this what our authors want more of, democratic governments telling us more and more what to do. Such behavior can lead into dangerous territory as it once did in Nazi Germany. If Germany at the time had been more liberal in its institutions it is quite likely its people would not have been so submissive and therefore Hitler would never have come to power.
Fortunately liberal democracy was invented. How it was invented or came to be is a moral enhancing tale of the highest order. It is a combination of the two opposing ends of the philosophical spectrum that has shaped our world. It is the combination of the two opposing governing theories known to humanity - idealism and materialism (alluding to Fukuyama's end point in human governance and the end of history). So what better human governance than the combination of two clear opposing governing forces, so that they can counterbalance and keep the other in check and honest. From the two sparing with each other we get a creative tension and the social experience from which true, lasting moral enhancement emerges. From the two competing and exchanging with each other we get our open society and is attendants of accountability and transparency, morals and values we all cherish.
From an article about Lenin in PN issue 31 comes this quote about a Russian philosopher Lenin exiled: "It is worth mentioning that Berdyaev foresaw the inevitable dangers of the attempt to build a society in accordance with a single theoretical principle." Berdyaev was talking about communism, which was founded on one theoretical principle, idealism. The dangers he saw in a governance based on this single theory is the inevitability of it becoming totalitarian and unsustainable. But here we have our authors wanting to tamper with the balances of liberal democracy by curtailing one of the governing theories in favor of the other. They certainly haven't learned from history.
Moral Enhancement
Re: Moral Enhancement
Never in the history of the world has the world been so unified and working as one as is today, from security to financial to commerce to matters of health. I consider that a moral advancement over how the world used to behave even just a quarter century ago when the world was more divided and tribal. But for the authors of "Moral Enhancement" this means little because they didn't even give it a mention. Perhaps they are dissatisfied with the slow progress.
The peoples of the world are in agreement more about what is right and wrong than ever before, about human rights, freedoms, justice and the environment. They share more common values than ever before. Yet the authors of this essay about moral enhancement don't see it that way. They do recognize the world is becoming more interconnected but they think our moral capabilities haven't kept up with it, that there is a disconnect between the world's physical connection and humanity's moral capacity to deal with it. For them our moral development has not kept pace with the changing world. According to them our morals are stuck in another era when we were more isolated and distant from each other. Well, I am here to disagree.
As I mentioned before I believe our authors probably think there was once a Gold Age of moral enhancement that the ascendency of liberal democracy may have put an end to. Well, if there was such an age it may have been during what was called the Cold War that lasted for 50 years and came to an end around 1989 with the triumph of liberal democracy. It was called the Cold War because it wasn't HOT, which it could easily have been. Its leaders were more rational and pragmatic than previous generations, leaders who had learned that world wars were no longer tenable. The fact that it was a cold war rather that a hot one, like WW2, is in itself a moral victory for the world. The Cold War was a tensional rivalry and stand-off between two of the world's supper powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and their respective minions. Both powers were equally weaponized with nuclear capabilities, essentially leading to a balance of power. The upshot was a stalemate that acted as a deterrent to war. Moreover, it was under the auspices of the UN, an earlier moral victory for the world, which both the US and The USSR were founding members of, that further help facilitate and mediate the virtual peace and coexistence between them.
There were several events during the Cold War that led to concrete moral enhancements and developments on a global scale, which still stand and keep on delivering to this day. Today's world would not be without those moral enhancements having been achieved first. For one, there were numerous treaties signed and ratified between the two major powers to prevent and safe-guard against the use of nuclear weapons that are still in force today. But the authors of Moral Enhancement don't recognize this as a moral achievement. They think the world is still immature when it comes to nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, not one nuclear weapon has been used since WW2. And as liberal democracy expands its influence there is less likely hood that they will be used in the future because by virtue, liberal democracies don't go to war with each other.
Many of the moral enhancements that came to be during the Cold War years occurred because of the competition that existed between the US and the USSR. Both were competing for the hearts and minds of the world as to which was the more just and legitimate form of human governance. This competition forced America to look inward and reexamine itself about the injustices it committed against it own black citizens and minorities. If America was going to be a beacon to the world as it touted itself to be and look superior to the USSR it was going to have to clean up its act and end segregation. This motivated it to enact the CIvil Right Act of 1964. This really distinguished America and put it on a higher moral ground than the USSR, which was not interested in human rights at all. Surprisingly, though, a decade later the USSR signed onto The Helsinki Accord (1975) which helped establish and recognize the moral ultimate, universal human rights. However, this was not an ideal move for the USSR since it inflicted a lethal blow to its totalitarian grip that eventually contributed to its demise, adding another moral victory to the world and the end of another cruel authoritarian regime.
We know liberal democracy is imperfect, made up of the persistent imperfections of humankind. However, the authors of "Moral Enhancement" should reexamine the short-shift they give liberal democracy for it is a culmination of the many moral enhancements of the past that will enable us in the future.
