Does eroding belief in free will cause cheating? Failure to replicate a famous result.

Reblogged from Why Evolution Is True:

In his essay written for receiving the Erasmus Prize, "Erasmus: Sometimes a Spin Doctor is Right", Dan Dennett argues that the idea that free will is merely an illusion—an idea promulgated by bad people like Sam Harris and me—is deleterious to society:

There is—and has always been—an arms race between persuaders and their targets or intended victims, and folklore is full of tales of innocents being taken in by the blandishments of sharp talkers.

Read more… 1,965 more words

Very interesting study and blog post. The way I see it, there's never been much in the way of empirical evidence suggesting that a belief in free will leads to better behavior. Many societies have had such beliefs for centuries, and that hardly did much to minimize the immorality that ran rampant. People will always find some way to rationalize their immoral acts, with or without some greater concept of free will.

Rats, Sperm Whales, and Altrusim

The following report comes from Discovery News, and while it’s a bit old, I think its relevance and implications remain secure.

Researchers started by housing 30 rats together in pairs, each duo sharing the same cage for two weeks. Then, they moved them to a new cage where one rat was held in a restraining device while the other could roam free.

The free rat could see and hear his (or her — six of the rats were female) trapped buddy, and appeared more agitated while the entrapment was going on.

The door to the trapping enclosure was not easy to open, but most rats figured it out within three to seven days. Once they knew how, they went straight to the door to open it every time they were put in the cage.

To test the rats’ true bond to their cagemates, researchers also ran the experiment with toys in the restraint to see if the rats would free the fake stuffed rats like they did their comrades. They did not.

“We are not training these rats in any way,” said first author Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal.

“These rats are learning because they are motivated by something internal. We’re not showing them how to open the door, they don’t get any previous exposure on opening the door, and it’s hard to open the door. But they keep trying and trying, and it eventually works.”

Even when researchers rearranged the experiment so that the trapped rat would be set free into another enclosure, away from his hero friend, the rats still opened the door, indicating they were not motivated by companionship.

“There was no other reason to take this action, except to terminate the distress of the trapped rats,” Bartal said. “In the rat model world, seeing the same behavior repeated over and over basically means that this action is rewarding to the rat.”

This sort of behavior is perhaps unexpected, give that most people would hardly think of rats (mere pests that they are) as being capable of much sentience, let alone selflessness. Not only does this challenge  the notion that altruism is the sole purview of advanced cognitive capacity, but it goes against the popular perception that living things are concerned only with their own self-interest and survival.

There’s clearly nothing to gain from freeing another rat, other than the apparent “satisfaction” of alleviating the suffering of another living thing.  But is there a limit to this behavior? What would the rats do if given a more enticing alternative to freeing their comrade?

In one final test to truly measure the resolve of the rats, scientists presented them with a pile of chocolate chips in the cage. The rats were not hungry, and in prior experiments showed they liked chocolate because they would eat it instead of rat chow given the chance.

Still, free rats tended to act benevolently. Even if they munched on a few chips first, they would then free their pal and allow him to eat the remaining chips.

“It said to us that essentially helping their cagemate is on a par with chocolate. He can hog the entire chocolate stash if he want(s) to, and he does not. We were shocked,” said co-author Peggy Mason, a professor of neurobiology.

So even when given an irresistible temptation to spurn their friend, the rats still tended to prioritize the well-being of the other rat. In fact, they furthermore shared in the goodies, even though they could easily hog them after having done their part.

Rats are hardly the only animals to demonstrate this sort of behavior. Just about every social species that’s been studied – from dolphins to monkeys – have displayed similar behavior. Most recently there was a discovery that a group of sperm whales,  a species widely perceived as aggressive, had adopted a deformed dolphin.

Behavioral ecologists Alexander Wilson and Jens Krause discovered this unique phenomenon when they set out to observe sperm whales off the island of Pico in the Azores in 2011. Upon arriving there, they discovered a whale group of adult sperm whales, several whale calves, and an adult male bottlenose dolphin. Over the next eight days, the pair observed the dolphin with the whales six more times, socializing and even nuzzling and rubbing members of the group. At times, the sperm whales seemed merely to tolerate the dolphin’s affection, while at others, they reciprocated. “It really looked like they had accepted the dolphin for whatever reason,” Wilson reports to ScienceNOW. “They were being very sociable.”

This gregarious dolphin was easily recognizable by its spinal malformation, a rare spinal curvature that gave the dolphin’s back half an “S” shape. This malformation did not seem to affect the dolphin’s overall health, but  was likely the reason that the dolphin joined up with the sperm whales in the first place. In the highly social and clique-based world of dolphins, such a disfigurement could have given the dolphin low social status, or may have prevented the dolphin from fitting in and keeping up with its peers. “Sometimes some individuals can be picked on,” Wilson says. “It might be that this individual didn’t fit in, so to speak, with its original group.” The deformed dolphin could perhaps better keep up with the sperm whales, which swim more slowly, and could stay by their side at all times, as sperm whales always assign a “babysitter” to remain at the surface with the calves while the other adults dive deep to feed.

Could there be anything in it for the sperm whales? It’s possible there is a mutual benefit, as the article notes towards the end. Why else would they accept the member of another species into their cohesive group, let alone one that has “disabilities”?

While there are several likely possibilities for the dolphin’s advantage in the match, the whales’ reason for the adoption is less clear — there is no obvious advantage that the whales could gain by adding the dolphin to their group. Sperm whales have never been seen being affectionate to other species, and, further, scientists say that bottlenose dolphins and sperm whales often do not get along, as the dolphins have been known to chase and harass the whales and their calves.

