Philosophy triumphs easily over past evils and future evils; but present evils triumph over it. Francois De La Rochefoucauld. Katja Grace’s translation: We nobly analyse distant things, and in the present do whatever the hell we want.
I've mentioned it before on this blog, but if you take the view that "morality" or ethics are just attempts to rationalize genetic based group cooperation strategies, then you should not expect to be able to perform calculus with morality - it is not a logical construct, it is simply feelings. Any attempt to perform moral calculations (I should help this person rather than this other person) is doomed to fail if approached analytically. Go with your feelings, if you want to help A rather than B, then do so.
Eyal, Liberman, and Trope (2008) have a paper (pdf) applying near-far theory (aka construal level theory) to morality. The abstract:
We propose that people judge immoral acts as more offensive and moral acts as more virtuous when the acts are psychologically distant than near. This is because people construe more distant situations in terms of moral principles, rather than attenuating situation-specific considerations. Results of four studies support these predictions. Study 1 shows that more temporally distant transgressions (e.g., eating one’s dead dog) are construed in terms of moral principles rather than contextual information. Studies 2 and 3 further show that morally offensive actions are judged more severely when imagined from a more distant temporal (Study 2) or social (Study 3) perspective. Finally, Study 4 shows that moral acts (e.g., adopting a disabled child) are judged more positively from temporal distance. The findings suggest that people more readily apply their moral principles to distant rather than proximal behaviors.
You really think that campaigning for increased immigration is the best way to help the poor? I don't doubt immigration is one of the best ways to help the poor, but it's not obvious that a marginal campaigner on that issue will have much effect.
It is far from obvious that inviting them en masse to the rich world provides greater overall utility than teaching them to create their own rich world (which has worked out quite well in East Asia over the last half century). If there was some reason that absolutely prevented them from creating a rich world locally, common sense stipulates that the same reason, ceteris paribus, would cause importation of them to (i) lower the well-being of your neighbors, and (ii) plausibly lower reasonable measures of global utility (look at the asymptotics of the situation, not just the immediate first derivative).
Open borders advocates will constantly run into "hindering neighbors" for the foreseeable future, for the very good reason that they have never satisfactorily addressed the concerns above. Their disinterest in increasing their home's culture's ability to assimilate -- the one thing most likely to break the ceteris paribus assumption above and make 3rd world immigration a win-win -- is particularly damning.
I'm with Carl - that doesn't seem to be obviously true. Perhaps true that you can't have insights that are new to the world without much research, but you can surely have insights that are new to you and help you know what to do.
And how do you know this starry eyed college student, whoever he or she is, plans to only do brief and scanty research of such situations? Also I hear Burma has some lovely temples...
Doe sanyone here think they are morally cogntively adept than past generations to see past their own personal and social biases?
That future generations won't -with the benefit of hindsight- point to things that many here wouldn't bat an eyelid at, as good examples of things people can have a severe cognitive bias about, and are not able to have the slightest inkling that they are biased?
Did you bring up Burma because of the behavior of that clown who swam across the lake to "save" their home-imprisoned dissident leader, causing her to get an extended sentence, only to declare that he would "do it again," if he had the chance? Talk about misguided "ethical" conduct.
"Yes poor folks have more marginal utility to gain, but I think the knowledge effect is much larger than this effect – you can’t help things you don’t understand."
This is a fairly incredible claim, the difference in costs between rich and poor countries is orders of magnitude. The U.S. government does cost-benefit analysis using a statistical value of life in the millions of dollars, 2-3 orders of magnitude more than the cost of saving an African life.Seeing-eye dogs cost $50,000 to raise and train, enough to cure at least a hundred cases of blindness in the developing world.
we think we can make a difference in Afghanistan when virtually no one thinks we can solve Mexico’s problems.
But remember that we really did "make a difference" - an important differerence - in both Japan and Germany. I don't mean we improved the lives of Japanese. I mean we made specific changes to Japan and Germany, changes that "took".
So we can make a difference. The problem in Afghanistan may be three-fold:
1) Our goal is different.
2) Our methods are different.
3) Afghanistan is different in some way in which Japan and Germany are both the same.
