At once, they all cease their arguing and leap in to save the child. But why?
Because all three of their System 1s executed adaptations that made a decision to save the child. They all have these adaptations because System 1s without this kind of adaptation would have lower fitness, because other members of the tribe would see them as untrustworthy potential allies and disloyal potential mates.
Their System 2s then make three different post-hoc rationalizations for their decision, and pretend like these rationalizations are the reasons that led them to jump in the pond.
Ok I think this is partly fair, but also clearly our moral standards are informed by our society, and in no small part those standards emerge from discussions about what we collectively would like those standards to be, and not just a genetically hardwired disloyalty sensor.
Put another way: yes, in pressured environments we act on instinct, but those instincts don’t exist in a vacuum, and the societal project of working out what they ought to be is quite important and pretty hard, precisely because in the moment where you need to refer to it, you will be acting on System 1.
Clearly our moral standards are informed by our society, and in no small part those standards emerge from discussions about what we collectively would like those standards to be, and not just a genetically hardwired disloyalty sensor.
Yes, these discussions set / update group norms. Perceived defection from group norms triggers the genetically hardwired disloyalty sensor.
In pressured environments we act on instinct, but those instincts don’t exist in a vacuum
Right, System 1 contains adaptations optimized to signal adherence to group norms.
the societal project of working out what [people’s instincts] ought to be is quite important and pretty hard
The societal project of working out what norms other people should adhere to is known as “politics”, and lots of people would agree that it’s important.
Well, I basically agree with everything you just said. I think we have quite different opinions about what politics is, though, and what it’s for. But perhaps this isn’t the best place to resolve those differences.
Because all three of their System 1s executed adaptations that made a decision to save the child. They all have these adaptations because System 1s without this kind of adaptation would have lower fitness, because other members of the tribe would see them as untrustworthy potential allies and disloyal potential mates.
Their System 2s then make three different post-hoc rationalizations for their decision, and pretend like these rationalizations are the reasons that led them to jump in the pond.
Ok I think this is partly fair, but also clearly our moral standards are informed by our society, and in no small part those standards emerge from discussions about what we collectively would like those standards to be, and not just a genetically hardwired disloyalty sensor.
Put another way: yes, in pressured environments we act on instinct, but those instincts don’t exist in a vacuum, and the societal project of working out what they ought to be is quite important and pretty hard, precisely because in the moment where you need to refer to it, you will be acting on System 1.
Yes, these discussions set / update group norms. Perceived defection from group norms triggers the genetically hardwired disloyalty sensor.
Right, System 1 contains adaptations optimized to signal adherence to group norms.
The societal project of working out what norms other people should adhere to is known as “politics”, and lots of people would agree that it’s important.
Well, I basically agree with everything you just said. I think we have quite different opinions about what politics is, though, and what it’s for. But perhaps this isn’t the best place to resolve those differences.