Of course, there are some caveats to keep in mind. For starters, it’s still uncertain what the sperm whales’ motivations are, and as tempting as it is to view it as an act of compassion, it’s simply too soon too tell. Then there’s the fact that this is an isolated incident, and can hardly be extrapolated to represent the norm.

Still, this and the previous rat experiment suggests that there is something innate within other social species that seems to cause what we would otherwise call altruistic or compassionate behavior. This is definitely something that should be studied more, if only to give animals more credit for sentience, and thus more rights.

In any case, it makes sense that social species would have some innate inclination to help one of their own, since our individual survival is dependent on the group’s well-being. We depend on each other’s cooperation to thrive, so generosity is often a win-win for everyone. Maybe even altruism, which requires personal sacrifice, may confer some sort of advantage. Regardless,  I this suggests that morality does indeed have some natural origin, given that empathy and a sense of solidarity seems to underpin most moral actions.

Thoughts?

 

The Responsibility of Privilege

Noam Chomsky discusses many insightful things in the following video, but the one that stuck out most to me was the notion that privileged people – those with the most money and power relative to everyone else – had a greater responsibility to help the world. See the video in its entirety and judge for yourself.

A Short Overview of Kantian/Deontological Ethical Theory

Kantian ethical theory is one of several moral/ethical theories that provide the following: 1) a method for deriving moral rules and guidelines and 2) a justification and criteria for evaluating the moral value of particular human actions.

So like cultural relativism, which was discussed beforehand, the Kantian theory of ethics seeks to establish an organized approach to how morality is formed and how various actions can be judged and analyzed in terms of their moral legitimacy. As we will see, however, there are vast differences between the two methodologies.

Kantian ethical theory is named after its founder, Immanuel Kant, an 18^th century German thinker of the Enlightenment Age. It is important to keep in mind the context in which Kant formulated his ethical theory. During this optimistic time period, there emerged a strong belief in the ability of human reason to help understand the world and solve its various problems – including ethical ones.

Thus, Kant sought to establish an approach to morality that would be reason-based. Indeed, Kant believed that to be ethical is to be perfectly rational, and that the most rational behavior is naturally the most ethical one. He also believed that behaving morally was a matter of obligation for which there could be no exception or loophole – hence the emphasis on rules rather than on consequences.

For this reason, the Kantian approach to morality is classified as a type of Deontological ethical theory. Derived from the word deon, which is Greek for duty, this ethical theory holds that there is an innate aspect to a given moral rule that makes it either good or bad. Put another way, it judges the morality of an action not on, say, its consequences or utility, but on said action’s adhere to a rule or set of rules.

Thus, Kantian/Deontological ethical theory is based around established rules and guidelines, and as such, considers morals to be unconditional, obligatory, and universal. So it is best defined as a rules-based or duty-based system of ethics. For a Kantian ethicist, the ends of an action never justify the means; rather, it is the action itself that is intrinsically good or bad. We can’t control consequences anyway, since there is no telling whether a particular action will lead to the intended results.

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
But what does it mean to have a moral system that is obligatory and rules-based? Keep in mind that Kant is not trying to create any moral rules himself. He’s not directly telling us what is good or bad. Rather, he wants to establish a universal method for determining what is moral. Basically, he’s giving a way to test the legitimacy of other moral rules and actions.

The core of this approach is something known as the categorical imperative. This is a command or recommendation of action that is completely absolute. For example, “you should never lie” or “you should always keep your promises.” Kant contrasts this with the hypothetical imperative, which is a dictate that is based around certain conditions or desires. An example of this would be, “you ought to tell the truth if you want people to trust you, or if you want to be a good person.” A hypothetical imperative usually contains keywords such as “ought,” “should,” or “if” in order to connect the command to a particular condition or motive; categorical imperatives have no such considerations: basically, it’s “you ought to do something, period.”

Intuitively, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with believing that you should tell the truth for the sake of winning people’s trust. After all, this appears to be a perfectly rational expectation and motivation, and Kant was all about basing morals on reason. So why does Kantian ethical theory hold that rules must be unconditional in order to be legitimate and rational? What’s so irrational about conditional morals?

The problem is that having one’s actions contingent upon particular conditions builds into them a loophole: if you don’t care about the conditions, you have no reason to follow through with the moral action. If I don’t care whether or not people will trust me or see me as a good person, I have no reason to tell the truth. I’ll only be moral insofar as doing so meets certain relevant desires, circumstances, or environments.

Thus, the categorical imperative obliges us to behave a certain way out of duty, with no other external or ulterior factors in mind. This makes for a more reliable moral system, since it ensures that we do indeed always tell the truth or behave justly no matter what. But what compels us to follow these categorical imperatives? Why should we be good for the sheer sake of it? And how do we determine what should be a categorical imperative?

The Formulations of the Categorical Imperative
Kant’s answer to these questions is based on an appeal to reason: just as hypothetical imperatives ought to be done for certain desires, categorical imperatives ought to be driven by rational considerations. The first formulation, or principle, for determining whether an act is morally permissible is as follows:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

In other words, when you’re considering doing something, ask yourself the following:

1)      What rule would you be following were you to go through with the act? This would be the “maxim” or guideline for said action.

2)      Would you be willing to have this rule become universal law, to be practiced by everyone else around you at all times?

If the action you’re considering meets these requirements, then you’ve devised a categorical imperative – a sound moral rule for which you must oblige yourself to follow absolutely. If not, however, then this action is not moral and therefore not permissible. So if I’m thinking about making a categorical imperative that states “you ought to lie,” I must measure it against the first formulation: would this be a maxim that I’d want to become universal? Would I want to live in a world were everyone has a duty to be dishonest in every circumstance? If I’m a reasonable person, I would most certainly be opposed to this.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative states the following:

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

What this basically means is that we should treat people as intrinsically valuable. Indeed, Kant held that human beings are valuable “above all price,” because unlike objects, a person is irreplaceable. Furthermore, objects can only serves as a means: a car is only valuable insofar as it serves its purpose as a form of transportation. People, however, have an inherent value to them that is beyond serving anyone else’s means. Humans have dignity.

