moral blind spots

[Anthoney]

On the Crossing a show new show about refugees from the future, a comment went something like this, "They say this meat actually comes from living animals". They had things like beef and pork but it was all grown in tanks.

 

[awesomesauce]

Regarding how much money is spent, why target pets?

I was reading an argument that having children is the worst thing that one can do for the world, in terms of consumption. But very few people are willing to question the basic right of people to have as many children as they please, or suggest that having more children than you need is causing harm to other people. (Even if it's true.) I think in the long term future, unchecked human reproduction, and the devastation caused by our proliferation and unchecked consumption, is going to be the unexamined barbarism of our time abhorrent to future generations. Not least because the reasons for encouraging reproduction, for making it a moral act, are intrinsically about political and economic power. My faction needs greater numbers, my product needs more consumers, my government needs more taxpayers. And so we prop up our system by perpetuating our population to insanely unbalanced and unsustainable levels.

 

[awesomesauce]

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

Slavery. It wasn't entirely without criticism (what ever is?) but owning or being owned by other humans was certainly normal, and even occasionally considered moral, for the vast majority of human history. When people talk about slavery, it's dominated by the specific instance of slavery in the Americas (primarily the US) but European colonists weren't even the first to industrialize mass slaving to provide a work force. It's only since the 20th century it's been globally agreed that slavery is an atrocity, and it wasn't completely abolished by all governments until Mauritania finally outlawed it in 1981. There are still fringe pockets of human society that consider slave owning moral and would like to see it reinstated. Societal change, even on something that seems as obviously horrific and immoral to us now as slavery, is incredibly slow.

 

[Vladd67]

An interesting view was covered by Arthur C Clarke in 3001, there was no interest in crime fiction as criminals were thought of as mentally ill and by association only the mentally ill would be interested in reading about crime. Who knows in the future Society may regard unplanned and unsanctioned pairings of people as immoral for social and genetic reasons and therefore regard the romance novel as immoral as well.

 

[MWagner]

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.

You can already see an inkling of it today. In my neck of the woods, it's socially unacceptable to buy a dog or cat from a pet store, and buying from breeders is starting to be frowned on. The socially conscientious source of pets is shelters and rescue foundations. So for-profit breeding and selling of intelligent animals for personal gratification is already becoming morally tainted.

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.

This one is less likely, or at least further in the future. It has some of the same roots as the pet one, namely a belief that it's immoral to impose a resources cost by breeding new people when you can adopt the less advantaged instead. There's also the fact, not yet acknowledged but becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, that parents pass onto their children both a socio-economic and a genetic legacy, and that these unequal legacies are a major source of inter-generational inequality. A more fair system may be to effectively spread out that genetic advantage so it doesn't concentrate into an unbridgeable class system.

Of course, such an effort to enforce egalitarianism would run contrary to some of our deepest innate impulses around reproduction and child-rearing. Attempts at raising children in communal creches have all foundered on the rocks of these innate impulses. So I agree that it could only happen in a far more authoritarian society than we have today.

On the Crossing a show new show about refugees from the future, a comment went something like this, "They say this meat actually comes from living animals". They had things like beef and pork but it was all grown in tanks.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that my kids will live to see a time when eating meat grown on animals will be a rare indulgence of the extremely affluent, and regarded as repulsive by most people. My grandkids will regard pictures of me BBQing a pork shoulder on the rotisserie with the same kind of embarrassment with which we regard people in the 1930s doing blackface routines.

 

[Montero]

I was reading an argument that having children is the worst thing that one can do for the world, in terms of consumption. But very few people are willing to question the basic right of people to have as many children as they please, or suggest that having more children than you need is causing harm to other people. (Even if it's true.) I think in the long term future, unchecked human reproduction, and the devastation caused by our proliferation and unchecked consumption, is going to be the unexamined barbarism of our time abhorrent to future generations. Not least because the reasons for encouraging reproduction, for making it a moral act, are intrinsically about political and economic power. My faction needs greater numbers, my product needs more consumers, my government needs more taxpayers. And so we prop up our system by perpetuating our population to insanely unbalanced and unsustainable levels.

Good for you - and I am a Population Matters member btw (Overview - Population Matters) - so working to get the message over. Also had better say, that there is a policy on here to avoid getting into discussion on World Affairs as there have been some heated ones in the past couple of years. I don't think this is enough to cause trouble, but really wanted to cheer your response.

On the subject of governments - I remember seeing a documentary how the concept of a census was invented because a government wanted to find out how big an army they could field for sure, rather than relying on guesswork. The answer was a lot less than they were expecting. I also recall reading "somewhere" - can't currently find a link -that Roman matrons with three or more kids could wear a stripe to show their honourable status.

 

[Onyx]

I think (hope) that future societies reject morality itself.

In the past, a moral code was a simple algorithm that kept people out of trouble by stabilizing useful social mores: Too much shell fish related illness? Kosher rules. Children of single mothers starving? Enforcement of adultery laws. Constant warfare from coups? Class system and the divine right of kings.