The peoples of the world are in agreement more about what is right and wrong than ever before, about human rights, freedoms, justice and the environment. They share more common values than ever before. Yet the authors of this essay about moral enhancement don't see it that way. They do recognize the world is becoming more interconnected but they think our moral capabilities haven't kept up with it, that there is a disconnect between the world's physical connection and humanity's moral capacity to deal with it. For them our moral development has not kept pace with the changing world. According to them our morals are stuck in another era when we were more isolated and distant from each other. Well, I am here to disagree.
As I mentioned before I believe our authors probably think there was once a Gold Age of moral enhancement that the ascendency of liberal democracy may have put an end to. Well, if there was such an age it may have been during what was called the Cold War that lasted for 50 years and came to an end around 1989 with the triumph of liberal democracy. It was called the Cold War because it wasn't HOT, which it could easily have been. Its leaders were more rational and pragmatic than previous generations, leaders who had learned that world wars were no longer tenable. The fact that it was a cold war rather that a hot one, like WW2, is in itself a moral victory for the world. The Cold War was a tensional rivalry and stand-off between two of the world's supper powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and their respective minions. Both powers were equally weaponized with nuclear capabilities, essentially leading to a balance of power. The upshot was a stalemate that acted as a deterrent to war. Moreover, it was under the auspices of the UN, an earlier moral victory for the world, which both the US and The USSR were founding members of, that further help facilitate and mediate the virtual peace and coexistence between them.
There were several events during the Cold War that led to concrete moral enhancements and developments on a global scale, which still stand and keep on delivering to this day. Today's world would not be without those moral enhancements having been achieved first. For one, there were numerous treaties signed and ratified between the two major powers to prevent and safe-guard against the use of nuclear weapons that are still in force today. But the authors of Moral Enhancement don't recognize this as a moral achievement. They think the world is still immature when it comes to nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, not one nuclear weapon has been used since WW2. And as liberal democracy expands its influence there is less likely hood that they will be used in the future because by virtue, liberal democracies don't go to war with each other.
Many of the moral enhancements that came to be during the Cold War years occurred because of the competition that existed between the US and the USSR. Both were competing for the hearts and minds of the world as to which was the more just and legitimate form of human governance. This competition forced America to look inward and reexamine itself about the injustices it committed against it own black citizens and minorities. If America was going to be a beacon to the world as it touted itself to be and look superior to the USSR it was going to have to clean up its act and end segregation. This motivated it to enact the CIvil Right Act of 1964. This really distinguished America and put it on a higher moral ground than the USSR, which was not interested in human rights at all. Surprisingly, though, a decade later the USSR signed onto The Helsinki Accord (1975) which helped establish and recognize the moral ultimate, universal human rights. However, this was not an ideal move for the USSR since it inflicted a lethal blow to its totalitarian grip that eventually contributed to its demise, adding another moral victory to the world and the end of another cruel authoritarian regime.
We know liberal democracy is imperfect, made up of the persistent imperfections of humankind. However, the authors of "Moral Enhancement" should reexamine the short-shift they give liberal democracy for it is a culmination of the many moral enhancements of the past that will enable us in the future.
Re: Moral Enhancement
One of the worries the authors of "Moral Enhancement" have is that our moral concerns and correctives are not keeping up with our scientific and technological advances. They don't think we are morally wise enough to deal with the scientific research and development we are pursuing. They think that our moral advancement should proceed our scientific advancements so that we don't get into so much trouble. But that is virtually impossible and not plausible. If that is a precondition, that moral wisdom should always proceed scientific wisdom, hardly anything would get built or created because we would be far too cautious. No, for the most part our moral enhancement has been driven and comes after the fact of humans screwed things up and doing harm to each other.
Julian Simon, an economist and sociologist, believed that problems make us better. He believed that "problems make us better off than if they had never occurred." And science, with its discoveries and developments, has given us plenty of problems. But why should problems makes use better? Because they engage us to seek solutions. And as we are engaged with each other we forge working networks and alliances that further bind us together and transcend our natural disposition to remain in isolated groups or tribal. (The authors single out isolation and tribalism as contributing to a moral deficiency and an unpreparedness for the future.) Having problems also forces us to seek alternatives. In seeking solutions to such things as dwindling resources or climate change we purse and develop alternatives, which further expands and enhances our knowledge of the world and ourselves. And it is through our having problems and going through the motions with science and each other that we develop our moral fiber and the common moral ground on which to coexist. Without such engagement we would just be floundering and not progressing.