But more importantly, they’re autonomous moral agents: they have free will and the ability to guide their actions. Because we humans are rational agents capable of making our decisions and setting our own goals, we are innately valuable. After all, without humans, there would be no conception of either morality or reason.

It is because of this that we should never be used as mere instruments for another’s ends. People must be respected as the rational, independent actors that they are, and must not be reduced to the roles of objects. Thus, a proper moral action must preclude manipulating someone for the sake of self-interest, or forcing them to commit actions against their will. Hiring someone to fix a problem wouldn’t be a problem given that they’re doing so knowingly and willingly; using a slave to do the task, however, would no doubt violate this formulation and make for an unacceptable moral maxim.

It is interesting to see how Kantian ethical theory would apply to the justice system. Kant would be opposed punishing someone to deter criminal behavior because he doesn’t deal in consequences and hypothetical scenarios. Recall that for the Kantian, morality is based solely upon the intent of a particular action and whether it comports with a rule – thus, consequences or other considerations don’t matter.

Instead, Kant would approve of punishment for the sake of retribution; rather then correct a criminal’s behavior, this sort of punishment simply addresses a wrong that has already been committed (albeit proportional to the crime, as Kant was keen to clarify). Furthermore, punishing a criminal treats them as an autonomous moral agent – i.e. ends themselves – and to not punish them would treat them as objects that have no self-guiding morals. In a sense, retributive justice acknowledges the criminal’s human dignity.

Pros and Cons of Kantian Ethical Theory
Kant put a lot of thought into his ethical theory, and he established a rather sophisticated universal methodology for determining proper morality. Even so, like any ethical theory, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

Among the greatest attribute of Kantian ethical theory is its consistency: because this theory is rules-based and absolute, it requires us to be consistent in our morality. Recall that the first formulation of the categorical imperative obliges us to follow rules only if we’d want everyone else to do so too. Similarly, if one accepts considerations as reasons to do (or not do) something in one case, then you must accept those reasons in others. To quote James Rachels, “moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on all people at all times.” All this makes for a moral system that is as stable as it is rational.

On the other hand, this same absolutism is a major weakness as well, for it leads to a possible conflict of rules. What happens when we face a scenario that forces us to choose between two or more obligatory moral rules? Consider the two imperatives “never tell a lie” and “never allow innocents to die if you can help it.” Within the Kantian framework, both these moral rules would be unconditional.

But what happens if, during Nazi-era Germany, you’re secreting harboring Jews and the Gestapo come knocking on your door? In this instance, you’d be forced to choose between lying or letting innocent people die, thereby violating one rule by virtue of choosing another. Absolutism in such circumstances can be very troubling and arguably irrational: shouldn’t a rule be broken if following it would lead to harmful consequences?

Furthermore, Kant underestimates the importance of taking consequences into account when considering an action. He believed that we could never be certain of the results of our actions, whether they’re well-intended or not. But is this realistically applicable to all scenarios? Aren’t there certain cases where we could be pretty sure of the consequences? Moreover, Kant suggests that regardless of the consequences of our actions, what matters is our intention and adherence to an unconditional rule. But could we really be blameless if we commit an act that we’re reasonably sure would lead to more harm than good, even if we were being consistent in our morality?

Ultimately, while Kantian ethical theory provides some crucial moral insights, it also seems ill-suited to deal with the complex reality of many ethical problems.

 

Hotel Rwanda and Just War Theory

Hotel Rwanda is a 2004 American drama film that tells the true story of hotelier Paul Rusesabagina (played by Don Cheadle) and his efforts to save his fellow citizens from the Rwandan Genocide that transpired in the spring of 1994.

The film begins by showing the rising political tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups of Rwanda, which quickly culminates in an outbreak of mass violence and genocide. During the course of these worsening events, Rusesabagina and other protagonists are forced to come to terms with an unprecedented scale of violence, while at the same time trying to do what they can to save hundreds of fellow citizens who have no sanctuary.

Through the resourceful use of his hotel and its supplies, his own personal savvy, and a network of allies, Rusesabagina eventually succeeds in saving his family (which is part Tutsi, the targeted minority) along with over a thousand refugees – albeit not without facing traumatizing circumstances, many close calls, and loss of nearly a million fellow Rwandans by the end of the conflict.

The film explores several ethical, philosophical, and political themes. There is the altruism and moral obligation that Rusesabagina displays towards strangers who are not of his ethnic group (and the subsequent risks he takes to help them), the sense of hopelessness in trying to save lives with few resources and little international support, the moral breakdown of society as Rwandans violent turn on their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Indeed, a recurring element throughout the film was the sense of abandonment and shock felt by the protagonists at the world’s apathy to such a grave moral plight. This is highlighted by the presence of both the Red Cross and United Nations Peacekeepers, both of which are overburdened and unprepared for the crisis – and both of which serve as proxies for the global community. The inability of these organizations to intervene – particularly the peacekeepers, who cannot act without official authorization (which never comes) – serves as a stark reminder of the world’s moral failure. The protagonists are forced to make due with what they can, and to survive overwhelming odds on their own.

One of the central philosophical questions raised by the film – and the real-life genocide it is based on – is whether the UN, United States, and other countries should have intervened militarily to put a stop to the genocide. Would doing so have been just? Or were there good reasons not to?