A lot of people focus on (3). But if (3) is the case, then I don't think the comparison with Mexico is apt, since Mexico is more like Germany and Japan than like Afghanistan in the way in which Afghanistan is alleged to be different from Germany and Japan.
But as a matter of fact I think that (1) is the main problem, and (2) is the secondary problem. Japan and Germany were aggressors and we "made a difference" by ending their aggression. We were extremely successful. But Mexico is not invading its neighbors or attacking their harbors. Mexico is already at the endpoint that we were trying to move Japan and Germany toward. If we were to try to do to Mexico what we did to Japan and Germany - make it non-aggressive - we might well succeed, provided it were aggressive to begin with. Of course, it isn't. If we try to "make a difference" in Mexico now it will have to be some different sort of difference.
Afghanistan did, of course, harbor aggressors. But that is not the same thing as being an aggressor.
There is also the secondary problem (2). We were willing to use much greater force against Germany and Japan than we are against Afghanistan. The nuking of Hiroshima wasn't by any means the only time we accepted massive civilian casualties in the enemy's territory. That is unacceptable in Afghanistan, and so necessarily our methods are very different.
I had a particularly uncomfortable recently with regards to a homeless person... but I think my attitude is largely that of Vince's. I rarely give money to people in the street - something like a blanket rule. As soon as you start making exceptions you start entering this difficult area of brain activity that is simply not practical for getting by on a daily basis, unless perhaps you're a philosopher. One exception I made some time ago, it was a horrible night, wet and cold, and the guy, I had some familiarity with, was wasted. I'd gone some way past him but (but gradually I went over the tipping point) I went back and gave him some money. He could barely acknowledge me, very sad, just a young guy who I haven't seen for some time, maybe he's dead.
My mind, my conscience, is basically always doing a sounding, comparing myself to others and instinctively reckoning my duty to others on that basis. How do I do relative to my social context? - not so bad I think. Some aspects of my lifestyle are too much to expect of others as a standard and some almost certainly too little. I think the main thing is to get market mechanisms to reflect as best as possible the true costs of products, like GoodGuide - that should do a lot of my 'sounding' for me.
I've mentioned it before on this blog, but if you take the view that "morality" or ethics are just attempts to rationalize genetic based group cooperation strategies, then you should not expect to be able to perform calculus with morality - it is not a logical construct, it is simply feelings. Any attempt to perform moral calculations (I should help this person rather than this other person) is doomed to fail if approached analytically. Go with your feelings, if you want to help A rather than B, then do so.
Eyal, Liberman, and Trope (2008) have a paper (pdf) applying near-far theory (aka construal level theory) to morality. The abstract:
We propose that people judge immoral acts as more offensive and moral acts as more virtuous when the acts are psychologically distant than near. This is because people construe more distant situations in terms of moral principles, rather than attenuating situation-specific considerations. Results of four studies support these predictions. Study 1 shows that more temporally distant transgressions (e.g., eating one’s dead dog) are construed in terms of moral principles rather than contextual information. Studies 2 and 3 further show that morally offensive actions are judged more severely when imagined from a more distant temporal (Study 2) or social (Study 3) perspective. Finally, Study 4 shows that moral acts (e.g., adopting a disabled child) are judged more positively from temporal distance. The findings suggest that people more readily apply their moral principles to distant rather than proximal behaviors.
You really think that campaigning for increased immigration is the best way to help the poor? I don't doubt immigration is one of the best ways to help the poor, but it's not obvious that a marginal campaigner on that issue will have much effect.
This ignores the question of "why is it poor?"
It is far from obvious that inviting them en masse to the rich world provides greater overall utility than teaching them to create their own rich world (which has worked out quite well in East Asia over the last half century). If there was some reason that absolutely prevented them from creating a rich world locally, common sense stipulates that the same reason, ceteris paribus, would cause importation of them to (i) lower the well-being of your neighbors, and (ii) plausibly lower reasonable measures of global utility (look at the asymptotics of the situation, not just the immediate first derivative).
Open borders advocates will constantly run into "hindering neighbors" for the foreseeable future, for the very good reason that they have never satisfactorily addressed the concerns above. Their disinterest in increasing their home's culture's ability to assimilate -- the one thing most likely to break the ceteris paribus assumption above and make 3rd world immigration a win-win -- is particularly damning.
