Moral philosophy is a huge topic and it’s discourse is not dominated by looking at DNA.
Everyone can choose their preferred state then, at least to the extent it is not indoctrinated or biologically determined. It is rational to invest energy into maintaining or achieving this state (because the state presumably provides you with a steady source of reward), which might involve convincing others of your preferred state or prevent them from threating it (e.g. by putting them into jail). There is likely an absolute truth (to the extent physics is consistent from our point of view), but no absolute morale (because it’s all memes in an undirected process). Terrorists do nothing wrong from their point of view, but from mine it threatens my preferred state, so I will try to prevent terrorism. We may seem lucky that many preferred states converge to the same goals which are even fairly sustainable, but that is just an evolutionary necessity and perhaps mostly a result of empathy and the will to survive (otherwise our species wouldn’t have survived in paleolithic groups of hunters and gatherers).
Basically your argument is: “I can’t think of a way to justify morality besides saying that it’s my own prefered state, therefore nobody can come up with an argument to justify morality.”
Is it? I think, the act of convincing other people of your preferred state of the world is exactly what justifying morality is. But that action policy is only a meme, as you said, which is individually chosen based on many criteria (including aesthetics, peer-pressure, consistency).
I mean “only a meme” in the sense, that morality is not absolute, but an individual choice. Of course, there can be arguments why some memes are better than others, that happens during the act of individuals convincing each other of their preferences.
I mean a moral terminal goal. But I guess we would be a large step closer to a solution of the control problem if we could specify such a goal.
What I had in mind is something like this: Evolution has provided us with a state which everyone prefers who is healthy (who can survive in a typical situation in which humans have evolved with high probability) and who has an accurate mental representation of reality. That state includes being surrounded by other healthy humans, so by induction everyone must reach this state (and also help others to reach it). I haven’t carefully thought this through, but I just want to give an idea for what I’m looking for.
What is the motivation behind maximizing QUALY? Does it require certain incentives to be present in the culture (endorsement of altruism) or is it rooted elsewhere?
More why doing it is desirable at all. Is it a matter of the culture that currently exists? I mean, is it ‘right’ to eradicate a certain ethnic group if the majority endorses it?
Because then it would argue from features that are built into us. If we can prove the existence of these features with high certainty, then it could perhaps serve as guidance for our decisions.
On the other hand, it is reasonable that evolution does not create such goals because it is an undirected process. Our actions are unrestricted in this regard, and we must only bear the consequences of the system that our species has come up with. What is good is thus decided by consensus. Still, the values we have converged to are shaped by the way we have evolved to behave (e.g. empathy and pain avoidance).
What do you mean with
should?Everyone can choose their preferred state then, at least to the extent it is not indoctrinated or biologically determined. It is rational to invest energy into maintaining or achieving this state (because the state presumably provides you with a steady source of reward), which might involve convincing others of your preferred state or prevent them from threating it (e.g. by putting them into jail). There is likely an absolute truth (to the extent physics is consistent from our point of view), but no absolute morale (because it’s all memes in an undirected process). Terrorists do nothing wrong from their point of view, but from mine it threatens my preferred state, so I will try to prevent terrorism. We may seem lucky that many preferred states converge to the same goals which are even fairly sustainable, but that is just an evolutionary necessity and perhaps mostly a result of empathy and the will to survive (otherwise our species wouldn’t have survived in paleolithic groups of hunters and gatherers).
Basically your argument is: “I can’t think of a way to justify morality besides saying that it’s my own prefered state, therefore nobody can come up with an argument to justify morality.”
Is it? I think, the act of convincing other people of your preferred state of the world is exactly what justifying morality is. But that action policy is only a meme, as you said, which is individually chosen based on many criteria (including aesthetics, peer-pressure, consistency).
“Only a meme” doesn’t negate that it’s about something real and that there can be resonable arguments why some memes are better than others.
I mean “only a meme” in the sense, that morality is not absolute, but an individual choice. Of course, there can be arguments why some memes are better than others, that happens during the act of individuals convincing each other of their preferences.
I mean a moral terminal goal. But I guess we would be a large step closer to a solution of the control problem if we could specify such a goal.
What I had in mind is something like this: Evolution has provided us with a state which everyone prefers who is healthy (who can survive in a typical situation in which humans have evolved with high probability) and who has an accurate mental representation of reality. That state includes being surrounded by other healthy humans, so by induction everyone must reach this state (and also help others to reach it). I haven’t carefully thought this through, but I just want to give an idea for what I’m looking for.
Evolution doesn’t produce terminal goals.
What is the motivation behind maximizing QUALY? Does it require certain incentives to be present in the culture (endorsement of altruism) or is it rooted elsewhere?
Many people think that society is supposed to have a goal for some reason. And QUALY is easy to measure.
Are you asking whether every human being that is alive has a motivation to maximize QUALY?
More why doing it is desirable at all. Is it a matter of the culture that currently exists? I mean, is it ‘right’ to eradicate a certain ethnic group if the majority endorses it?
Why do you think biology basis has something to do with the answer?
Because then it would argue from features that are built into us. If we can prove the existence of these features with high certainty, then it could perhaps serve as guidance for our decisions.
On the other hand, it is reasonable that evolution does not create such goals because it is an undirected process. Our actions are unrestricted in this regard, and we must only bear the consequences of the system that our species has come up with. What is good is thus decided by consensus. Still, the values we have converged to are shaped by the way we have evolved to behave (e.g. empathy and pain avoidance).
Our culture is just as backed into us as our DNA. It’s all memes.
What are the implications of that on how we decide what is are the right things to do?
Moral philosophy is a huge topic and it’s discourse is not dominated by looking at DNA.