By my reasoning, military intervention was a moral imperative that should have been undertaken. When analyzing the criteria for a just war, such an intervention fits perfectly: clearly, the cause is just, as hundreds of thousands of innocent people were being massacred by the state and its militias. Rwanda was not in the midst of a civil war pitting two militarized political factions, which would be a comparatively more ambiguous scenario; rather, it was enduring a one-sided slaughter on the scale of genocide.

In this respect, comparative justice would also have been met. Given the scale of death of unarmed civilians, the killing of the genocide’s perpetrators would have been an acceptable cost, especially as the film showed that mere bribery and blackmail was often sufficient to deter the genocide brigades – thus it could be argued that the mere presence of armed troops from foreign nations would serve largely as a deterrence without the need to kill.

As such, both the probability of success and the proportionality of the response would also have been acceptable. As shown in the film, the Rwandan state was very corrupt and susceptible to bribery, and most of the genocide perpetrators were relying on small arms and machetes to carry out their campaign – there were no tanks, plans, or advanced weaponry involved. The element of a single national military (if not several) could easily rout and intimidate such ragtag and corrupt forces.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the United Nations officially holds that the formal recognition of a genocide obligates member states to intervene out of moral duty – cynically, however, this was why many states were not willing to identify what transpired as a genocide, despite clear evidence that a minority group was being explicitly targeted for extermination for its identity (one of the main recognized criterion for a genocide).

The need for a competent authority to lead the effort would also have been easily met. Aside from the governments of various nation states (many of which would ostensibly be developed democracies like the US) mandates and resolutions sanctioned by the UN are viewed in international law as legitimate sources of authority. A UN resolution to permit military action would have sufficed, especially as the UN had already legitimized the presence of peacekeepers in the country through another mandate.

Finally, even taking all these guidelines into account, would intervention have been a last resort? Given that at least some of the perpetrators, including their leaders, were pliable to corruption (albeit only to a point) it’s possible that negotiations or financial bargaining could have been sufficient in stopping the conflict peacefully. But given the presence of extremists willing to kill hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, it seems unlikely that there wouldn’t be a need for some degree of military action. Considering the many unarmed, civilian lives at stake, resorting to military intervention would’ve been the least bad option.

So in short, I believe a military intervention to stop the Rwandan Genocide would have been just, given that such an action can follow all the parameters and prerequisites of just war theory.

As for why this genocide began in the first place, it was a convergence of several factors (some of which were explored in the film): mainly, it emerged due to a history of ethnic hostility and rivalry stemming from colonial preferences for the minority Tutsis over the other majority Hutus, the latter of which had their fears of Tutsi domination stoked by opportunists and paranoid extremists. As shown in Hotel Rwanda, economic and political insecurity, a lack of civil society, and rampant corruption only heightened the level of fear and hate that often leads breeds violence. Indeed, every genocide that has ever occurred – including the most infamous one of all – was triggered or intensified by economic, political, and social problems (indeed, the genocide occurred very shortly after a civil war between factions of both ethnic groups). The subsequent mass panic is put upon a minority group with which there are preexisting animosities, and from there violence ensues.

A Short Overview of Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism is one of several moral/ethical theories, which are defined as systems of thought that 1) provide a method for deriving moral rules and guidelines and 2) provides a justification and criteria for evaluating the moral value of particular human actions.

Thus, like any ethical theory, cultural relativism seeks to establish an organized approach to how morality is formed and how various actions can be judged and analyzed in terms of their moral legitimacy. Specifically, a cultural relativist holds that there can be no objective, universal, and independent standard for judging morality because different cultures adhere to different moral codes.

Before proceeding further, two things should be noted: first, there is an important distinction between cultural relativism as an ethical theory and cultural relativism as a methodology (although the two are interrelated). The latter, known as Methodological Cultural Relativism, is an approach within the social sciences – namely anthropology – that treats all cultural views as equally valuable for the sake of understanding them better. In applying this method, an academic can study a variety of cultures and belief systems without necessarily deriving an overall ethical theory from their approach.

Second, cultural relativism applies to societies not individuals. Obviously, every individual in any given society has their own nuanced opinions and moral guidelines, which may run contrary to what is the general standard in their society. But the point is that the culture in which any given person lives in has established moral norms that they are raised and pressured to adhere to. Therefore, cultural relativism is focused on those society-wide moral customs and traditions.

Cultural relativism as an ethical theory emerged mostly from the academic field of anthropology (the study of human cultures), which was established primarily in the Western world around the later half of the 19^th century. Once scholars and researchers began to study other cultures in an ostensibly objective manner, it wasn’t long before the methodology gave way to insights and conclusions about the nature of human morality.

It was observed (then, as now) that there was no such thing as a universal truth in ethics, only various cultural codes and traditions from which distinct moral “truths” – that applied only to those societies – emerged. In light of this, cultural relativists developed (and continue to espouse) the following argument:

• P1: Different cultures disagree on moral rules
• P2: Morality is subjective, so there cannot be universal rules
• C: There are no objective moral rules

Put another way, this ethical theory denies the existence of any moral truth – of the ability to judge an action as “right” or “wrong” – because morality appears to be subjective (as determined by the vast differences that exist among human societies all over the world). No culture has the moral high ground from which it can judge another; each individual is indoctrinated in just one of many moral systems, so none of us has the authority to denounce or approach of certain moral actions over others. After all, we’re all biased in this regard.

The Advantages of a Culturally Relativistic Outlook
As we’ll soon learn, cultural relativism has many unsettling ethical implications. But there are some valuable lessons and insights that can be derived from it as well. For all its flaws, cultural relativism offers the following:

1. Tolerance and Open-Mindedness
Cultural relativism teaches us to view other cultures with a nuanced outlook, and to not immediately assume (as many people do) that our own preferences are the absolute best ones. Many (though not all) practices, customs, and beliefs may seem odd or even repulsive, but they’re generally harmless as far as their ethical consequences.

