Altruism is no longer valuable in evolutionary terms, but who cares?.
What’s important to us as people isn’t evolutionary value, it’s satisfying personal preferences derived causally but not normatively from evolutionary value. Having money is one of those preferences. Being a nice person is another one of those preferences. If you deliberately make a choice that satisfies weaker preferences than the alternative, you’re just throwing away utility for no reason.
If you haven’t already, I suggest reading the Evolution Sequence, especially Alien God, Adaption-Executors, and Evolutionary Psychology, and the Metaethics Sequence
Now, if you want to make this into a reaaaallly repulsive ethical dilemma, add that true utilitarians should refuse to tip so they can donate that money to a charity that produces greater utility than the tip does.
Now, if you want to make this into a reaaaallly repulsive ethical dilemma, add that true utilitarians should refuse to tip so they can donate that money to a charity that produces greater utility than the tip does.
I deliberately chose an innocuous example so as to not overly trip the discussion into the specifics of the example itself. I’m not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.
You’re correct in that modifying tipping behavior by itself would probably not be worth being a dick about in the same way that just switching to low fat milk is probably not worth absorbing all of our science of nutrition & dieting about. You have to be able to see the cumulative effects of a complete rebasing before you can judge it’s ultimate utility.
As for whether it’s worth it, I think you need to look at where a person wants to be vs where they actually are. Looking out in the world, I don’t see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board who are rich, powerful, admired, have happy marriages or have fulfilled the potential they believe they have. I’m not promising that you’ll have all of that if you just rebase your ethics but If you happy not to try just so you can keep your warm fuzzy moral feelings, that’s, of course, your own choice.
That helps me understand where the evolution reference comes from and how the tip fits in, but I still don’t understand where you get your preference.
Most people would like to be richer, more powerful, and more admired, and it may be that their morality is keeping them from that. But most people would probably also like to be more moral, more compassionate, and contribute more to society, and their desire for material success is keeping them from that. Moral choices are a trade-off between these two desires.
Like all trade-offs, which option to choose depends on the value of each good involved. In a choice between getting an extra dollar and saving a million lives, I’d choose the lives. In a choice between getting a million dollars and preventing one other person getting a dust-speck-in-the-eye, I’d take the million. The question isn’t whether to take moral or material goods, it’s at what rate to exchange them.
This post seems to be arguing that people consistently overvalue moral goods and undervalue material goods. But when psychologists actually study the issue, they find the opposite: that moral goods are much more effective at purchasing life satisfaction and personal happiness than material goods (This study is the first I found, and not necessarily the best, of a large number).
If increasing our consumption of material as opposed to moral goods isn’t justified by evolutionary history and doesn’t make us happier, what exactly is the advantage?
This post seems to be arguing that people consistently overvalue moral goods and undervalue material goods.
Huh? I read Shalmanese’s post as arguing that some moral goods are “moral junk food” and impede your progress towards other, more “wholesome” moral goods—not necessarily material. This thesis strikes me as correct, but for some reason the commenters aren’t addressing it directly.
Most people would like to be richer, more powerful, and more admired, and it may be that their morality is keeping them from that. But most people would probably also like to be more moral, more compassionate, and contribute more to society, and their desire for material success is keeping them from that.
I agree with your larger point, but I have a minor quibble. I don’t think ‘contribution to society’ should be grouped with the second set of goals—generally it’s much easier and more productive to contribute through money and power.
But when psychologists actually study the issue, they find the opposite: that moral goods are much more effective at purchasing life satisfaction and personal happiness than material goods (This study is the first I found, and not necessarily the best, of a large number).
Not only that, but moral goods are also often the best way of gaining or maintaining status. As Shalma’s video observes, this even applies to gorillas.
Looking out in the world, I don’t see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board who are rich, powerful, admired, have happy marriages or have fulfilled the potential they believe they have.
Looking out in the world, I don’t see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board, period. But now we’re talking about rationality instead of morality. Why?
I’m not promising that you’ll have all of that if you just rebase your ethics but If you happy not to try just so you can keep your warm fuzzy moral feelings, that’s, of course, your own choice.
To summarise what you have said:
There’s no morality.
People should act in their own material self-interest, without regard to anyone else’s welfare, except as a means to that main end.
Money to spend on hookers and blow is an example of the self-interest that should outweigh tipping waitresses.
But you’re not advocating any moral system.
You don’t choose this system yourself, oh no.
But anyone who did wouldn’t say so.
Find the lady. (“I’m not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.”)
Rationalists are losers.
Of course, rooting out your moral feelings doesn’t guarantee money, power, fame, a happy marriage, and achievement, nudge, nudge.
Moralists are losers consoling themselves with warm fuzzies.
Can someone suggest a rationalist equivalent of Retro me, Satana?
Not speaking for him, but I think his point is more along the lines of: We feel moral revulsion sometimes when we shouldn’t, and don’t feel it sometimes when we should, according to the moral systems we profess, and sometimes we have to trust our rational selves over our feelings of disgust to both do what we think is right and get what we want.
I assume the point is to then use the money you save in the most moral way possible. If you’re a utilitarian, this would then mean spending it in the way that creates the highest utility. An ethical hedonist might spend it on “hookers and blow”. If you have a more relational view of ethics, the most moral way to use it is to tip in the first place, though.