And that was not such a bad idea when most people spent their time working constantly. Now we have time for education and virtually unimpeded access to facts and figures. Human beings should be in a transition from using a preset algorithm to make their life choices to exercising their judgement of the actual consequences of their actions. And that has happened to an extent as the Christian West has puzzled its way through a lot of sexual politics and concluded that gay people marrying and having children does not actually represent a threat to the social fabric (and it has been interesting to watch that change happen in polls over a very short period of time).


However, the majority of people still see information as a tool to confirm their "convictions", and rarely see the conflicts in the things they are passionate about. Right now there is a moral blind spot to armed citizenry. Educated people present this "debate" as a clash between reason and something else, yet no one is having reasoned discussions about the history of armed citizens in English common law, the number of people killed in the last 200 years by their own oppressive governments or the growing authoritarianism in world politics. Never before have governments had the kind of potential coercive power over their citizens as they do now, yet it is widely believed that powerful militaries and police should be combined with disarmed populaces. It would almost seem like an emotional or "moral" revulsion to individual incidents of violence has completely eclipsed the fear of genocide and despotism.


That's just an example - but we need to start realizing that morality generally is myopic and that the death of a puppy in our home town is of greater moral offense than the death of an entire village in Sri Lanka. That speaks to how emotions and morals connect, and how a smarter future humanity would abhor the unconscious exercise of moral will rather than approaches that are more scientific or mathematical. I don't think it would be such a terrible thing for people to avoid committing crime because of the consequences rather than due to a moral code that is clearly applied so inequitably.



(Hi to all, and pardon the heavy first post content.)

 

[Judderman]

With apparently rising cost of healthcare maybe eventually doing unhealthy acts will be seen as immoral and encouraged by governments to be treated as immoral. For example drinking more than a glass of alcohol, smoking even e-cigarettes, eating cake or drinking soda as it may increase your need for healthcare and thus demand on the system.
Of course it could go the other way and diet pills or surgery are so effective that many people don't care what they eat as long as it tastes good.

 

[Cathbad]

Some local governments are already regulating what you are able to get to eat.

 

[Judderman]

Although Zoos are popular with many there could be a rise against them regarding captivity.

 

[Judderman]

Some local governments are already regulating what you are able to get to eat.

You mean with import duties?

 

[Montero]

@Onyx - hi there, good to see a new member on Chrons. Interesting points on morality, speaking as someone who likes to think for myself that is an interesting point on how the position on gay people has changed. The whole idea of debate and change though has been around an awful lot longer than people think - the Putney church debates which were part of the aftermath of the English Civil War being a classic example. You look at what they were calling for Putney Debates - Wikipedia and it is remarkably "modern" and some still not achieved.
Your point regarding some people not seeing the conflict between their own opinions - that is where learning the logic of debate and analysis is useful. As someone trained as a scientist I tend to bring that kind of logic into online debates and yes, not everyone is familiar with it. Maybe in the future it would be considered "immoral" if the school system doesn't teach you how to think logically and independently.

 

[Danny McG]

Going back to the start of this thread

what modern practices that we accept as normal, even good, might future centuries look back on with horror?

One that occurs to me is the slapping of kids.
I don't mean heavy spanking/belting "wait until your father gets in" type of corporal punishment (way over the top IMO) - I mean a harassed parent who reaches out and slaps a kid's wrist for grabbing at things in a shop or kicking granny in the shins.

There are already cases where someone has done this and been reported, usually by the person who, two minutes earlier, was muttering "That child needs a good hiding"

 

[Cathbad]

You mean with import duties?

No. At least one state (New York) has passed a law declaring what kind of oil can be used in restaurant fryers. Other municipalities have limited the size of the cups of soda that can be sold. All in the name of "health".

 

[awesomesauce]

Also had better say, that there is a policy on here to avoid getting into discussion on World Affairs as there have been some heated ones in the past couple of years. I don't think this is enough to cause trouble, but really wanted to cheer your response.

I hope I didn't get too political! It's probably not possible to speculate on the moral values of future humans, and how they might judge us, without considering current moral culture and values, and the outcomes of the morality we choose to formalize and enact. (And that which we don't.) But I didn't mean to get on a political soapbox and I deeply apologize if anyone felt I did.

I only mentioned government as an example of a powerful institution with a historic and continuing interest in population increase, and which, in most of its current implementations, presents a barrier to that moral future. I discounted both military and industrial examples because I think in the not-so-distant future, human bodies, either as cannon fodder or mechanical labour, are going to be more costly than the replacement technologies. Though that's based on the presumption our current moral trends continue, and humans continue to become more expensive while technology becomes cheaper.

Recently I read a book (which even pertains to this discussion!) called The Rise of Victimhood Culture, by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning. It focuses on the evolution of what they call "victimhood culture", which takes some elements from both dignity and honor cultures, but awards moral status differently and places emphasis on different moral values. Among other things, it highlighted for me how much of what we call "politics" (the kind people are unpleasant to each other on the internet over, not statecraft) is actually moral conflict. Culture wars are fought over moral dominance.

that has happened to an extent as the Christian West has puzzled its way through a lot of sexual politics and concluded that gay people marrying and having children does not actually represent a threat to the social fabric (and it has been interesting to watch that change happen in polls over a very short period of time).