Examples would generally include funeral practices, wedding rituals, cuisines, and attitudes towards romantic relationships. As upsetting or odd as certain cultural approaches to these things may be, at worst, they are peculiarities that fit the specific needs and traditions of a certain society. They are not detrimental to their practitioners or us, so their unusualness shouldn’t merit bigotry or anger.

In a similar way, we should view our own culture within that paradigm; cultural relativism reminds us that our own standard of what is “normal” and “rational” could otherwise be seen as strange or unacceptable to others. In that sense, such an outlook can build bridges and make us more empathetic.

2. Learning Opportunities
From the tolerance and open-mindedness offered by cultural relativism is a chance to learn about other cultures and ways of doing things. Even if cultural relativism is wrong in claiming that there is no absolute moral truth (more on that later), we can still find ourselves learning from or even adapting certain moral concepts that we would have never otherwise known about.

For example, the values of Buddhism, such as self-control and moderation, can certainly offer useful insights and benefits to non-Buddhist societies, while the concept of civil liberties, which derived largely from Western thought, has much currency in non-Western societies. With the intensifying diffusion of various cultures and ethical guidelines across the world, cultural relativism can provide us with a proper attitude with which to respond to our increasingly globalized world.

The Problems With Cultural Relativism
Unfortunately, despite some merits, a cultural relativism theory has some serious problems. Applying such an outlook to its fullest extent can lead to some troubling moral positions. Furthermore, there are certain flaws with the premises underpinning the theory’s conclusions.

Perhaps the biggest problem comes with the central point of cultural relativism: that no culture’s traditions or customs can be criticized, let alone challenged. This seems to work fine, if not ideally, when directed towards practices that are harmless (as discussed in the advantages of cultural relativism).

However, what about less innocuous norms? Certain societies restrict freedom of speech or deprive minorities of equal treatment, for example. But as cultural relativists, not only would we have to preclude any criticism of such practices, but we’d have to admit that are own society – which grants such freedoms – is no better. Every culture’s moral code would, in essence, have to be accepted as equal. Yet it seems patently obvious that a society that deprives people of their dignity or reduces their well-being is worthy of opprobrium, while it would be irrational to claim that giving people freedoms is no better than not doing so.

A similar problem arises with respect to judging the prevailing morals of our own culture. Cultural relativism determines the moral legitimacy of an action based on whether it comports with the overall standard of the society in which it occurs. For example, someone in Afghanistan may question the ethics of barring women from education. If approaching the matter as a cultural relativist, she would have to conclude that there is nothing wrong with this practice, given that it’s part of her society’s cultural norm.

The flaw in this approach is that every society has widespread and established customs that merit challenges and criticisms. There’s not a society on Earth in which popular norms can’t be improved in some way; yet cultural relativism makes it so that we cannot question, much less seek to improve, the status quo, nor can we look to other cultures to provide us with better alternatives (since all moral systems are, in effect, equal).

This in turn leads to a third disadvantage of this ethical theory: there can’t be any notion of moral progress. Cultural relativism precludes any transcultural judgment, including across time. So under a culturally relativistic framework, even the past cultural norms of a present-day society are above criticism. Thus, we cannot view our current society’s prohibition against slavery as morally progressive,because that would suggest that the once-widespread acceptance of slavery was bad – a sentiment that cultural relativism disproves of.

Aside from all these disquieting ethical implications, cultural relativism is undermined by scientific and empirical evidence. For starters, cultural relativists may exaggerate the extent to which societies differ. As it turns out, many cultural and social norms are ultimately derived from practical needs. For example, a society that traditionally cremates its dead may have developed the practice because of lack of space for burial; even if the custom is couched in religious or traditional motivations, it’s far less alien or reprehensible when one considers the pragmatism that originally guided it. Obviously, not every cultural practice can be explained away like this, but the point is not to take the moral differences between cultures as being so absolute and foreign. Societies that differ could still nonetheless understand the trans-cultural reasoning that motivates some of their distinct customs.

Furthermore, cultural relativism’s central assertion – that universal morals do not exist – is in fact untrue. There are several practices that can be found across history and in every human society. Examples include prohibitions against murder, the valuing of truth-telling, and the raising of children until they’re self-sufficient. Granted, each culture may have slight variations to these – such as what age a child is considered an adult – but the same overall ideas underpin each custom. Therefore, cultural relativists must concede to their being some sort of objective and independent standard after all.

In short, cultural relativism has many weaknesses and doesn’t seem to offer a complete or satisfying ethical approach by which to guide our lives (or our society). But at the same time, its flaws – as well as some admitted strengths – do inform our understanding of the nature of morality and its intersection with sociocultural factors. In that sense, cultural relativism is worth studying.

Lying, By Sam Harris

The following is an excerpt from a relatively new e-book by neuroscientist Sam Harris titled Lying. It’s an in-depth analysis on the psychology and ethics of deception, and it is by far one of the most interesting things I’ve ever read on the subject.

At least one study suggests that 10 percent of communication between spouses is deceptive. Another has found that 38 percent of encounters among college students contain lies. However, researchers have discovered that even liars rate their deceptive interactions as less pleasant than truthful ones. This is not terribly surprising: We know that trust is deeply rewarding and that deception and suspicion are two sides of the same coin. Research suggests that all forms of lying—including white lies meant to spare the feelings of others—are associated with poorer-quality relationships.

Once one commits to telling the truth, one begins to notice how unusual it is to meet someone who shares this commitment. Honest people are a refuge: You know they mean what they say; you know they will not say one thing to your face and another behind your back; you know they will tell you when they think you have failed—and for this reason their praise cannot be mistaken for mere flattery.

