= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lalartu comments on Open thread, Nov. 16 - Nov. 22, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (185)
A meta-ethics reflection about the three chimps.
We know that chimps societies are in a meta-stable Molochian equilibrium of violence, but you can tip them off with more resources into a more pacific state.
There is supposedly a "universal" progress of society towards a more moral baseline, such as less slavery, less torture, more freedom, but there were also notable exception. I was thinking about the seventeen's century Venice, which was freer than contemporary Venice. But at the time Venice was one the most powerful city-state in the Mediterranean sea, and was enjoying considerable wealth.
So my thinking went: there are at least two modalities in our ethics, one more resembling the chimps societies, the other closer the bonobo way of life, and we oscillate between the two based on the wealth available. This would mean that the moral progress is actually a progress in wealth, which tips off an oscillation in the bonobo region of our ethical system.
Thoughts? Counter-examples?
Whether there is "universal progess" in described sense depends on which start and end points do we choose. If take say from Middle Ages to today, then there is. If from Paleolithic to the height of Roman Empire, then trends would be exactly opposite, a march from freedom to slavery. So growth of per capita wealth can coexist with different directions of moral change.
Um... You believe that between Paleolithic and the height of Roman Empire the progress went in reverse?
If we define "progress" as "less slavery, less torture, more freedom" as in top comment, then yes it went in reverse.
The top post actually talked about 'a "universal" progress of society towards a more moral baseline', but let's see.
A fair-warning preamble: no one really knows much about cultural practices in the Paleolithic, so the credence of statements about what Paleos (sorry, diet people) did is low.
Slavery -- sure, there was less slavery in the Paleolithic. So, what did they do instead? The usual source of slaves in Antiquity was wars: losers were enslaved. And during the Paleolithic? Well, I would guess that the losers had all the males killed and the fertile women dragged off to be breeding stock.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how the Paleolithic way is morally better or closer to the "more moral baseline", whatever it might be.
As to torture, it is entirely not obvious to me that Paleos had less torture than the Roman Empire. Primitive tribes tend to be very cruel to enemies (see e.g. this).
And freedom... it depends on how do you define it, but the Paleo tribes were NOT a happy collection of anarchists. In contemporary political terminology I expect them to have been dictatorships where the order was maintained by ample application of force and most penalties for serious infractions involved death. That doesn't look like a particularly free society.
I have a feeling you are thinking about noble savages. That's fiction.
I don't think it is reasonable to portray Paleolithic tribe as dictatorship. When the best weapon is pointed stick, and every man is has skill to use it, minority simply can't rule by force.
That's obviously wrong, as there is a large set of social animals which don't even have pointy sticks, and yet alpha males manage to rule the tribe with an iron hand (or paw, or beak, etc.).
How many slaves were there in the Paleolithic?
See my other comment in this subthread.
Not to espouse moral directionality, but from the Paleolithic to the height of the Roman Empire, we didn't go from freedom to slavery, we went from informal to formal modes of dominance. Informal modes of dominance -look- more like freedom than formal modes of dominance, because there are more rules on the slave - but there are more rules on the master, as well, which is, in the end, what that thing we call freedom is.