moral blind spots

[Montero]

That's an even more interesting topic - imagine humans specifically adapted for zero-gravity for long flights? Does this mean humans adapted for different environments would be either desirable or acceptable? If so, doesn't that mean homo sapiens as a species could diverge into many species? If so, how would they regard us? Originals to be respected, or degenerates?

Lois McMaster Bujold covers this in various ways. Jackson's Whole is the extreme end, with exploitation. There are also the Quaddies - who have four arms - two where the legs were. They were created for work in null g and have formed their own society. The Cetagandans are busy running a massive social and genetic experiment on themselves - which is in its way subtle - so no grotesques, but they are working for optimum human beings in several ways. Some of the non-Cetagandan characters comment on this and wonder what Cetagandans will be at the end of it.

In terms of sex - later bits in the the thread - LMB also covers social aspects of this at times, commenting that a lot of the restrictions were designed to either control birth rate, or ensure parentage in a world before contraception and DNA testing. If you can't control the ovaries, you have to control the whole woman.

I would also say that in terms of the impact on the individual, training people to be part of the society they are born into - as in socially acceptable behaviour - involves stick as well as carrot. You make someone feel rotten about doing something and they either stop doing it, or do it secretly. This causes all sorts of inhibitions and knock-ons later.

John Barnes has an interesting series which starts with A Million Open Doors. In the backstory, earth went through a period of colonising planets, including marginal ones that needed terraforming, and there was a massive diaspora of various groups, with some groups getting a planet of their own to form a totally new society, others having to share. It was a mix of ethnic groups - such as Fijians, Tamil - and cultural groups. A number of groups were created from scratch - as in artificially created societies, some derived from a time in the human past or from a philosophy. There was then a massive selection process. Not all groups got to have a planet, and then the loosers had to reintegrate with mainstream society - the idea being that a homogenous earth would be a peaceful earth. The story kicks off on a planet based on a recreated ideal of a troubadour society, with duels, beautiful maidens and the like.

 

[Joshua Jones]

I can easily see that for environments where there are no other life forms dependent on the environment for survival. Strip mining asteroids, say.

I guess I hope for a utopian sort of future humanity where, if planets really are that plentiful, we're careful and respectful of the ones that have life, even non-animal or "non-sentient" life. Because you never really know, do you? But there are still plenty of humans who think animals on our own planet are basically just automatons made of meat. If it turns out life is plentiful, especially "less advanced" life, maybe it becomes a disposable resource, and we do the exoplanetary equivalent of the North American buffalo hunts, decimating entire species just because we like their skins. We could be the species that drives around the galaxy chucking its empties and fast food wrappers out the window, because why not, who cares with all this space?

Haha. Now I think the worst possible future for humanity might be if we never meet anyone bigger and badder than ourselves, and we continue to think of ourselves as the little lords of all creation.

For me, I don't like predicting based on what I hope humanity will do, but what history has shown we will likely do and what trends exist in the present. And, we tend not to be the most noble of creatures, and when we try to be, we often have massive blind spots. If we are the only intelligent species in the universe, but earth is not the only place with life, we will have to decide how to address native ecosystems. I will use a local context as an example; where I live, the only predator of deer is humanity. It has been that way for hundreds of years at minimum. So, if the killing of an animal were banned in any context, the deer would overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. So, those who think the killing of an animal is immoral and the preservation of an ecosystem is moral are stuck at an impasse, as one cannot preserve the ecosystem without killing animals on an annual basis.

Now, apply that to a planetary context. There may be times where the culling of a species is essential for the maintaining of the planet's environment, but is that immoral in and of itself? What if the species is fleetingly self aware? As in, not aware enough to realize the effects of overbreeding, but aware enough to realize someone is hunting it, forcibly sterilizing it, or what have you? We would be seen as oppressors, to be certain. But, again, non-violence vs. ecological preservation, and only one can win. This is because the world is an intrinsically harsh place, and we are part of the food chain whether we like it or not. Our absence can have dreadful consequences, just like the absence of any other apex predator or omnivore.

And, that is when we are at least attempting to act in a noble manner. Far more often, we act on selfish interests...

 

[Joshua Jones]

I'll chime in on the sexuality issue...

I see a world where sexuality is expected as a right, or where people are expected to be empathetic to the needs of others in this regard and freely engage in prolific sex, as DEEPLY dystopian. On the former, sex simply is not a biological or psychological need unless it is assumed by the individual that they are entitled to it and the lack of easy access to this desire is intrinsically problematic. In contrast, having a non-hedonistic society has the advantage of requiring individuals to mature as people before they have a realistic opportunity to woo a sexual partner. This places societal pressure on the one desiring of sex to mature in ways which their sought after sexual partner will find attractive, thus leading to a healthier society as a whole. Sexual violence happens when someone is considered a means to an end, and that end is owed to another. In other words, when a person is seen primarily as a sexual end rather than a complex individual who deserves to be treated as such, and it is assumed that sex is both a need and a need which should be fulfilled with whomever one chooses, sexual violence is at the doorstep. The problem is not lack of empathy from the perspective of the one denying sex, but lack of empathy from the one expecting it.

