moral blind spots

[Montero]

Further thought - it occurs to me that the OP said this:

Picking up a theme started by Brian Turner, what modern practices that we accept as normal, even good, might future centuries look back on with horror? Brian's thread dealt heavily with AI, so maybe minimize that here

Any other ideas?

So far, we've all largely managed to discuss stuff which is already under criticism - distribution of resources, misuse of resources etc. But something that is currently considered normal becoming immoral is a big step of imagination. I am trying to think of something historical that wasn't criticised in its day, that has now changed as a first step in working out how to imagine a future immorality - but criticism is what causes the change. The human race rarely does a universal consensus on anything Using computers as tools is something not criticised (I think) in terms of the effect on the computer, but is in terms of the effect on human interactions and in human health - but that's been done. Other than that.....

At this point I am wondering about a writing exercise where you pick three words out of a hat and try to imagine how they could become immoral in the future - either individually or as a collective. Sitting at my computer, looking around for inspiration, I give you
Aspidistra, ceiling, laundry rack.

Go for it.

 

[Nick B]

My post is simplified for the sake of space but the facts and figures are hard and easily verified by UN, WHO and other sources. That isn't world affairs, it is moral blind spot because what it takes to fix is simple, but uncomfortable. Basically, because people don't want to not eat bacon and beef.

 

[Judderman]

As was predicted in that intelligent movie Demolition Man it could be some societies become morally against real, sexual contact. That it is dirty. Whereas at the same time other societies could be breaking more and more sexual related taboos. Two sides getting more and more extreme.

Regarding AI it may be one day deemed immoral to give AI personality.

 

[Montero]

@Judderman - on sex yes, but that is kind of there already and has been for a long time.

On AI and no personality - yes and no on that being new. It could be an extension of it not having a soul. It could be extrapolated from currently not giving much consideration to the feelings of human workers....

I've been trying to think of something else that is a total change about and not just things which are currently regarded variably (eating meat, having sex). Not having much luck other than the paintings thing earlier and that might be considered an extension of communism. Did think of Hellspark by Janet Kagan, where there is quite a bit about culture clash on different standards of morality - in a light way as a group of scientists from different planets try to settle down to work together. In that, one culture has a taboo on bare feet and one of the other scientists loves going around in bare feet and painting her toenails green. When she is persuaded to wear boots, things settled down. So I was thinking about bare feet - but there are already all sorts of opinions and cultural bias on that already - so not a complete change.

That leads me to high heeled shoes - because of the damage they do. But some people already consider high heels immoral from a sexual temptation viewpoint. I have seen sf with future worlds where if you deliberately do something that can lead to future health problems (smoke, eat too much) then you don't have medical care. But that is already popping its head up currently.

It is really hard to think of something, that hasn't been disapproved of already, somewhere.

Ho hum, I'll go and work on the immorality of an aspidistra.That's my challenge for the day - how could an aspidistra be immoral.

 

[Cathbad]

I would think there'd be a lot less focus on morals in the future.

 

[Parson]

I would think there'd be a lot less focus on morals in the future.

Hm, I wonder. I suspect that morality will change or perhaps change names, but I think judging people and things as to their intrinsic value is hard wired into humanity. --- (i.e. not so many generations ago having multiple spouses - usually wives - was widely thought as being perfectly moral. Today that view is seen as antiquarian at best.)

 

[Cathbad]

Hm, I wonder. I suspect that morality will change or perhaps change names, but I think judging people and things as to their intrinsic value is hard wired into humanity. --- (i.e. not so many generations ago having multiple spouses - usually wives - was widely thought as being perfectly moral. Today that view is seen as antiquarian at best.)

I agree - people will always judge others.

But will their judgement continue to be moral-based? Or possibly performance-based?

 

[Montero]

Ooh, yes please. I think there is already some judgement on performance based, and certainly in UK rural areas, judgement on neighbourliness - as in actually talking to your neighbours, not being regularly annoying and being prepared to lend a hand or look out for them (like spotting strangers wandering around).
But being primarily judged on how well you do your job, rather than how good you look in a suit, or the speed with which you deliver an answer (right or wrong - often wrong because done too quickly) - bring it on.

 

[CTRandall]

Last week's issue of New Scientist reported on research that suggested 8-month-old babies not only recognize the difference between people who pay attention to crying babies (other babies, not themselves) and people who ignore cryimg babies. The toddlers seem surprised by the behaviour of those who ignore the babies, suggesting that the foundations of moral judgments are hardwired into human brains, at least in regard to some basic behaviours.

In other words, morality ain't goin' nowhere.

 

[Montero]

Mmm. Is their surprise a moral judgement or just surprise at something that doesn't happen very often?