Honesty is a gift we can give to others. It is also a source of power and an engine of simplicity. Knowing that we will attempt to tell the truth, whatever the circumstances, leaves us with little to prepare for. We can simply be ourselves.

This is one of many sections that stood out to me, and I highly recommend this for everyone, given the ubiquity of the issue. You can download the e-book, which is less than a hundred pages, for a mere three dollars on Harris’s website.

I’ve been reflecting a lot on the implications of this data. Lying is so prevalent, even between confidants, that it makes me wonder whether it’s just a natural part of being human. Every society has a moral prohibition towards dishonesty – indeed, the importance of truthfulness is one of the few universal norms across human society – yet we seem unable to reign in on our own fibbing, let alone keep others in line.

If everyone is a hypocrite (albeit to varying degrees) who has the moral high ground with respect to lying? Heck, who can we even trust to be truthful? Even the most seemingly honest person can turn out to be an expert fibber.

And if lies of all kinds factor into our daily interactions, what good would truth-telling be in the long run? It may help your reputation in some respects, but it may also hinder you in others. After all, many people don’t take the truth as well as they claim they would. Honesty is valued in principle, but I’ve long observed (and been guilty of) the ambivalence people have towards being given a truth they don’t want to hear. Many of us have an almost duplicitous attitude towards honesty – we like it so long as it doesn’t inconvenience us or our own neat perception of the world.

In light of all this, is it possible to imagine a world with less lying? Is it possible to go through life with only a minimal amount of deception? Is lying really all that bad if everyone does it, and if society and human psychology seem tacitly structured around it? I don’t mean to sound cynical or misanthropic – I’m far from it – but I think this is something to think about. Please, share your thoughts.

A Guide to Being Civil on the Internet

Those who know me personally, or who have been reading my blog for some time, know that I place a lot of value on courteousness, both on and off the web. My blog (along with my Facebook profile) is geared toward promoting open-ended discussion that is carried out with mutual respect and politeness.

I even devoted an entire post to extolling the virtues of dialectics and good manners. I firmly believe that aside from being the right and ethical thing to do, such principles can help you grow intellectually, emotionally, and socially. There’s always room for improvement in these areas, but the point is to at least try. I won’t pontificate too much on this, since you can read all my arguments there.

The web – while more developed, populated, and ubiquitous than ever – is still something of a wild frontier: people can get away with almost anything they want. From petty trolling to malicious cyber-bullying to destructive hacking, the internet can be a cruel place, which makes it quite a challenge to sit on your gentlemanly pedestal.

Arguably, the same can be said about the real world too, but there’s a huge difference – the very nature of the internet makes it far easier to engage in this sort of behavior. And given the web’s growing prominence in our everyday lives, it’s more difficult than ever to avoid encountering nasty people. It’s getting crowded, and you’re bound to cross paths with someone that will upset you.

So how does one maintain any sort of high-minded courtesy in the face of such debauchery – which, I might add, is often intended to shatter your decency?

Luckily (and unsurprisingly) I’m not the only one reflecting on this conundrum. A light-hearted but insightful website called Art of Manliness has raised the same issue: how do you remain a gentleman online? (Regardless of the terminology, this almost certainly applies to women too; the site is just geared towards men, obviously).

Before addressing that point, they start by identifying a troubling problem: people behave exceptionally mean and spitefully on the internet, more so then we’d ever expect them to in real life. Why is this so? Again, it has to do with the very nature of the internet.

Certainly the loss of empathy from interacting as anonymous, disembodied selves is a major factor. But the real root of the problem is how we view our time online; many see it as a break from their “real lives”—a place where they can let it all hang out. In their off-line lives they must be civil and refrain from telling their boss how they really feel about him, yelling at the customer service rep who’s giving them the runaround, and getting out of the car and punching the rude and reckless driver in front of them. The anger from this restraint boils inside of them, and online, freed from any real consequences, they unleash their pent-up venom.

But the world is spending more and more of its time online. For many, it has become our major source of education, entertainment, communication, and debate. Isn’t it time to let go of the false wall between our online lives and our “real” ones and act with the same kind of civility on the internet that we do in our day-to-day interactions?

Exactly, context shouldn’t matter – when you’re interacting with fellow human beings, you should always strive to be a decent person. Any medium of communication, no matter how impersonal or concealing, still involves living, breathing people who rightly desire a certain level of respect. Even if they don’t deserve it, there is still good reason not to stoop to their level, as is explained below.

Why a Man Should Strive to Be More Civil Online
A gentleman treats others with dignity and respect, regardless of the kind of forum in which he participates. He treats life’s fellow travelers as he himself would like to be treated. And in doing so, he makes the world a little better of a place everywhere he goes. He leaves those he interacts with feeling edified and uplifted instead of depressed and angry. Every man has the power to brighten his corner of the world, whether that corner be in the office, his home, or online. The more men who decide to take the higher road of civility, the more enjoyable everyone’s lives become. And choosing to reject our baser impulses in favor of our higher ones is a big part of becoming our best selves and building our legacy.

We all have daily annoyances that build up a well of anger inside of us. But instead of taking this rage out on others, it should be released healthily through things like exercise, meditation, and time spent in nature.

Satisfyingly, I’ve more or less made the same argument. Being civil is mutually beneficial – it makes you a better person while making the world around you a better place. It also sets an important example, so that even if you don’t win over your opponent (which rarely happens anyway), you can inspire others to pay-it-forward.

Of course, being well-mannered is easier said than done. If decent behavior was an obvious and undemanding thing to do, it would be far more widespread:

How to Be More Civil Online
Being a gentleman online simply involves the application of common sense. But anyone who leaves their home each day knows how uncommon common sense can be.