Speaking of being unfit for the future, might America have had the moral preparedness and wisdom to head-off the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I am asking because the attacks involved airplanes that crashed into skyscrapers, two technological advances that were never deemed dangerous to each other or people as they were on that day. Did somebody once say that we shouldn't build jet planes because some day they could be used immorally by terrorists to crash into buildings and kill people? Or did somebody once say that we shouldn't build skyscrapers because one day somebody could fly planes into them? Nobody said those acts of terror and moral breakdowns were inevitable. So does that lack of moral insight mean that we were morally unfit for the future.
But I remember that just prior to the 9/11 it was said that such attacks were possible and there was intelligence to back it up. But to the people who could have prevented the attacks that information seemed to go in one ear and out the other. Had they acted on the information and prevented the attacks one could say that they did their moral duty, that they had the moral leadership and enhancement to deal with the situation. But since they didn't prevent the attacks, in light of the intelligence at hand, one could say they morally failed or were morally incompetent. The point is that the moral knowledge was out there but not acted on, to protect people from the potential and reality of planes crashing into building.
Nevertheless, after the terrorist attacks it was clear that a moral enhancement from earlier experiences was in play, a moral enhancement that had surfaced to meet the situation. For instance, the attacks could have trigger a world war like it would have done in the past or a collapse of the West as the terrorist were hoping. However, most leaders and nations responded wisely to the situation like there was a moral precedent to follow. For the most part the world proceeded peacefully as it had done prior to the attacks. The world had more to gain by remaining and continuing to be interconnected than withdrawing into isolationism as some intellectuals had predicted. Nor was there an all out clash of civilizations as others had predicted, which in itself amounted to a global moral enhancement carved from past experiences.
But something the authors proposed has come to be to pass. Because of the absence of the moral diligence that enabled the terrorists to attack, an authoritarianism was enacted in the name of social security and public safety. This means that in a democracy individuals lost some of their liberties and privacy for the sake of the common good and to protect against the terrorism that could still be residing amongst us. But the type of authoritarianism was the result of a common experience and done in a deliberative democratic fashion, unlike the way the authors are proposing, in a dictatorial fashion, before the facts and the full human experience is accounted for.
Julian Simon, an economist and sociologist, believed that problems make us better. He believed that "problems make us better off than if they had never occurred." And science, with its discoveries and developments, has given us plenty of problems. But why should problems makes use better? Because they engage us to seek solutions. And as we are engaged with each other we forge working networks and alliances that further bind us together and transcend our natural disposition to remain in isolated groups or tribal. (The authors single out isolation and tribalism as contributing to a moral deficiency and an unpreparedness for the future.) Having problems also forces us to seek alternatives. In seeking solutions to such things as dwindling resources or climate change we purse and develop alternatives, which further expands and enhances our knowledge of the world and ourselves. And it is through our having problems and going through the motions with science and each other that we develop our moral fiber and the common moral ground on which to coexist. Without such engagement we would just be floundering and not progressing.
Speaking of being unfit for the future, might America have had the moral preparedness and wisdom to head-off the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I am asking because the attacks involved airplanes that crashed into skyscrapers, two technological advances that were never deemed dangerous to each other or people as they were on that day. Did somebody once say that we shouldn't build jet planes because some day they could be used immorally by terrorists to crash into buildings and kill people? Or did somebody once say that we shouldn't build skyscrapers because one day somebody could fly planes into them? Nobody said those acts of terror and moral breakdowns were inevitable. So does that lack of moral insight mean that we were morally unfit for the future.
But I remember that just prior to the 9/11 it was said that such attacks were possible and there was intelligence to back it up. But to the people who could have prevented the attacks that information seemed to go in one ear and out the other. Had they acted on the information and prevented the attacks one could say that they did their moral duty, that they had the moral leadership and enhancement to deal with the situation. But since they didn't prevent the attacks, in light of the intelligence at hand, one could say they morally failed or were morally incompetent. The point is that the moral knowledge was out there but not acted on, to protect people from the potential and reality of planes crashing into building.
Nevertheless, after the terrorist attacks it was clear that a moral enhancement from earlier experiences was in play, a moral enhancement that had surfaced to meet the situation. For instance, the attacks could have trigger a world war like it would have done in the past or a collapse of the West as the terrorist were hoping. However, most leaders and nations responded wisely to the situation like there was a moral precedent to follow. For the most part the world proceeded peacefully as it had done prior to the attacks. The world had more to gain by remaining and continuing to be interconnected than withdrawing into isolationism as some intellectuals had predicted. Nor was there an all out clash of civilizations as others had predicted, which in itself amounted to a global moral enhancement carved from past experiences.
But something the authors proposed has come to be to pass. Because of the absence of the moral diligence that enabled the terrorists to attack, an authoritarianism was enacted in the name of social security and public safety. This means that in a democracy individuals lost some of their liberties and privacy for the sake of the common good and to protect against the terrorism that could still be residing amongst us. But the type of authoritarianism was the result of a common experience and done in a deliberative democratic fashion, unlike the way the authors are proposing, in a dictatorial fashion, before the facts and the full human experience is accounted for.