Not saying that there are not basic behaviours wired in, just saying that the idea that ignoring a baby is immoral is not proven by the experiment. Thinking further, I am not convinced that ignoring a baby is immoral - I remember my mother saying she could tell by the tone of her babies' crying what they were on about and some she could safely ignore for a bit. That there was a difference between "hungry" "distress" "temper tantrum" "just exercising lungs because it is part of the development".

There is however proof of a sense of fairness - see

Any species where there is social interaction has to have some ground rules built in. Another one on fairness, from a slightly different perspective is cougars sharing food. Saw it on a documentary a couple of months back, have just found this link that gives information on the study.

Once Thought Loners, Cougars Revealed to Have Rich Society

 

[Arden]

I remember having an online argument with some guy who thought eugenics of the disabled was a good idea, and I said I'd be more comfortable in a society that helps and cares for the disabled, versus a society that kills them. I think morality is definitely a part of social interaction between species, and the more complex the social structure, the more it's reliant on trust and morality for it to succeed to some extent, like that three musketeers quote.

 

[Graymalkin]

I'm sure I read somewhere that some ancient Celtic tribes would weigh the men/warriors and if they were considered to be overweight would be fined proportionately (or actually have the corresponding weight in flesh excised) can't remember.

Perhaps we'll see a trend towards something similar in terms of 'excess' wealth (wealth = fat) and as populations expand, resources become rarer so the lower the threshold.

Something more conscious than simple tax penalties but not as post apoco-lala as the desperate scrabblings of Mad Max.
Perhaps this could lead to a Onka's big Moka scenario where people have to give stuff away rather than be fined/be seen as immoral so maintaining a functioning balance between collective wealth and personal rewards.
Financial traders trying to out give each other?
I may not have thought this through too deeply?

 

[Montero]

Hhm. It is theoretically what was tried with communism, so not convinced. Unless it is inherited, wealth doesn't come with no effort, so if it is all to be taken away, why make the effort?

 

[Cathbad]

Hhm. It is theoretically what was tried with communism, so not convinced. Unless it is inherited, wealth doesn't come with no effort, so if it is all to be taken away, why make the effort?

When was Communism ever tried?

Like... never.

 

[Montero]

Hence the word "theoretically".

In theory it was supposed to be equality, but every time it's been used, it wasn't.

 

[Cathbad]

Hence the word "theoretically".

In theory it was supposed to be equality, but every time it's been used, it wasn't.

Actually, I don't believe anyone has actually tried - nor really wanted - Communism. It continues to be a ruse to disguise totalitarian regimes.

 

[Parson]

I would agree @Cathbad ... but I would say rather than "Communism" --- complete socialism.

 

[TimBaril]

I think that the only way humanity surives is if it can overcome the selfish side of itself. Cooperation is the only long-term path to survival for large, complex organisms like ourselves. When we add the fantastic technological abilities we've gained, the need to cooperate becomes ever more vital.

I should hope that, one day, a more cooperative world looks back on the selfishness of unchecked capitalism and realizes what folly it was and how much harm it causes. And that any serious act of selfishness is immoral.

 

[MWagner]

It's worth pointing out that the world has been getting better in virtually every measurable way for a couple centuries now, and dramatically better in the last few decades. If you had to swap places with the average person at any time in history, you'd be a fool to choose any time except today. Within living memory, half of the people on the planet lived under threat of famine. Today, that number is less than 5 per cent. What may be the greatest accomplishment of humanity - the virtual elimination of starvation - has gone largely unrecognized because it doesn't seem to be in human nature to recognize our progress, but instead to focus all of our energies on the gap between our current state and the next rung in the ladder of progress. The problem with that bias is if we don't even recognize that we're making progress, we may neglect to maintain the institutions, values, and tools that were responsible for that progress in the first place.

As for the original exercise, it's a cop-out to offer up behaviours and beliefs that a great many already regard as immoral today. It's more interesting to imagine moral beliefs that we - the enlightened posters in this thread - feel are perfectly okay today and which our grandchildren or great-grandchildren may not. So I'll throw a couple out there:

• Keeping animals as pets.

• Raising your own children.

I can see how existing trends, extended dramatically further, could bring us to a stage where those behaviours are regarded as immoral. But the biggest problem I have with making guesses about human norms 50+ years in the future is I think by that time we'll be seeing the effects of genetic manipulation and transhumanism, and once we have the capability to revise our very instincts, all bets will be off.

 

[Parson]

I think "keeping animals as pets" has a very real possibility of coming to be if animals are seen being closer to human and/or if we move into an era of more scarcity.

As far as "Raising your own children" probably comes into play if we move to more and more authoritarian form of government where personal beliefs are not respected when in opposition to the group norms.

But I think you've hit on a couple of possibilities which are widely accepted now, but have a chance of being immoral in another time.