Reason is the Most Important Driver of Human Moral Progress?

[Mock Turtle]

It is fake debate wherein husband-wife team arrive at their pet conclusion that the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, furthered by heirs such as Dennet, Dawson, as Pinker himself, has made the world a better place. There is not much to argue about on the video itself unless one knows Pinker's philosophy.

No doubt the Four Horsemen would not claim so much, even if you do so on their behalf. Very noble of you - and rather trite.

Who doubts that "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress", except that I see no reason why evolution should have granted us objective reasoning power.

Apart from reality doing so? When some discovered the apparent (and correct) reasons for certain behaviour over the mystical and fantastical?

Also, reason cannot reason in vacuum. There needs to be an inbuilt standard of comparison and a mechanism to discern deviation thereof. Pinker's denial of such a moral compass in the religions and in the Middle Ages is blind bias.

So some religious beliefs are supposed to trump reason?

Furthermore, Pinker's statistics that purportedly shows great advancements has been questioned by historians as biased and selective. He uses 'proportion of total population' as a measurement criteria to claim that a man would be 35 times more likely to die a violent death in the Middle Ages compared to the present time. Critics have shown how naive Pinker's arguments are.

The limitations of Steven Pinker’s optimism
John Gray: Steven Pinker is wrong about violence and war
Unenlightened thinking: Steven Pinker’s embarrassing new book is a feeble sermon for rattled liberals
The Precious Steven Pinker | David Bentley Hart

Finally, Pinker himself is not convinced that his 'statistical advancement' has led to any increased happiness.
...

Believe what you want but as I have always stated - would you want to live in any earlier time - especially not knowing where exactly in any society one would be placed? I hardly think so unless one was extremely foolish.

 

[atanu]

No doubt the Four Horsemen would not claim so much, even if you do so on their behalf. Very noble of you - and rather trite.

Yes. Noble no doubt.

Apart from reality doing so?

????

So some religious beliefs are supposed to trump reason?

I did not say so. But assuming that all religionists and spiritualists are bereft of reason is naive.

Believe what you want but as I have always stated - would you want to live in any earlier time - especially not knowing where exactly in any society one would be placed? I hardly think so unless one was extremely foolish.

These hypothetical questions do not mean much.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Define 'moral progress.'

Easy: suffrage for women and black people, abolition of slavery, domestic abuse laws, child abuse laws, civil rights, trials guided by law, trial by peers, IRB, and so on and so forth.

 

[joe1776]

....I think the studies by Haidt, Greene, Morelli and Paxton, among many other experimental psychologists and neuroscientists, have amply demonstrated that there is an intuitive or instinctual response to moral violations - "quick, automatic evaluations", to reference Haidt - and that empathy, or what @Polymath257 calls an increase in "compassion" (rather than logic), is the pre-eminent 'driver' of morality and moral-decisions, including any perceived "moral progress" in social norms.

Even the social scientists involved with moral research, like those you mentioned, are prone to a bias in favor of reason. Haidt, for example, doubts the validity of the intuitive responses he gets if the people he tests cannot give reasonable explanations to support them.

Haidt also concocted a hypothetical question about incest and blamed intuition for the mixed results failing to filter his responses by checking to see if his subjects had used their reasoning faculty to make up their own absolute moral rule that incest was always immoral (The reasoning mind seems to love making absolute moral rules).

And Josh Greene noted that two areas of the brain light up when subjects considered moral dilemmas but he and other researchers still love to test for moral dilemmas like the trolley problem. They seem to think that they are discovering flaws in our moral intuition. They haven't considered that moral dilemmas are exceptional moral cases which involve the reasoning function of our brains to weigh the consequences of two harmful options, as judged by intuition, to determine which does the least harm.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Who doubts that "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress", except that I see no reason why evolution should have granted us objective reasoning power.

Apart from reality doing so? When some discovered the apparent (and correct) reasons for certain behaviour over the mystical and fantastical?

That is, did we not expect learning to take place, and hence reasoning, which was/is perhaps just a facet of human progress - and rather inevitable - hence why it was part of evolution. Did we expect our ancestors to be primitive tool-users for ever?