Re: Moral Enhancement
The claim made in "Moral Enhancement" is that we are not morally fit for the future. Then came Hurricane Sandy. Was that some kind of proof that we are not morally fit for the future, but unfit because of human activity that causes climate change, which may have lead to that unprecedented storm?
What followed was interesting also. The mayor of New York endorsed President Obama because he was better for the environment and due to his recognition of climate change. It is the first time I can recall that someone was endorsed for president because he was better for the environment and more morally fit to deal with it than his opponent. In the past such an endorsement would have been akin to the kiss of death.
Perhaps the tide is changing and we are becoming more morally fit and conscious about our environment and demanding our politicians to be also.
I would say that Hurricane Sandy inadvertently gave a boost to our moral enhancement by rubbing our faces in it. There is nothing like experience so as to get additional moral enhancement.
What followed was interesting also. The mayor of New York endorsed President Obama because he was better for the environment and due to his recognition of climate change. It is the first time I can recall that someone was endorsed for president because he was better for the environment and more morally fit to deal with it than his opponent. In the past such an endorsement would have been akin to the kiss of death.
Perhaps the tide is changing and we are becoming more morally fit and conscious about our environment and demanding our politicians to be also.
I would say that Hurricane Sandy inadvertently gave a boost to our moral enhancement by rubbing our faces in it. There is nothing like experience so as to get additional moral enhancement.
Re: Moral Enhancement
A Moral Enhancer won yesterday, a person of real sincerity, unlike his opponent in the race for The White House. Perhaps now America and the world can move forward in its moral enhancement, in areas such as climate change.
In their book the authors of "Unfit For The Future", on which this article on Moral Enhancement is based, wrote, "Imagine how different the world might have been if Al Gore instead of George W. Bush had been declared the winner of the tight US Presidential election of 2000". Obviously the authors believe that Al Gore was a more morally enhanced person, a person who would have worked to further morally enhance America and the world, unlike Bush.
A question was raise after 9/11 about whether Al Gore would have been as good a commander-in-chief as president Bush in dealing with the attack and its aftermath. Would Gore have risen to the occasion? My feeling is that if Al Gore had been president 9/11 would never have happened. The attitude in a Gore administration would have been totally different. It would have acted on the intelligence about the possibility of such an attack and prevented it, instead of dismissing it like Bush&Co. did. An Al Gore administration would not have needed a pretext to engage Iraq in another war.
In their book the authors of "Unfit For The Future", on which this article on Moral Enhancement is based, wrote, "Imagine how different the world might have been if Al Gore instead of George W. Bush had been declared the winner of the tight US Presidential election of 2000". Obviously the authors believe that Al Gore was a more morally enhanced person, a person who would have worked to further morally enhance America and the world, unlike Bush.
A question was raise after 9/11 about whether Al Gore would have been as good a commander-in-chief as president Bush in dealing with the attack and its aftermath. Would Gore have risen to the occasion? My feeling is that if Al Gore had been president 9/11 would never have happened. The attitude in a Gore administration would have been totally different. It would have acted on the intelligence about the possibility of such an attack and prevented it, instead of dismissing it like Bush&Co. did. An Al Gore administration would not have needed a pretext to engage Iraq in another war.
Re: Moral Enhancement
The authors of Moral Enhancement argue that we are in serious need of moral enhancement because the way things stand now we are doing more harm to each other than being mutually beneficial to each other. They say this doesn't bode well for the future and something should be done to remedy it. But one of the remedies they suggest seems worse than the problem, that we might or could be morally enhanced artificially, through biomedicine. Why that sounds ridiculous is because biomedicine is a technology, which our authors view as one of the main culprits of our lacking morals. Why? Because they see our moral development being threatened by technological advances since those advances are outpacing our ability to morally deal with them.
It is odd that the authors haven't examined the past and taken note of how humans have been quietly enhancing themselves morally as moral conundrums have arisen. They also haven't noticed how ironically and unexpectedly moral enhancements have occurred, particularly in reference to one of their pet concerns, the environment.
The protecting of the ozone layer is one example of humans eventually doing the right thing morally. It is also ironic how the protecting of it came about. It involves an unexpected player, President Ronald Reagan, which most people, especially environmentalists, would have thought a person not at all interested in protecting the environment. In fact Reagan was more interested in business than the environment. Measures to protect the environment would make doing business more expensive and perhaps even drive business away.
But it is the business of America that got Reagan interested in protecting the ozone layer. And this is the irony of it all, that his conservative, pro-business administration found it more cost-beneficial to do something about protecting the ozone layer than leave it to deteriorate, even though it was going to be more expensive for industry to deal with. If the ozone wasn't fixed it was feared that human cancers would increase so dramatically that the cost in human life and cures would far outweigh the cost of protecting the ozone. In other words a tipping point had been reached, based on cost-effectiveness, which was an influencing events. And because of this the Reagan administration became a major driving force behind the United Nation adopting the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer from further damage. As a result an ozone protection treaty was ratified that has become a mainstay throughout the world.
