Robert Wright interviews Steven Pinker (5/7)

[pawsoned]

What is the word at 8:53 'whiggish'? and at 9:03 "non-zero sumness" WTF!!!

[Happypast]

@pawsoned well aren't you nit-picky, I think it's very obvious what the word means in the context of what they're talking about.

[zirchsoft]

he reminds me on Tuck Andres

[markthnark]

Here we get to the rub. Wright is confusing, perhaps even deliberately the idea of the "Good Trick" (Dennet-CE), and mathematical (for example) truths. The golden rule is a Good Trick for life forms, such as ours, but not exclusively, whereas PI is a universal truth.

Lets follow his idea to a conclusion- a being set in motion evolution in order for us to come upon universal moral truths? What is the purpose of this for such a being, to discover something that it must already have been aware?

[Timurito1]

Wright is simply a stereotypical idiot.

[Mercurybath]

What stereotype is that?

[Scofield0085]

@Timurito1 Couldn't agree with you more. He is way overrated, I don't understand how he gets so much attention. 

[otakurocklee]

@markthnark I think the very fact that we can conceive of morality in this absolute sense... implies that there is something beyond a good trick... Even if we aren't moral in any absolute sense... why can we even conceive of this type of morality in abstract terms... How are we even able to distinguish a moral trick from a "real" morality...

[markthnark]

In much the same way as we conceive of day and night. We apply an understanding of the impact of the idea to ourselves- moral behavior is "good" or beneficial in the long run, and immoral behavior is bad or threatening. There is no absolute sense of morality. Morality is shifting constantly. What is acceptable to us now, may not have been before. Its not even evolving, as it sometimes goes in reverse.

[Scofield0085]

@markthnark Not refuting what you're saying, I actually find what you're saying very interesting. I do think that there are various moral peaks as far as human well being is concerned, but its not clear how it can sometimes go in "reverse."

[markthnark]

@Scofield0085 : take the middle east as an example. Islamic nations have removed from women many rights that are freely available to men. Education being an obvious one, freedom of expression another. Prior to the advent of Islam, woman were not denied these rights (or at least in the times they lived in had similar access to them). Another example would be the treatment of homosexuality by the Christian church, a person living in Roman times as a homosexual was relatively unhindered.

[Scofield0085]

@markthnark Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand what you were saying in your initial post…your point is that morality isn’t linear in terms of time. In other words, it doesn't co-evolve with time. I sort of agree. My only slight objection would be that morality actually IS objective or else we wouldn’t be able to differentiate between what you have cited in your two examples as essentially positive and more moral human flourishing eras, as opposed to immoral or less moral periods.

[Scofield0085]

@markthnark You can clearly see and explain away the distinction between what was a more moral time, than a period in time where it is less moral irrespective of time. No person of ordinary morality would disagree with your assessments. Also, we know that scientific discoveries can play a role in improving morality and as such morality can improve with time as more information comes in.