 

[atanu]

Apart from reality doing so? When some discovered the apparent (and correct) reasons for certain behaviour over the mystical and fantastical?

That is, did we not expect learning to take place, and hence reasoning, which was/is perhaps just a facet of human progress - and rather inevitable - hence why it was part of evolution. Did we expect our ancestors to be primitive tool-users for ever?

We must think deeply before we assume some happening as 'inevitable', without investigating the underlying assumptions. You most likely are assuming that there is an underlying competence for reasoning when you cite example of 'primitive tool users' and then it becomes inevitable that that underlying competence for reasoning propels us towards better thinking etc. I agree. But it does not start there. As per evolutionary hypothesis, reason and phenomenality developed from non-phenomenal matter. If that is correct then we need to answer: How non phenomenal material underwent category transformation and attained power to reason and enjoy sensual pleasure?

OTOH, If we agree that the evolutionary hypothesis is correct, then if evolutionary process maximizes evolutionary fitness, why should power of reasoning improve?

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality | Quanta Magazine

...

 

[Wandering Monk]

Although there was an interesting comment on the YouTube page of this video:

It's a shame this dialogue ignores the current monstrosities of humankind - For the first time in history, we have the ability to live sustainably, end world hunger, improve literacy and numeracy rates globally, greatly reduce disease and subsequently save millions of lives per year. Instead we what? We create a system to live by which works for itself and allows us to say "That's just how the world works". We've not evolved, we've just changed the nature of our barbarism and categorised it as the nature of capitalism.

All these thing have been improving since the Enlightenment.

Check out this site. You will be surprised.

Our World in Data

 

[atanu]

T
So, while I do readily agree that: "reason [can] be be used to generalize and extend empathy",

Let me humbly ask. How does reason extend empathy? And if indeed reason extends empathy, can it really lead to the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", in the face of crisis when protection/advancement of ego-self militates against the golden rule?
...

 

[atanu]

All these thing have been improving since the Enlightenment.

May I ask "What is enlightenment as per Steven Pinker"?

 

[sealchan]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

I would add one huge caveat...reason comes in two forms...reason based on the consistent meaning of words AND reason based on a consistency of feeling about actions taken and outcomes achieved.

 

[Audie]

Oh, I've thought it through. I guess I was just taken aback that an educated young woman such as yourself seemed oblivious to the concept I was raising. If you really wanted a thorough explanation, all you had to do was just ask.

Let's get back to the initial question I posed to you in post #39:



Your answer was to play coy, as if to insinuate that you never heard of the concepts known as "greed" and "selfishness."

Rather than getting sucked in to playing that game, I chose to posit a second question which (if you truly were a thinking person) should've made you think more about the first question.

But instead of giving a thoughtful reply to either question, you instead chose to believe that I was unable to answer your question and erroneously concluded that I didn't put much thought into this.

↑You-
Don't you think that greed and selfishness are the antitheses of reason?

Me
um, no..I dont. Help me out.

What is the difference between "greed",
"selfishness" , and, say, "enlightened self
interest".

Try for bright line distinctions plz.

(notice svp that I did ask)

I asked because you seemed to me to
make "greed" and "selfishness" into absolutes.
If you do not think they are, but understand that
they come in a sliding scale of degree, fine.

I dont know why they seem like the opposite of
reason to you. Maybe that they have mostly to
do with feelings rat her than logic?

Often enough though, grabbing for ones self is the
only thing that will keep one alive. Entirely rational.

A way that I see things is along the lines
of "Self indulgence is the root of all evil".

Taking more and more for the sane of taking it
(see Imdlea Marcosand her shoes) at the
expense of others is gross self indulgence.
That is a very extreme case.

I have been seeing labelled as "greed"
the actions of rick capitalists. I find such
labeling to be invidious and unrealistic.

Some people from the lowest peasant
to the rulers of nations may be greedy, or not.

My thoughts this a.m. are a bit scattered,
did not sleep at all.

I will assume the parts in bold above is just
you trading barbs in more or less good
natured fun. If not, maybe dont reply.