By using the cost-benefit proviso in protecting the ozone layer Reagan did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. However, that is how much of what benefits and morally enhances humankind comes about - perversely. But this is better than doing it the other way around, being morally enhanced artificially, sort of a priori as our authors would want. The authors' way would be doing the wrong thing for the right reason, requiring an authoritarianism to implement, which in the long run is more dangerous and ultimately less beneficial.
It is odd that the authors haven't examined the past and taken note of how humans have been quietly enhancing themselves morally as moral conundrums have arisen. They also haven't noticed how ironically and unexpectedly moral enhancements have occurred, particularly in reference to one of their pet concerns, the environment.
The protecting of the ozone layer is one example of humans eventually doing the right thing morally. It is also ironic how the protecting of it came about. It involves an unexpected player, President Ronald Reagan, which most people, especially environmentalists, would have thought a person not at all interested in protecting the environment. In fact Reagan was more interested in business than the environment. Measures to protect the environment would make doing business more expensive and perhaps even drive business away.
But it is the business of America that got Reagan interested in protecting the ozone layer. And this is the irony of it all, that his conservative, pro-business administration found it more cost-beneficial to do something about protecting the ozone layer than leave it to deteriorate, even though it was going to be more expensive for industry to deal with. If the ozone wasn't fixed it was feared that human cancers would increase so dramatically that the cost in human life and cures would far outweigh the cost of protecting the ozone. In other words a tipping point had been reached, based on cost-effectiveness, which was an influencing events. And because of this the Reagan administration became a major driving force behind the United Nation adopting the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer from further damage. As a result an ozone protection treaty was ratified that has become a mainstay throughout the world.
By using the cost-benefit proviso in protecting the ozone layer Reagan did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. However, that is how much of what benefits and morally enhances humankind comes about - perversely. But this is better than doing it the other way around, being morally enhanced artificially, sort of a priori as our authors would want. The authors' way would be doing the wrong thing for the right reason, requiring an authoritarianism to implement, which in the long run is more dangerous and ultimately less beneficial.
Re: Moral Enhancement
I see no point on that as much as an excuse to take control over the population.
Everything has a cycle and an ending, we all is going to die and see no clear justification to extend the human being existence.
This is too much selfish and anthropological view of the universe.
Everything has a cycle and an ending, we all is going to die and see no clear justification to extend the human being existence.
This is too much selfish and anthropological view of the universe.
Re: Moral Enhancement
This article on Moral Enhancement still gets under my skin, big time. What gets under my skin most is what the authors propose, that we should be morally enhanced artificially since the normal channels of moral enhancement - education, deliberation and experience, are not working, according to them. What is so ridiculous about what they suggest is that we should be morally enhanced biomedically, through drugs and other medical means.
The authors see tribalism as a major obstacle to humanity's moral enhancement, that because of tribalism we are incapable of understanding or protecting the welfare needs of people outside our immediate circles of existence. That is nonsense, especially in the developed world where tribalism is not an overriding issue. Furthermore, they distain the very governing system that counters tribalism, pluralistic liberal democracy. Go figure! However, there is tribalism that can still pose problems for the world in countries of the Middle East, which don't practice liberal democracy and thus are going through unprecedented social upheavals like the 'Arab Spring'.
The authors do admit that there could be problems with us being morally enhanced biomedically, like things could backfire and create new problems. (I can imagine that such biomedicine could make people incontinent on a massive scale. And then what?) This is surprising because the authors write that many of our moral problems are induced by technology. So why, then, are they suggesting that we should be morally enhanced by more invasive and potentially damaging technology like biomedicine. It doesn't make sense.
The authors come across as left-wingers. So I am thinking, they must be against corporatism and get upset about society's dependence on corporations for existence and livelihood. And yet here they are proposing a fix to our moral behavior that would require corporate intervention on a massive scale, since corporations would be the only means that could realistically produce and distribution the massive amount of biomedicine necessary to artificially morally enhance the world so as to make a difference.
Another big problem our authors did not foresee is that any new biomedicine techniques that are meant to be used one people would have to go through a rigorous trial period to discover whether they work or are save for human consumption. This could take a long time. And how would we get people who mistrust such remedies and motives to take take the medicine, especially in the illiterate world that is full of superstitions. Let's say that in the end only a third of the world is willing to take its medicine. That surely would not be enough to make a difference. No, the whole thing is a stupid idea.