I’m not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.
The extreme would be to create a huge business empire based on poor-quality products, like, I don’t know, a buggy operating system or something. Break the law at every turn as long as you can get away with it, commit numerous antitrust violations, take open standards and slightly modify them so nothing else is compatible with your company’s products. Then take all your profits and set up a charitable foundation, and donate billions to, I don’t know, improve global health or something.
Altruism is no longer valuable in evolutionary terms, but who cares?.
What’s important to us as people isn’t evolutionary value, it’s satisfying personal preferences derived causally but not normatively from evolutionary value. Having money is one of those preferences. Being a nice person is another one of those preferences. If you deliberately make a choice that satisfies weaker preferences than the alternative, you’re just throwing away utility for no reason.
If you haven’t already, I suggest reading the Evolution Sequence, especially Alien God, Adaption-Executors, and Evolutionary Psychology, and the Metaethics Sequence
Now, if you want to make this into a reaaaallly repulsive ethical dilemma, add that true utilitarians should refuse to tip so they can donate that money to a charity that produces greater utility than the tip does.
And for this the reference is Fuzzies and (to a lesser extent) Shut up and multiply.
I deliberately chose an innocuous example so as to not overly trip the discussion into the specifics of the example itself. I’m not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.
You’re correct in that modifying tipping behavior by itself would probably not be worth being a dick about in the same way that just switching to low fat milk is probably not worth absorbing all of our science of nutrition & dieting about. You have to be able to see the cumulative effects of a complete rebasing before you can judge it’s ultimate utility.
As for whether it’s worth it, I think you need to look at where a person wants to be vs where they actually are. Looking out in the world, I don’t see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board who are rich, powerful, admired, have happy marriages or have fulfilled the potential they believe they have. I’m not promising that you’ll have all of that if you just rebase your ethics but If you happy not to try just so you can keep your warm fuzzy moral feelings, that’s, of course, your own choice.
That helps me understand where the evolution reference comes from and how the tip fits in, but I still don’t understand where you get your preference.
Most people would like to be richer, more powerful, and more admired, and it may be that their morality is keeping them from that. But most people would probably also like to be more moral, more compassionate, and contribute more to society, and their desire for material success is keeping them from that. Moral choices are a trade-off between these two desires.
Like all trade-offs, which option to choose depends on the value of each good involved. In a choice between getting an extra dollar and saving a million lives, I’d choose the lives. In a choice between getting a million dollars and preventing one other person getting a dust-speck-in-the-eye, I’d take the million. The question isn’t whether to take moral or material goods, it’s at what rate to exchange them.
This post seems to be arguing that people consistently overvalue moral goods and undervalue material goods. But when psychologists actually study the issue, they find the opposite: that moral goods are much more effective at purchasing life satisfaction and personal happiness than material goods (This study is the first I found, and not necessarily the best, of a large number).
If increasing our consumption of material as opposed to moral goods isn’t justified by evolutionary history and doesn’t make us happier, what exactly is the advantage?
Huh? I read Shalmanese’s post as arguing that some moral goods are “moral junk food” and impede your progress towards other, more “wholesome” moral goods—not necessarily material. This thesis strikes me as correct, but for some reason the commenters aren’t addressing it directly.
I agree with your larger point, but I have a minor quibble. I don’t think ‘contribution to society’ should be grouped with the second set of goals—generally it’s much easier and more productive to contribute through money and power.
Not only that, but moral goods are also often the best way of gaining or maintaining status. As Shalma’s video observes, this even applies to gorillas.
Looking out in the world, I don’t see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board, period. But now we’re talking about rationality instead of morality. Why?
To summarise what you have said:
There’s no morality.
People should act in their own material self-interest, without regard to anyone else’s welfare, except as a means to that main end.
Money to spend on hookers and blow is an example of the self-interest that should outweigh tipping waitresses.
But you’re not advocating any moral system.
You don’t choose this system yourself, oh no.
But anyone who did wouldn’t say so.
Find the lady. (“I’m not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.”)
Rationalists are losers.
Of course, rooting out your moral feelings doesn’t guarantee money, power, fame, a happy marriage, and achievement, nudge, nudge.
Moralists are losers consoling themselves with warm fuzzies.
Can someone suggest a rationalist equivalent of Retro me, Satana?
Not speaking for him, but I think his point is more along the lines of: We feel moral revulsion sometimes when we shouldn’t, and don’t feel it sometimes when we should, according to the moral systems we profess, and sometimes we have to trust our rational selves over our feelings of disgust to both do what we think is right and get what we want.
I assume the point is to then use the money you save in the most moral way possible. If you’re a utilitarian, this would then mean spending it in the way that creates the highest utility. An ethical hedonist might spend it on “hookers and blow”. If you have a more relational view of ethics, the most moral way to use it is to tip in the first place, though.
The extreme would be to create a huge business empire based on poor-quality products, like, I don’t know, a buggy operating system or something. Break the law at every turn as long as you can get away with it, commit numerous antitrust violations, take open standards and slightly modify them so nothing else is compatible with your company’s products. Then take all your profits and set up a charitable foundation, and donate billions to, I don’t know, improve global health or something.