In our grandfathers’ and great-grandfathers’ time, etiquette books were extremely popular; believe it or not, Emily Post’s tome on the subject was one of the most requested books by GI’s during World War II. Our forefathers understood something we often forget: no matter how common sense something is, without frequent reminders and practice, humans are drawn to the path of least resistance. While our culture has largely dropped these reminders to be our better selves, today we’ll fill in the gap by reviewing some common sense principles for being a gentleman online.

Aside from genes, we are the product of social and environmental conditioning. There is a reason why academic education spans several years, why musicians always rehearse, and why athletes must constantly train – nothing stays with us indefinitely without effort. Skills and personal traits, no matter how seemingly straightforward, cannot simply be downloaded into us – they must be practiced, refined, and improved upon.

That fact applies to civility as much as anything else. Good behavior isn’t easy, especially in the face of temptations that seek to draw us away from our better nature. Heck, that’s what makes being a good person so…good. The fact that we can resist immoral behavior despite the challenges only reinforces the virtue of our attempt.

I’m no expert in this regard – I slip up and behave stupidly all the time, no matter how high-minded I try to act (or write) on the web. But what’s important is being conscious of this and making the attempt. So without further ado, here is what the folks at Art of Manliness see as some key tips to being a gentlemanly web-user:

1. Remember that there are real people on the other side of the computer.
This is so easy to forget. We see only our screen and our empty apartment; the faces of folks out there who will be reading what we write seem unreal and nebulous. But they are out there. And your words can truly wound them. So when writing something, keep this rule in mind:

2. Never say something to someone online that you wouldn’t say to the person’s face.
Perhaps the most important rule for online interactions.  People level the kind of vitriol online they would assuredly never say to someone’s face. I know a website owner that sometimes figures out the phone numbers of those who leave extremely rude comments and calls them up to ask what made them say something like that. Inevitably, the confronted person, hearing the voice of a real human being, is reduced to a stammering, apologetic mess.

Empathy is the key to civility. You can’t be a good person to someone if you don’t recognize they’re a person in the first place. As we’ve discussed, the web conceals our humanity quite well, but that doesn’t mean we can’t overcome it: our society has fundamentally changed over the last few decades, so that most people now live in a world of strangers. That doesn’t mean we should all start behaving callously to one another. The world is increasingly becoming a smaller place, both on and off the web. Like it or not, it’s about time we start to adapt to that.

3. Use your real name.
This is simple: if you’re not proud enough of something to have it associated with your real name, then why are you writing it?

Yes, there are caveats to this rule – legitimate reasons for anonymity. But when typing in an alias, ask yourself why you’re doing it. Do you have a valid reason for doing so, or do you simply wish to avoid ownership of your words because they are rude?

I’ve been on both ends of this, and I find that names do humanize a person more. It also gives more weight to what you’re saying, and grants legitimacy to you as an authority. One way people recognize trolls is by their use of an alias, especially an odd one. It may be wrong to profile people this way, but the established precedent is that people who rely on such cover are aiming to cause trouble, and it’s easier to do that when you lack an identity.

Keeping this in mind, using a pseudonym can give others the wrong impression, leading to needless assumptions that may blow up into conflict. Again, there will always be exceptions, as the article states, but that’s just what I’ve observed.

4. Sit on it.
This is something I’ve had to learn by experience and still struggle with. You see something that makes your blood boil, you’re filled with the desire to absolutely eviscerate a person, and you furiously type out a scathing response and press send. And later you regret it.

Instead, go ahead and write out your comment to get it off your chest, but sit on it for several hours or even a day. I know it feels like you simply have to get it off your chest at that very moment, but your adrenaline and heart rate are up and you’re not thinking clearly. Give it some time and you’ll be amazed at how “I must respond!” will transform into “Eh, who cares?”

5. Or don’t respond at all.
Your mom was right: If you don’t have something nice to say, sometimes it’s best not to say anything at all. This is another thing I’ve learned from experience and still slip up with. I used to want to rebut every bit of criticism directed at me, but I’ve learned to choose my battles and that it’s often better not to get involved at all. Just let people do their thing. I know it’s difficult because when we feel someone is wrong, it’s so hard to let it go. We want to show people the error of their ways and change their minds.

But as sure as you are about being right, you can never win an online argument. Why? Because of something called the “backfire effect.” In this article on the effect by David McRaney, which I highly recommend reading, he explains the fact that far from changing people’s minds, threatening someone’s beliefs actually strengthens and entrenches them further. This is why I generally abstain from heated internet debates; they get you all worked up, waste your time, and go absolutely nowhere.

If you come across a discussion where you really feel like a different perspective needs to be added, just jump in and civilly state your case instead of responding directly to specific people. People are much more likely to consider your point of view when they experience it indirectly as opposed to feeling attacked.

These are probably the two most difficult things to do, because they deal with what is also the most challenging aspect of our nature: ego. Pride leads to bad behavior because it clouds our judgment. All we end up caring about is saving face, looking good, and being right, and we’ll stop at nothing to ensure this. The cruel irony is that in trying to preserve our dignity, we only undermine – we come off as petty, aggressive, arrogant, and bitter. Even if you’re just fighting fire with fire, you’re still bringing yourself down to your opponent’s level, and that could be just as bad for your ego.