One more thing about tribalism. If the world is as tribal and splintered as the authors believe it is, how would it be possible to peacefully coerce enough people to come together and be morally enhanced artificially in order to improve the world? My feeling is the our authors would be willing to use force and authoritarianism to achieve that purpose because that would be the only way. However, the world has already tried that kind of social engineering with disastrous results.
I think they wrote this essay, though in an intellectual and polite manner, just to air their grievances about how the world is run because they can't seriously think that their correctives would be seriously taken. Their correctives are for the most part absurd and belong on a funny farm.
The authors see tribalism as a major obstacle to humanity's moral enhancement, that because of tribalism we are incapable of understanding or protecting the welfare needs of people outside our immediate circles of existence. That is nonsense, especially in the developed world where tribalism is not an overriding issue. Furthermore, they distain the very governing system that counters tribalism, pluralistic liberal democracy. Go figure! However, there is tribalism that can still pose problems for the world in countries of the Middle East, which don't practice liberal democracy and thus are going through unprecedented social upheavals like the 'Arab Spring'.
The authors do admit that there could be problems with us being morally enhanced biomedically, like things could backfire and create new problems. (I can imagine that such biomedicine could make people incontinent on a massive scale. And then what?) This is surprising because the authors write that many of our moral problems are induced by technology. So why, then, are they suggesting that we should be morally enhanced by more invasive and potentially damaging technology like biomedicine. It doesn't make sense.
The authors come across as left-wingers. So I am thinking, they must be against corporatism and get upset about society's dependence on corporations for existence and livelihood. And yet here they are proposing a fix to our moral behavior that would require corporate intervention on a massive scale, since corporations would be the only means that could realistically produce and distribution the massive amount of biomedicine necessary to artificially morally enhance the world so as to make a difference.
Another big problem our authors did not foresee is that any new biomedicine techniques that are meant to be used one people would have to go through a rigorous trial period to discover whether they work or are save for human consumption. This could take a long time. And how would we get people who mistrust such remedies and motives to take take the medicine, especially in the illiterate world that is full of superstitions. Let's say that in the end only a third of the world is willing to take its medicine. That surely would not be enough to make a difference. No, the whole thing is a stupid idea.
One more thing about tribalism. If the world is as tribal and splintered as the authors believe it is, how would it be possible to peacefully coerce enough people to come together and be morally enhanced artificially in order to improve the world? My feeling is the our authors would be willing to use force and authoritarianism to achieve that purpose because that would be the only way. However, the world has already tried that kind of social engineering with disastrous results.
I think they wrote this essay, though in an intellectual and polite manner, just to air their grievances about how the world is run because they can't seriously think that their correctives would be seriously taken. Their correctives are for the most part absurd and belong on a funny farm.
Re: Moral Enhancement
According to the authors of this paper tribalism is morally wrong. They write that in a simpler world tribalism was fine; it helped develop the group. But in this world of interconnectedness and interdependence it is archaic and no longer works. It is an obstacle to civilization and progress. It provokes wars because it sets up barriers to Civilization's expansion. Nevertheless, the authors of this paper seem to think that tribalism is rife and hindering human development. That may be true in the underdeveloped world but not for the advanced world.
Civilization abhors isolationism. Tribalism is a form of isolation, where people act xenophobic-like and are mistrustful of outsiders and strangers. Why Civilization abhors tribalism is because under it and its isolationism things eventually stagnate and collapse, because such behavior restricts the new and the change that is essential for sustainability. Tribalism causes unnecessary and harmful friction in the modern world. That is why Civilization prefers multiculturalism, where multiple ethnic groups learn to live together and are essentially equal participants. Civilization knows that humanity behaves and works better when it's inclusive.
Tribalism is unhealthy for humanity. Look, for instance, at what is occurring in Syria. President Assad's tribe - Alawite, has ruled Syria for decades, by force. It has dominated the other tribes that make up Syria and has excluded them from power sharing. The underlining philosophy among tribes has been "rule or die'. Assad's isolating and excluding other tribes from the economic and political process has over the years nurtured and built a resentment among them that has boiled over into the civil war that is tearing the country apart today. If only they had learned to integrate and be multicultural like Western democracies, with their openness and pluralism. Look at Afghanistan and its constant racial strife. It is still very much the order of things in Africa. The very same thing - ethnic and religious strife, is what tore Yugoslavia apart, which has splintered into multiple ethnic enclaves. The world doesn't like such behavior. It finds it abhorrent and immoral.
The authors of the essay seem to think that tribalism is still widespread throughout the world, the rule and not the exception. Because of this they think humans are doing more harm to each other than mutual good. I am just wondering what planet they are living on. Never has the world be more integrated and interdependent. Sure there is a lot of competition between nation for resources and manpower. But there is also more cooperation than ever before. People of the world share more values than they ever did. Their moral beliefs and values are more alike. The majority of world is against warfare and prefers to coexist peacefully. Most people of the world share similar needs and aspirations, to be free, healthy and secure. And never before has so much data and information been share by the governments of the world to keep it save, livable and ongoing.
