Trying to extend the metaphor: in order to see monsters you have to look through the Overton Window. But first you have to shift the window and reach the monster; otherwise it will remain invisible.
However, I would remark that the Overton Window does not necessarily always shift towards a better world. Sometimes there aren’t any monsters around, and you end up summoning one.
For example, push too much towards Killing Animals Is Really Bad, and you might get Killing Animals Is Worse Than Killing Humans. Maybe I’m not enlightened enough, but I doubt that an enlightened human would value the life of a dog more than the life of another human… yet this position seems to be actually hold by a disturbingly large number of people (10-seconds Google search, not double-checked: 14% of 537 people would save one random dog over a foreign tourist… raise to 40% when asked to choose between their dog and a stranger).
Of course there are people who believe this! Actually, PETA-like morality seems to be increasingly common (I highly doubt that 14% of people would have saved random dogs over humans in 1901). My point was that an increment in PETA-like morality is not necessarily a good thing that will bring us all closer to the next stage of humanity.
Suppose that Future Buddha declares that there is absolutely no moral difference between me and one random dog, and he’ll happily flip a coin to decide which one deserves to live. I’ve thought about it for several hours, but I still lean towards “Future Buddha is an idiot”.
While I don’t know any people who would explicitly say e.g. that politically incorrect speech is worse than literal slavery… if you look at revealed preferences, people spend a lot of energy fighting politically incorrect speech, and mostly ignore the fact that slavery still exists in many parts of the world.
Answering both of you: I agree that the topic is not as simple as it may seem. We may not like some things about future morality. I also think that if you hear large portions of the population screaming about something, then you’re probably not dealing with a transparent monster, or even necessarily something very important.
Transparent monsters at some point may become visible, and people will be loud about them. But the overwhelming majority of situations in which people are loud about something are not about transparent monsters.
Monsters usually refer to the concept of threats to survival. Before we could form societies and wall off our dwellings, we had to live among other wild life and other tribes that might threaten our ability to survive. Nowadays these threats are much more abstract and elusive. It’s really the changing temporal context that makes things much more nuanced on a case by case basis. Monsters such as slavery is a threat to the survival of a subgroup just like politically incorrect speech only threaten a subgroup as well. Humanity is much more stratified now than back when we lived in caves. Modern civilization is still much a transparent monster to the survival and preservation of lifestyles of indigenous tribes all over the world. They’ve achieved certain ecological equilibrium with nature for awhile now but have to worry about the invasiveness of the modern man.
Trying to extend the metaphor: in order to see monsters you have to look through the Overton Window. But first you have to shift the window and reach the monster; otherwise it will remain invisible.
However, I would remark that the Overton Window does not necessarily always shift towards a better world. Sometimes there aren’t any monsters around, and you end up summoning one.
For example, push too much towards Killing Animals Is Really Bad, and you might get Killing Animals Is Worse Than Killing Humans. Maybe I’m not enlightened enough, but I doubt that an enlightened human would value the life of a dog more than the life of another human… yet this position seems to be actually hold by a disturbingly large number of people (10-seconds Google search, not double-checked: 14% of 537 people would save one random dog over a foreign tourist… raise to 40% when asked to choose between their dog and a stranger).
Google “A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy”. It’s a PETA slogan coined by its founder. Enlightened or not, there are people who believe this.
Of course there are people who believe this! Actually, PETA-like morality seems to be increasingly common (I highly doubt that 14% of people would have saved random dogs over humans in 1901). My point was that an increment in PETA-like morality is not necessarily a good thing that will bring us all closer to the next stage of humanity.
Suppose that Future Buddha declares that there is absolutely no moral difference between me and one random dog, and he’ll happily flip a coin to decide which one deserves to live. I’ve thought about it for several hours, but I still lean towards “Future Buddha is an idiot”.
If you meet Buddha on the road...
While I don’t know any people who would explicitly say e.g. that politically incorrect speech is worse than literal slavery… if you look at revealed preferences, people spend a lot of energy fighting politically incorrect speech, and mostly ignore the fact that slavery still exists in many parts of the world.
Of course, outgroup vs fargroup, etc.
Answering both of you: I agree that the topic is not as simple as it may seem. We may not like some things about future morality. I also think that if you hear large portions of the population screaming about something, then you’re probably not dealing with a transparent monster, or even necessarily something very important.
Transparent monsters at some point may become visible, and people will be loud about them. But the overwhelming majority of situations in which people are loud about something are not about transparent monsters.
Monsters usually refer to the concept of threats to survival. Before we could form societies and wall off our dwellings, we had to live among other wild life and other tribes that might threaten our ability to survive. Nowadays these threats are much more abstract and elusive. It’s really the changing temporal context that makes things much more nuanced on a case by case basis. Monsters such as slavery is a threat to the survival of a subgroup just like politically incorrect speech only threaten a subgroup as well. Humanity is much more stratified now than back when we lived in caves. Modern civilization is still much a transparent monster to the survival and preservation of lifestyles of indigenous tribes all over the world. They’ve achieved certain ecological equilibrium with nature for awhile now but have to worry about the invasiveness of the modern man.