Grundprobleme:
- Me vs. Us x2 != Us vs Them
- Us vs Them implicates there are no collective interests
- Is a metamorality really necessairy?
- Experiments are too abstract and emotions include more than just the given information
- Manual mode really better than auto?
- Auto mode survived darwinian competition, why no manual mode
- Auto mode can be shaped by good culture
- Problem Deep Pragmatism:
- Why happieness?
- Happieness is ambiguous (Rosenqvist)
- -> Arguments about what max it instead
- just because manual mode is utilitarian, that does not mean utilitarianism is the best choice
- many decisions aren’t made in manual mode
- why not antiutilitarian solutions
- how are they worse? (p.188)
- easier to understand, provide a framework
- Adoption
- Tribe must abandon its current metamorality (missionary work?)
- Req: Willingness to solve ToCM
- Why happieness?
Definitionen
- Morality:
- a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation
- -> no moral truth
- solves ToC (p.26)
- ultimate goal: spread genes
- ToCM
- intertribal conflict, created by conflicting moral values (p.26)
- Metamorality
- necessairy moral common ground
- Deep pragmatism
- = “best Metamorality”
- “Maximize happiness impartially” (p.203)
- Main goal: maximize Happyness
- How: common currency: shared values
- Which values: Happyness
- everyone gets the golden rule (p. 202)
- Why: Fix ToCM
Moral truth
- Do moral facts exist? -> moral truth
- How to prescribe instead of describe morality:
- religion
- does god really have a choice? (Plato)
- If no hes doesn’t make all moral rules
- If yes how is it moral
- how to know his will?
- too many interpretations, impossible to know where to look
- does god really have a choice? (Plato)
- mathematics: moral facts can be worked out from first principles by calculating the weights of rights
- proven theorems and axioms
- Problem: No axioms
- natural science based on evidence to find moral facts
- darwinian competition
- moral truth is found in function
- what is natural is right
- religion
Argument
- Metamorality should not be based on moral truths since they either don’t exist or can’t be found out
- Metamorality should be based on shared values to form a common ground
- This common ground should be based on manual thinking instead of automatic intuitions because they more relieable
- Manual thinking should be based on Utilitarianism because it is the most natural thing for it to do and everyone prefers more to less happiness
- Utilitarianism is used to maximize the overall amount of happiness (Mill)
Probs
- 3: How are Intuitions unreliable at tracking moral truths if they can’t be tracked?
- 4.1: Natural != best (p.187)
- 4.2: Everyone prefers more to less happiness would be a moral truth, but can’t be accessed
- 5.1 How to measure happiness, same problem as accessing moral truths
- 5.2 Different people experience happiness from different sources, how can you know how much happiness they feel
- 4.3 How does it get applied in quick situations?
Todo
- Deep pragmatism = particular brand of utilitarianism “maximize happiness imartially”
- arm instead of camera
Links:
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-018-9378-3
- p.34 http://www.jonathanglover.org/sites/default/files/docs/utilitarianism-and-its-critics.pdf
- other pro cons utilitarianism https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/#SSH3ai
References
- [1] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- [2] Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.
- [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
- [4] Mill, John Stuart (1861). Utilitarianism.
- [5] Wielenberg, Erik J. 2014. Review: Greene Joshua, moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Ethics 124 (4): 910–916.
- [6] Harlow, John Martyn (1868). “Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head”. Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society.2 (3): 327–47. Reprinted: David Clapp & Son (1869) [scan]
- [7] Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, London, 1789
- [8] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- [6] McCloskey, H. J. (1957). An examination of restricted utilitarianism. Philosophical Review 66 (4):466-485.