I just added to this post.
I'm just waiting for the Holodeck.
I'm with Carl - that doesn't seem to be obviously true. Perhaps true that you can't have insights that are new to the world without much research, but you can surely have insights that are new to you and help you know what to do.
And how do you know this starry eyed college student, whoever he or she is, plans to only do brief and scanty research of such situations? Also I hear Burma has some lovely temples...
Pls slip in the missing 'more'
Doe sanyone here think they are morally cogntively adept than past generations to see past their own personal and social biases?
That future generations won't -with the benefit of hindsight- point to things that many here wouldn't bat an eyelid at, as good examples of things people can have a severe cognitive bias about, and are not able to have the slightest inkling that they are biased?
There are many other causes of bias besides excessive emotional engagement.
is it possible for the average college student to engage in anything other than far ethical thinking?
Robin,
Did you bring up Burma because of the behavior of that clown who swam across the lake to "save" their home-imprisoned dissident leader, causing her to get an extended sentence, only to declare that he would "do it again," if he had the chance? Talk about misguided "ethical" conduct.
"Yes poor folks have more marginal utility to gain, but I think the knowledge effect is much larger than this effect – you can’t help things you don’t understand."
This is a fairly incredible claim, the difference in costs between rich and poor countries is orders of magnitude. The U.S. government does cost-benefit analysis using a statistical value of life in the millions of dollars, 2-3 orders of magnitude more than the cost of saving an African life.Seeing-eye dogs cost $50,000 to raise and train, enough to cure at least a hundred cases of blindness in the developing world.
we think we can make a difference in Afghanistan when virtually no one thinks we can solve Mexico’s problems.
But remember that we really did "make a difference" - an important differerence - in both Japan and Germany. I don't mean we improved the lives of Japanese. I mean we made specific changes to Japan and Germany, changes that "took".
So we can make a difference. The problem in Afghanistan may be three-fold:
1) Our goal is different.
2) Our methods are different.
3) Afghanistan is different in some way in which Japan and Germany are both the same.
A lot of people focus on (3). But if (3) is the case, then I don't think the comparison with Mexico is apt, since Mexico is more like Germany and Japan than like Afghanistan in the way in which Afghanistan is alleged to be different from Germany and Japan.
But as a matter of fact I think that (1) is the main problem, and (2) is the secondary problem. Japan and Germany were aggressors and we "made a difference" by ending their aggression. We were extremely successful. But Mexico is not invading its neighbors or attacking their harbors. Mexico is already at the endpoint that we were trying to move Japan and Germany toward. If we were to try to do to Mexico what we did to Japan and Germany - make it non-aggressive - we might well succeed, provided it were aggressive to begin with. Of course, it isn't. If we try to "make a difference" in Mexico now it will have to be some different sort of difference.
Afghanistan did, of course, harbor aggressors. But that is not the same thing as being an aggressor.
There is also the secondary problem (2). We were willing to use much greater force against Germany and Japan than we are against Afghanistan. The nuking of Hiroshima wasn't by any means the only time we accepted massive civilian casualties in the enemy's territory. That is unacceptable in Afghanistan, and so necessarily our methods are very different.
I had a particularly uncomfortable recently with regards to a homeless person... but I think my attitude is largely that of Vince's. I rarely give money to people in the street - something like a blanket rule. As soon as you start making exceptions you start entering this difficult area of brain activity that is simply not practical for getting by on a daily basis, unless perhaps you're a philosopher. One exception I made some time ago, it was a horrible night, wet and cold, and the guy, I had some familiarity with, was wasted. I'd gone some way past him but (but gradually I went over the tipping point) I went back and gave him some money. He could barely acknowledge me, very sad, just a young guy who I haven't seen for some time, maybe he's dead.
My mind, my conscience, is basically always doing a sounding, comparing myself to others and instinctively reckoning my duty to others on that basis. How do I do relative to my social context? - not so bad I think. Some aspects of my lifestyle are too much to expect of others as a standard and some almost certainly too little. I think the main thing is to get market mechanisms to reflect as best as possible the true costs of products, like GoodGuide - that should do a lot of my 'sounding' for me.
billswift is correct about the point I was trying to make.