 

[Audie]

More often obscenely stupid as practiced than immoral in principle.

for sure.

My thought is that many things that society may d
that do not seem too moral from the pov of the
individual may be essential to the long term
survival of the society.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We must think deeply before we assume some happening as 'inevitable', without investigating the underlying assumptions. You most likely are assuming that there is an underlying competence for reasoning when you cite example of 'primitive tool users' and then it becomes inevitable that that underlying competence for reasoning propels us towards better thinking etc. I agree. But it does not start there. As per evolutionary hypothesis, reason and phenomenality developed from non-phenomenal matter. If that is correct then we need to answer: How non phenomenal material underwent category transformation and attained power to reason and enjoy sensual pleasure?

OTOH, If we agree that the evolutionary hypothesis is correct, then if evolutionary process maximizes evolutionary fitness, why should power of reasoning improve?

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality | Quanta Magazine

...

I was perhaps assuming that as soon as complex memories began to form, such that we could compare between them, and relate the consequences of various actions, then learning began to take place. Which is just a precursor to reasoning surely? As soon as any being has to choose between two different outcomes learning might be involved. The more learning, the more reasoning (eventually), and building on what others have learnt as well. That is how I see the inevitability of reasoning, and it being part of evolution. We see it in other species quite readily so it can't be that precious - the way that many solve problems. And surely it was just technology, or the primitive 'what works is what counts' that matters, not anything else that has driven progress in earlier times.

I think it is just the nature of learning that reasoning improves - the more we know and link with other bits of knowledge, the more opportunities there are for novel ideas - but obviously not a simple linear process. It may not be driven by evolution but just be a by-product.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

REASON! Created by God.

REASON! The driver of the Holy Scriptures.

REASON! The best way to arrive at faith in Jesus Christ IMHO, if His love doesn't get you first!

 

[Stevicus]

↑You-
Don't you think that greed and selfishness are the antitheses of reason?

Me
um, no..I dont. Help me out.

What is the difference between "greed",
"selfishness" , and, say, "enlightened self
interest".

Try for bright line distinctions plz.

(notice svp that I did ask)

I asked because you seemed to me to
make "greed" and "selfishness" into absolutes.
If you do not think they are, but understand that
they come in a sliding scale of degree, fine.

I dont know why they seem like the opposite of
reason to you. Maybe that they have mostly to
do with feelings rat her than logic?

Yes. I see "greed" and "selfishness" as negative emotions, similar to "hate." And yes, I view them as having sliding scales of degree, not absolutes.

I have nothing against feelings, nor do I value logic over feelings (both have equal importance in the human condition). All I would say is that if someone is going to make a decision based on feelings (and that decision impacts the lives of other people), they should at least be honest about it.

Often enough though, grabbing for ones self is the
only thing that will keep one alive. Entirely rational.

Yes, that can be a persuasive argument, too. "Better you than me," as some might put it. That's if we're dealing with a dog-eat-dog, zero sum game. However, a survival instinct is inherent in all animals.

A way that I see things is along the lines
of "Self indulgence is the root of all evil".

Yes, a case can be made for that as well. This has also become a large part of consumerist culture, where "instant gratification" is what people want. "Go ahead, indulge yourself" can often be heard. "Buy now, pay later" is another common phrase. This is coupled with a competitive philosophy which drives people to want to "keep up with the Joneses."

Taking more and more for the sane of taking it
(see Imdlea Marcosand her shoes) at the
expense of others is gross self indulgence.
That is a very extreme case.

Well, yes, but it's also rooted in an entire world system which involved wanton expansionism and exploitation occurring across all continents. Slavery, the expansionism in the US, colonialism, imperialism, child labor, sweatshops, etc. - all examples of extreme self indulgence at the expense of others.

Of course, nowadays, we condemn and decry these practices as atrocities and crimes against humanity. So, that may be an indicator of some progress and enlightenment, but whether we're actually learning the correct lessons from history, that's another matter.

I have been seeing labelled as "greed"
the actions of rick capitalists. I find such
labeling to be invidious and unrealistic.

Well, it really depends on the situation.