Tribalism is a thing of the past. It is immoral. Civilization abhors it.
Civilization abhors isolationism. Tribalism is a form of isolation, where people act xenophobic-like and are mistrustful of outsiders and strangers. Why Civilization abhors tribalism is because under it and its isolationism things eventually stagnate and collapse, because such behavior restricts the new and the change that is essential for sustainability. Tribalism causes unnecessary and harmful friction in the modern world. That is why Civilization prefers multiculturalism, where multiple ethnic groups learn to live together and are essentially equal participants. Civilization knows that humanity behaves and works better when it's inclusive.
Tribalism is unhealthy for humanity. Look, for instance, at what is occurring in Syria. President Assad's tribe - Alawite, has ruled Syria for decades, by force. It has dominated the other tribes that make up Syria and has excluded them from power sharing. The underlining philosophy among tribes has been "rule or die'. Assad's isolating and excluding other tribes from the economic and political process has over the years nurtured and built a resentment among them that has boiled over into the civil war that is tearing the country apart today. If only they had learned to integrate and be multicultural like Western democracies, with their openness and pluralism. Look at Afghanistan and its constant racial strife. It is still very much the order of things in Africa. The very same thing - ethnic and religious strife, is what tore Yugoslavia apart, which has splintered into multiple ethnic enclaves. The world doesn't like such behavior. It finds it abhorrent and immoral.
The authors of the essay seem to think that tribalism is still widespread throughout the world, the rule and not the exception. Because of this they think humans are doing more harm to each other than mutual good. I am just wondering what planet they are living on. Never has the world be more integrated and interdependent. Sure there is a lot of competition between nation for resources and manpower. But there is also more cooperation than ever before. People of the world share more values than they ever did. Their moral beliefs and values are more alike. The majority of world is against warfare and prefers to coexist peacefully. Most people of the world share similar needs and aspirations, to be free, healthy and secure. And never before has so much data and information been share by the governments of the world to keep it save, livable and ongoing.
Tribalism is a thing of the past. It is immoral. Civilization abhors it.
Re: Moral Enhancement
Reflecting on the theme of issue 93, Nietzsche Reloaded, I am wondering what Nietzsche would make of moral enhancement by artificial means. Being an existentialist I don't think he would see it as a good idea.
I am saying that because of something Charles Hirschfeld wrote about him: "He is one of the first to recognize the absurdity of human existence as the necessary basis for creative life and to stress the importance of irrational and illusional factors in shaping human behavior." In other words, Nietzsche thought humans had to screw things up and do bad before they could do good or the right thing, suggesting that moral enhancement comes from experience and us doing wrong first and then afterwards, on reflection, forge our morals and values. What Hirschfeld was saying is that Nietzsche believed we develop and progress through perverse means. The authors of Moral Enhancement don't seem to understand that.
Where the authors of Moral Enhancement and Nietzsche come together is on the idea of an overman, the super humans who would make the ideal moral decisions for the rest of us. I am surprised the authors didn't mention Nietzsche in their book on which their Moral Enhancement essay, issue 91, is based. After all, besides having similar thoughts on an overman, they both share a dislike for democracy. The authors think that democracy, liberal democracy, has given us too much freedom to pollute and degrade our environment. Similarly, Nietzsche believes that if the masses have democracy and rule themselves civilization will go to hell. Both believe we need a form of authoritarians to protect us from ourselves.
Scholars argue that Nietzsche has wrongly been pigeonholed as an encourager of totalitarianism and fascism. But he was against democracy! Couldn't he imagine what the alternative might be if his theory of the overman was implemented? Obviously not. And then we have the authors of Moral Enhancement calling for a renewed authoritarianism in order that we do right by each other and our environment. Nietzsche can be forgive for his naiveté about authoritarianism since he didn't experience its cruelty and brutality in the 20th century. But the authors of Moral Enhancement should know better and don't seem to have learned much from the experiences of the past century.
I am saying that because of something Charles Hirschfeld wrote about him: "He is one of the first to recognize the absurdity of human existence as the necessary basis for creative life and to stress the importance of irrational and illusional factors in shaping human behavior." In other words, Nietzsche thought humans had to screw things up and do bad before they could do good or the right thing, suggesting that moral enhancement comes from experience and us doing wrong first and then afterwards, on reflection, forge our morals and values. What Hirschfeld was saying is that Nietzsche believed we develop and progress through perverse means. The authors of Moral Enhancement don't seem to understand that.
