Comments on: Animal Morality http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:09:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Paul Susac http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-468423 Paul Susac Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:49:58 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-468423 There is no brutality in the animal world that is more hideous than the brutality in the human world. So what's your point? If humans can behave both morally and brutally, why can't animals? There is no brutality in the animal world that is more hideous than the brutality in the human world. So what’s your point? If humans can behave both morally and brutally, why can’t animals?

]]> By: Tim Tyler http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-436124 Tim Tyler Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:16:56 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-436124 Chimps surely have morals - see Frans de Waal's "Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved". Chimps surely have morals – see Frans de Waal’s “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved”.

]]> By: Billy Bob http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-431371 Billy Bob Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:28:11 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-431371 I just want to point out to all of those who agree with 4 that they must then agree with the following statement: Hitler and the Nazis did nothing wrong. If morality is a changeable social norm and not a fixed point, then right and wrong do not really exist. And, if right and wrong do not really exist, then you cannot describe anyone, even the Nazis, as wrong, evil, or bad. Cruel they may be, but what of it? Cruelty is not wrong. We could slaughter all other animal species, it wouldn't be wrong. In your view, wrong doesn't exist. Just think that through. I just want to point out to all of those who agree with 4 that they must then agree with the following statement: Hitler and the Nazis did nothing wrong. If morality is a changeable social norm and not a fixed point, then right and wrong do not really exist. And, if right and wrong do not really exist, then you cannot describe anyone, even the Nazis, as wrong, evil, or bad. Cruel they may be, but what of it? Cruelty is not wrong. We could slaughter all other animal species, it wouldn’t be wrong. In your view, wrong doesn’t exist.

Just think that through.

]]> By: Moral animal y humana « intelib http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-424655 Moral animal y humana « intelib Wed, 27 May 2009 15:20:34 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-424655 [...] animal y humana En Overcoming Bias Robin Hanson menciona esta reseña del libro Wild [...] [...] animal y humana En Overcoming Bias Robin Hanson menciona esta reseña del libro Wild [...]

]]> By: Nancy Lebovitz http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384440 Nancy Lebovitz Wed, 20 May 2009 04:23:09 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384440 There's another way to take the animal research-- as reassurance that generosity and empathy are natural, rather than that they have to be imposed by religion or other social pressure. I don't quite have it pinned down-- there's a tangle of ideas about which motivations are "real" and whether the human race can be judged as especially immoral. There’s another way to take the animal research– as reassurance that generosity and empathy are natural, rather than that they have to be imposed by religion or other social pressure. I don’t quite have it pinned down– there’s a tangle of ideas about which motivations are “real” and whether the human race can be judged as especially immoral.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384439 Robin Hanson Sun, 17 May 2009 12:41:21 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384439 Phil, that sounds plausible to me. Phil, that sounds plausible to me.

]]> By: Phil Goetz http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384438 Phil Goetz Sun, 17 May 2009 04:29:49 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384438 Saying that each species has its own intra-species morality, but is free to treat members of other species amorally, is an ad-hoc solution, not a moral solution. It's just tribalism drawn large. Is it okay if it "works well enough"? How will it work in a posthuman era? I suspect that to develop a moral system that dealt with inter-species morals, and still allowed us to treat other species reasonably (eg., we could still eat some of them), we would have to allow treating some humans much worse. That is, if you want to have a more continuous gradation of rights from yourself down to chickens that results in you still eating eggs, you're not going to get there if your "rights slope" stays flat through all of humanity. Strangely, this seems to mean that, if we want to set up cultural momentum with a somewhat-plausible moral system that would bias posthumans not to treat us like animals, we will need to start by treating some nonhumans much better, and treating some humans much worse. Saying that each species has its own intra-species morality, but is free to treat members of other species amorally, is an ad-hoc solution, not a moral solution. It’s just tribalism drawn large. Is it okay if it “works well enough”? How will it work in a posthuman era?

I suspect that to develop a moral system that dealt with inter-species morals, and still allowed us to treat other species reasonably (eg., we could still eat some of them), we would have to allow treating some humans much worse. That is, if you want to have a more continuous gradation of rights from yourself down to chickens that results in you still eating eggs, you’re not going to get there if your “rights slope” stays flat through all of humanity.

Strangely, this seems to mean that, if we want to set up cultural momentum with a somewhat-plausible moral system that would bias posthumans not to treat us like animals, we will need to start by treating some nonhumans much better, and treating some humans much worse.

]]> By: Z. M. Davis http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384437 Z. M. Davis Sat, 16 May 2009 04:17:47 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384437 Eliezer: <i>"Humans have evolved to implement that which we name "morality"; other species have or would evolve to implement something else, which might or might not seem hauntingly familiar."</i> Seconding Robin. I don't think you've ever adequately explained why you think human morality converges. The <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/psychological-u.html" rel="nofollow">psychological unity of humankind</a> doesn't mean that <i>no</i> individual differences exist; why wouldn't there be individual differences in morality? Eliezer: “Humans have evolved to implement that which we name “morality”; other species have or would evolve to implement something else, which might or might not seem hauntingly familiar.”

Seconding Robin. I don’t think you’ve ever adequately explained why you think human morality converges. The psychological unity of humankind doesn’t mean that no individual differences exist; why wouldn’t there be individual differences in morality?

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384436 Robin Hanson Sat, 16 May 2009 02:26:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384436 Eliezer, some of my "moral" preferences I have because of being a mammal, some from being a primate, some from being human, some from being raised Christian, some from being raised an American, some from being trained as an academic, some from being male, and some from being middle-aged. I'm not sure why I should hold a stronger allegiance to some of these origins than to others. Eliezer, some of my “moral” preferences I have because of being a mammal, some from being a primate, some from being human, some from being raised Christian, some from being raised an American, some from being trained as an academic, some from being male, and some from being middle-aged. I’m not sure why I should hold a stronger allegiance to some of these origins than to others.

]]> By: Will Pearson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384435 Will Pearson Fri, 15 May 2009 23:57:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/05/animal-morality.html#comment-384435 >There's no reason they'd want to do >what's right, any more than we >desperately want to sort pebbles into >prime-numbered heaps. The shared genetic heritage of humans and rats is a reason why they *might* want to do what is right_human. We obviously don't share that with with pebble sorters. It'd be an interesting question to try and figure out how much the genes that code for morality changed during recent evolution. >There’s no reason they’d want to do
>what’s right, any more than we
>desperately want to sort pebbles into
>prime-numbered heaps.

The shared genetic heritage of humans and rats is a reason why they *might* want to do what is right_human. We obviously don’t share that with with pebble sorters.

It’d be an interesting question to try and figure out how much the genes that code for morality changed during recent evolution.

]]>