Again, not everyone will agree that it’s not worth it to get the last word or explode on someone else. For some people, that might feel great, and it might even score them some “victories.” But I’m not one of those people, and while I may feel smug about it at first, I also end up feeling like an ass who lost his cool and put personal satisfaction ahead of decency and self-control. This segues nicely into the next point:

6. Say something positive.
Studies have shown what people already know from experience: folks are more likely to make negative comments in online forums than positive ones. It makes sense; when something makes you angry, you’re much more motivated to complain about it and want to vent. McRaney explains why this is:

“A thousand positive remarks can slip by unnoticed, but one “you suck” can linger in your head for days. One hypothesis as to why this and the backfire effect happens is that you spend much more time considering information you disagree with than you do information you accept.Information which lines up with what you already believe passes through the mind like a vapor, but when you come across something which threatens your beliefs, something which conflicts with your preconceived notions of how the world works, you seize up and take notice. Some psychologists speculate there is an evolutionary explanation. Your ancestors paid more attention and spent more time thinking about negative stimuli than positive because bad things required a response. Those who failed to address negative stimuli failed to keep breathing.”

Well, I certainly want to keep breathing, but I don’t want to only respond to things that make me angry. So this is something I’ve been working on too. When I read a blog post I enjoy, I find it easy to think, “That was great,” before surfing away. So I’ve been trying to take a minute to type those thoughts out before moving on. As a blog owner myself, I know how incredibly encouraging it is to hear something positive.

Nothing will disarm your opponent’s more, and diffuse a belligerent situation, than words of kindness. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve whittled a debate down into harmless academic discussion by acknowledging my opponent’s decent points, or ensuring them that, in the end, I found their confrontation a valuable and educational experience.

Disagreements have the silver lining of testing our positions and giving us an alternative perspective we need to consider, so why not put that out there? Not only will it calm you down and make you realize that it’s not something to get made about, but it may give your combatant pause as well. The best part is that, by my experience, most people don’t want to fight.

Except for the most malicious of trolls, the majority of folks just have strongly worded opinions that they want to share as much as you do; or maybe there was just a misunderstanding all along, and all the two sides needed was a reminder that maybe we’re getting angry for nothing. Again, this isn’t always the case, and not every fight can be mitigated this way. But as always, the point is to at least make the attempt, try to set the example, and err on the side of caution.

So the article ends by asking, how else can we cultivate civility online? That’s a great question, since civility encompasses many things and must constantly evolve with time and experience. I’ve got one major answer:

7. Learn the other person’s story.
Another way to put this would be to simply get to know the individual. Not just the one you’re butting heads with, but anybody and everybody you can make the time for.

Ultimately, most fights are worsened – and often emerge in the first place – because of the “otherness” of the individuals involved. We don’t know them, so we don’t see them as one of us (again, the web’s impersonal nature doesn’t help). Once we hear their story – who they really are, what they believe and why, what they do for a living, etc – it’s arguably much more difficult to verbally fillet them. You can’t demonize someone (as easily) once you’ve already humanized them.

Even close friends fight too, of course, but it’s much less hostile and visceral than when it’s between strangers who know nothing of each other. Most of us make no effort to understand the human on the other side of the screename or profile picture. But why not? Even if we don’t like them, or come to find out that they’re just as unlikeable, if not more so, once we learned about them, at least we’ve learned a valuable lesson: that’s you can’t reason with some people, so you’re better off not sacrificing your civility trying too.

This leads to an unanticipated second answer: to be civil, you must be humble. Admit to yourself and others that you could be wrong on certain issues or that even if you’re right, you could be wrong about your approach. Accept that you’ll always have flaws that you’ll constantly have to work on, and make an effort to do so. Civility is not a destination – it’s a constant process, something akin to a muscle: you must flex it to keep it from atrophying, but also to make it stronger and better. When we recognize that fact, both on and offline, we’ll be better people.

Thoughts of the Day – 10/2/2012

…there is no total cure for bias, as we’re innately predisposed to prejudice of some kind or another. The only thing that can assist us the critical scrutiny of others. The more we debate, discuss, and learn about one another’s perspectives, the closer we can reach the truth. Science has been successful mostly because of the concept of peer review: a community of individuals reading, challenging, and re-testing each other’s claims for verification. That is why discussion and public debate are so vital, and why we must instill a scientific mindset into our youth.

…whenever I’m reading news articles, particularly those pertaining to other parts of the world, it is easy to forget that they are real. Politics, history, and current events often feel unreal, almost fictional. We’re so psychologically and physically removed from them that we don’t often connect with them on an emotional level, even when we try. I must sometimes reminds myself that these stories are as real my own life – the vast sociopolitical changes, the deaths, the wars, and the drama that unfolds simultaneously around the world. What is mere statistics or datum to me, is something very real to those fellow humans that live through them. The human mind simply wasn’t evolved to fully take in the details of a world full of information.

…this other thought isn’t mine, but I’ve been reflecting on it a lot lately. It comes from blogger Dan Fincke, who has an excellent column over at Freethought Blogs.

Most of our ethical life is about our own flourishing. I think that most of our own flourishing is achieved through actually aiding the flourishing of others since I think that we are at our most powerful when we are empowering other people who then replicate our power and spread it further. In this way, I think that if we tried to truly excel at being powerful, we would be people who empowered others rather than destroyed them for the sake of trinkets like material possessions. In this way, I think it is wise advice to just let people pursue their happiness, to encourage them to maximize their excellences since this is good for them, and to only worry about morality in those cases where it is a matter of turning down short term gains in ways that damage our mutual trust and cooperation with each other, which serve as the preconditions of our prosperity as individuals.

…In both absolute and per capita terms, the US imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world. At the same time, however, we have one of the lowest rates of psychiatric institutionalization in the developed world. Perhaps there is a connection here: the people that should otherwise be receiving psychological help are instead being locked away, and such treatment only worsens their behavior (hence why we also have a high rate of re-offenders). Imagine how many crimes could be prevented if we had a better mental health infrastructure. Just a thought.