Where the authors of Moral Enhancement and Nietzsche come together is on the idea of an overman, the super humans who would make the ideal moral decisions for the rest of us. I am surprised the authors didn't mention Nietzsche in their book on which their Moral Enhancement essay, issue 91, is based. After all, besides having similar thoughts on an overman, they both share a dislike for democracy. The authors think that democracy, liberal democracy, has given us too much freedom to pollute and degrade our environment. Similarly, Nietzsche believes that if the masses have democracy and rule themselves civilization will go to hell. Both believe we need a form of authoritarians to protect us from ourselves.
Scholars argue that Nietzsche has wrongly been pigeonholed as an encourager of totalitarianism and fascism. But he was against democracy! Couldn't he imagine what the alternative might be if his theory of the overman was implemented? Obviously not. And then we have the authors of Moral Enhancement calling for a renewed authoritarianism in order that we do right by each other and our environment. Nietzsche can be forgive for his naiveté about authoritarianism since he didn't experience its cruelty and brutality in the 20th century. But the authors of Moral Enhancement should know better and don't seem to have learned much from the experiences of the past century.
Re: Moral Enhancement
I was just thinking about H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" and that some day we will be able to go back in time. Perhaps we can morally enhance ourselves that way, by going back in time and altering the things we did morally wrong to harm humankind and the environment.
Re: Moral Enhancement
But some gloomy predictions have not come true. Not yet.
"1984" and "Brave New World" have not come true.
That´s something.
"1984" and "Brave New World" have not come true.
That´s something.
Re: Moral Enhancement
Anyway, I still think this article on Moral Enhancement is dumb, thinking that we can be morally enhanced artificially through drugs. There could never be enough drugs manufactured to make a difference. Imagine the resources that would take. And getting people to take them would be another huge problem. No, it would make more sense to modifying our DNA, whenever that becomes possible.
I wonder where the authors got such a dumb idea? I wonder how Philosophy Now was persuaded to print such an article.
I wonder where the authors got such a dumb idea? I wonder how Philosophy Now was persuaded to print such an article.
Re: Moral Enhancement
I have never been very interested in moral philosophy. But as I study the ways of the world the subject keeps popping up. This article got my attention, and under my skin, because it argues that humankind is not morally fit for the future.
Was humankind ever really morally fit for the future? Predicting the future is unreliable. Declaring that we are morally unfit for the future is like predicting the future, like a Malthusian predicting we will run out of food or out of energy due to dwindling resources. Advanced methods and technologies have help us avoid those outcomes. So it is conceivable that similar evolutionary advances are preparing us morally for the future without us even knowing it.
I was particularly distressed by the authors’ attitude towards liberal democracy, saying that its liberal materialism is causing more harm than good. However, if they look more closely they might recognize that liberal democracy's ascendency is itself a moral enhancement and huge moral victory for humankind. After all, as a governing system liberal democracy is the result of an enlightenment, which recognizes that open, free societies are more just and best at reflecting the needs and aspirations of humankind. One thing that liberal democracy does well, better than any other governing system, is freely cultivate and channel human talent. That talent will be needed in the future to discover new technologies to keep life sustainable. Yet the authors of this paper argue for a return to a Big Brother authoritarianism, thinking that could improve our morals. But as experience shows such authoritarianism has never improved things in the long run and in fact set them backwards.
Was humankind ever really morally fit for the future? Predicting the future is unreliable. Declaring that we are morally unfit for the future is like predicting the future, like a Malthusian predicting we will run out of food or out of energy due to dwindling resources. Advanced methods and technologies have help us avoid those outcomes. So it is conceivable that similar evolutionary advances are preparing us morally for the future without us even knowing it.
I was particularly distressed by the authors’ attitude towards liberal democracy, saying that its liberal materialism is causing more harm than good. However, if they look more closely they might recognize that liberal democracy's ascendency is itself a moral enhancement and huge moral victory for humankind. After all, as a governing system liberal democracy is the result of an enlightenment, which recognizes that open, free societies are more just and best at reflecting the needs and aspirations of humankind. One thing that liberal democracy does well, better than any other governing system, is freely cultivate and channel human talent. That talent will be needed in the future to discover new technologies to keep life sustainable. Yet the authors of this paper argue for a return to a Big Brother authoritarianism, thinking that could improve our morals. But as experience shows such authoritarianism has never improved things in the long run and in fact set them backwards.
Re: Moral Enhancement
This was so well written and accurate I'm not really sure what to say.Philosophy Now wrote:Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement
Some of my proposals are:
1. Write the book of wisdoms. (We all will need a 'bible' that is why the 'bible' was so popular: it was THE moral law.)
you need a collaboration for this, I can aid, as I've been collecting for it.
2. Legalize marijuana.
3. Cap wealth. (Globally, you cannot have one man have the wealth of a nation, and nations starve.)
4. Make education priority. (Research would explode, if you took the money in the non-research military and stopped making guns.)
5. Define 'the most important thing'. (Whatever it is, we all have to agree on this, or species philosophy is impossible)