Think about it this way. Imagine Oliver Twist, meekly begging for more gruel while half-starved. When some well-fed elitist tries to posit some pseudo-scientific "explanation" as to why he shouldn't have more gruel (usually some variation of "because that's how the world works"), then my first reaction is to call BS on such explanations.

The obvious and simplest explanation is that some people are eating too much, and that's why there are so many others with so little.

 

[sealchan]

"Reason is the key driver of human moral progress."

EDIT: A more accurate summary of Newberger Goldstein's thesis might be, "Reason deserves the greatest credit for whatever moral progress we have seen and see in the world." Or -- not "reason is the key driver of human moral progress", but rather "reason is the single most important driver of human moral progress."

Comments?

After watching the video...I would reiterate that there are two kinds of reason, one which centers on words in language and the other which centers on feeling in action. The latter is not the same as emotion. Emotion is the evolutionarily evolved expression of "excess psychological energy or will" in order to divest that energy and to communicate intent. Feeling is an evaluation of the usefulness, value or importance of something and the form of rationality that derives from that seeks to create a consistent valuation across knowers and their actions.

 

[PruePhillip]

Easy: suffrage for women and black people, abolition of slavery, domestic abuse laws, child abuse laws, civil rights, trials guided by law, trial by peers, IRB, and so on and so forth.

My profile below gives another angle to that progress.

 

[sealchan]

Although there was an interesting comment on the YouTube page of this video:

It's a shame this dialogue ignores the current monstrosities of humankind - For the first time in history, we have the ability to live sustainably, end world hunger, improve literacy and numeracy rates globally, greatly reduce disease and subsequently save millions of lives per year. Instead we what? We create a system to live by which works for itself and allows us to say "That's just how the world works". We've not evolved, we've just changed the nature of our barbarism and categorised it as the nature of capitalism.

I think that reason has actually played a role but it is just as much science through its communications technology that has increased the "inter-visibility" between distinct groups from the time of the printing press through the internet. Our physical neighbors are becoming more distant while select individuals, such as you all, are becoming closer. Think of how widespread and divergent we are yet are contained more or less by this forum and its principles.

 

[Audie]

Yes. I see "greed" and "selfishness" as negative emotions, similar to "hate." And yes, I view them as having sliding scales of degree, not absolutes.

I have nothing against feelings, nor do I value logic over feelings (both have equal importance in the human condition). All I would say is that if someone is going to make a decision based on feelings (and that decision impacts the lives of other people), they should at least be honest about it.



Yes, that can be a persuasive argument, too. "Better you than me," as some might put it. That's if we're dealing with a dog-eat-dog, zero sum game. However, a survival instinct is inherent in all animals.



Yes, a case can be made for that as well. This has also become a large part of consumerist culture, where "instant gratification" is what people want. "Go ahead, indulge yourself" can often be heard. "Buy now, pay later" is another common phrase. This is coupled with a competitive philosophy which drives people to want to "keep up with the Joneses."



Well, yes, but it's also rooted in an entire world system which involved wanton expansionism and exploitation occurring across all continents. Slavery, the expansionism in the US, colonialism, imperialism, child labor, sweatshops, etc. - all examples of extreme self indulgence at the expense of others.

Of course, nowadays, we condemn and decry these practices as atrocities and crimes against humanity. So, that may be an indicator of some progress and enlightenment, but whether we're actually learning the correct lessons from history, that's another matter.



Well, it really depends on the situation.

Think about it this way. Imagine Oliver Twist, meekly begging for more gruel while half-starved. When some well-fed elitist tries to posit some pseudo-scientific "explanation" as to why he shouldn't have more gruel (usually some variation of "because that's how the world works"), then my first reaction is to call BS on such explanations.

The obvious and simplest explanation is that some people are eating too much, and that's why there are so many others with so little.

Ah good. Nothing really to argue about.
Thanks for a good post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My profile below gives another angle to that progress.

Those really aren't issues of morality, but if things you personally object to. Gay marriage? It's great were accepting that and moral that we aren't making a deal of fuss out of it anymore. Sex outside of marriage? Who cares?