A couple months back, I also reread Howard Becker's Outsiders, his book on deviance, and one of the things that struck me is how subcultures he chose as iconic examples of deviance in mid-century America (male homosexuals and marijuana users) aren't considered especially deviant in western culture anymore. Mostly. Where I live, I think we still regard recreational drug use as somewhat deviant and harmful, but it's changed a lot in American culture since Becker's study on the subject. But then, in tandem, there exist current cultures where homosexuality and drug offenses are considered so morally reprehensible and socially damaging they merit execution. So I would say "We look back on the treatment of gay people as barbaric and inhumane" but that "we" is limited to members of a specific culture, examining their own culture. It's not universal.

I can't think of any moral principle every human culture agrees on, either positively or in condemnation, and I don't know how it would happen in the future unless we ended up with the 20th century sci-fi utopia where humanity unites under a single WorldGov which defines and legislates the collective morality. Who knows how far in the future you would have to go, and how much we would have to change, for that to happen. I don't know if we would even recognize those people as humans.

On the subject of governments - I remember seeing a documentary how the concept of a census was invented because a government wanted to find out how big an army they could field for sure, rather than relying on guesswork. The answer was a lot less than they were expecting. I also recall reading "somewhere" - can't currently find a link -that Roman matrons with three or more kids could wear a stripe to show their honourable status.

Nazi Germany did the same thing, rewarding women who bore a certain number of children; they loved to appropriate them some classical culture too. And I believe France still awards parents of large families with a medallion. There are probably more. And even in places where the dominant culture doesn't place high value on family size, there exist subcultures like the Quiverfulls who hold having as many children as possible as a moral duty.

Which makes me reflect on how my previous answer was based on an idea of what I would consider advance in human culture and society and moral thinking, and the assumption that we (as a society) would progress in that vein. I suppose it could just as easily go another way, where values that we take for granted as "good" and morally progressive, even things like equality or democracy which, though imperfectly realized, we ("we" being defined as my social and cultural milieu) don't question as having value. But then, I recall there have been some studies indicating decreased support for democracy in the west, especially among younger people. And some people may consider that an advance; it's unlikely society goes collectively in a direction that has zero appeal to anyone.

Future humans could just as easily look back on the things we think we have right and be appalled by how wrong we were, according to their current values. Take the idea of democracy. In a culture that places high value on education and expertise, duty to society rather than the self, and patience, future humans might think what were past humans thinking, look at the messes they made by letting the mob vote in any smooth talking johnny-come-lately, look at the nepotism and corruption where temporary rulers had no long term stake and used their position to benefit themselves and their friends, look how they were unable to accomplish anything because of constant changes in leadership and direction.

Or maybe they'll look back on the things we think we're doing wrong, and think they had it right. Take the prison example from the OP. In a future society where the justice system focuses on humane rehabilitation to the exclusion of retribution, maybe victims are denied the emotional satisfaction of seeing their tormentors punished. Maybe people in that society would come to see that as prioritizing humane treatment of the victimizer over catharsis for the victim, and as a moral failing.

And now I've thought myself in circles on the subject of moral future, and I need a good stiff vodka. Unfortunately lunchtime drinking is morally sktechy in my culture. (It may not stop me.) I'm so, so sorry for the length of this post. It got away from me.

 

[awesomesauce]

Going back to the start of this thread


One that occurs to me is the slapping of kids.
I don't mean heavy spanking/belting "wait until your father gets in" type of corporal punishment (way over the top IMO) - I mean a harassed parent who reaches out and slaps a kid's wrist for grabbing at things in a shop or kicking granny in the shins.

There are already cases where someone has done this and been reported, usually by the person who, two minutes earlier, was muttering "That child needs a good hiding"

It's illegal to hit children here, full stop, since 1979. (Here being Sweden.)

 

[RJM Corbet]

I'm in here late, but in a world where leaders use heavier-than-air chlorine gas to force people up out from the basement into the open where they can be more easily slaughtered etc, I find it ridiculous that modern universities have sheltered spaces where students don't have to hear anything that upsets them, and where speakers that don't go along with popular opinion, including faith issues, are 'no platformed' and not allowed to speak, etc.

Mao tse Tung was responsible for the deaths of 70 million people. It's a dreadful world.

Perhaps we just don't realise how lucky and privileged we are even to be able to debate such issues? I often feel we we could be grateful for what we have, instead of seeking out every trifling cause to cry 'injustice' so often?

Perhaps @awesomesauce 'victimhood culture' sums it up, lol?

 

[Montero]

@awesomesauce - I thought that you were still on the OK side (just my opinion but no moderator has been by, so..... ) but thought I'd mention it early enough that you'd know that there is a line, in case you got closer. (Hope that makes sense, not gibberish - had a long day.)

 

[RJM Corbet]

For all we know our privelidged and coddled western future may be a nuclear winter. Sorry ...

 

[Cathbad]

I find it ridiculous that modern universities have sheltered spaces where students don't have to hear anything that upsets them

Just a thought, but shouldn't people also have the right not to listen to what they don't want to?