On the latter, if sexuality is more freely engaged in, this only makes sexual rejection that much more painful. There will always be situations where Person A wishes to have sex with Person B, but the feeling is not reciprocated. If society is more promiscuous, those who are rejected will feel far worse, as they can look around and see that Person B has had sex with Persons C through Q and therefore, Person A must be inferior to them. Of course, that happens in a less promiscuous society as well, but it can be accounted to taste much easier if the person has only had sex with Persons C and D, rather than half the population of Alphabet Land.

This, btw. is where I think we fail as a society in identifying people primarily by their sexuality. A human being is a complex entity, and sexuality is one trait of this complex individual. If we identify people primarily by this trait, we will always see sexual rejection as personal rejection. If, however, we can shift so that we see sexual relations as one plausible form of relation among a set of normative relationships, and the rejection of this sort not being a rejection of the entire individual, I think we will become a far healthier and less violent society, at least regarding sexual violence.

Of course, I am not optimistic we will go that way, so I won't predict that we will, but it would be great if we did!

 

[Montero]

Following on in part from JJ's post on sexuality, I'd like to flag up the raising of unrealistic expectations as something that could be considered immoral. Not just in terms of sexuality, but in terms of lifestyle. Here in the west, we live in a society where there are vast swathes of fiction, TV series and films on relationships - and for dramatic purposes they are often a bit overstated and angst ridden.
The OH and I watch some Hollywood style sex scenes while making the commentary of "if we tried that, we'd be in A&E" - sometimes just the whole tumbling into bed thing where they passionately grapple and locked together manage to cross the room and land on the bed without missing it, and also without banging their heads on the bed head, smacking noses, biting their lip, or their partner's or finding you just squashed a sleeping cat. As a writer of fiction, I do understand the need to construct a story and the limitations (I tend to write on the less dramatic side) - but maybe in general it needs to be more highlighted to people that it's just entertainment.
Then there is advertising - persuading people to buy things they don't necessarily need, with all the pretty pictures of the glorious house you could have if only you would buy their kitchen/sofa/carpet/paint etc, etc. Yes, people do like stuff, and some people like/desire lots of gorgeous stuff while others don't care - but showing people lots of stuff they can't ever afford and doing a hey, wow if you just take out a loan.....

I can't remember now if I mentioned Emotional Intelligence earlier in the thread, but that is something that is badly neglected at present - it is taught in a few schools (California the last I heard) - but it is learning to understand your emotions and other people's and to apply a degree of control. A lot comes down to impulse control - various experiments were done, with follow on and it was found with a group of school kids that their later success in life was predicted better by the EQ (the emotional intelligence version of IQ) than by their IQ. So a morality to hope for - that the future will see us as barbaric for taking so long to educate people in this.

 

[RJM Corbet]

... The flip side to that is that there is little difference between a murderer that enjoys the act and a Christian that murders gays because he feels an obligation to his faith to do so. Their victims can't measure that difference
...

Well then I apologise for assuming that the above choice of words -- especially in an ethics debate -- seems clearly to slant towards creating the impression that many murders of gays are committed by Christians.

... I would suggest you stop reading the topics of a speculative writing forum through the eye of an aggrieved defender of the Faith. No one here is attacking your belief system.

I am open to most spiritual ideas, I am most certainly not a religious fundamentalist 'defender of the Faith.' But these aren't faith forums anyway. I assure readers of this thread that I am adamantly decided not to endanger this engaging thread by responding to further personal attacks/jibes -- whatever.

 

[Brian G Turner]

If you two don't stop it, I'm going to get my spanking paddle out. After I've ordered it from Amazon.

In the meantime, this thread was allowed to run so long as we discussed future attitudes to contemporary attitudes, specifically with regards to speculation of existing moral blind spots. However, it keeps spilling over into subjects outside of that remit.

In which case, we either allow it to continue in its original direction, or I close it and we move on.

 

[Joshua Jones]

If you two don't stop it, I'm going to get my spanking paddle out. After I've ordered it from Amazon.

In the meantime, this thread was allowed to run so long as we discussed future attitudes to contemporary attitudes, specifically with regards to speculation of existing moral blind spots. However, it keeps spilling over into subjects outside of that remit.

In which case, we either allow it to continue in its original direction, or I close it and we move on.

And, if I have contributed to this, I apologize profusely. My goal in my comments was to help with some of the ethical frameworks which future societies may employ, and give alternate sets of considerations which I sometimes find absent in more optimistic works. If this contributed to this thread getting offtrack, I sincerely apologize, as this was not my intention.

So, I have often wondered, should Western civilization become a lost society, will future archaeologists believe we worship clocks (seeing as we have massive towers dedicated to them) and consider phones talismans? I mean, without electricity and a functional internet, it would be hard to discern their use...

 

[Onyx]

In contrast, having a non-hedonistic society has the advantage of requiring individuals to mature as people before they have a realistic opportunity to woo a sexual partner. This places societal pressure on the one desiring of sex to mature in ways which their sought after sexual partner will find attractive, thus leading to a healthier society as a whole.

The problem with this is that it is most likely to happen by enforcing traditional gender roles, where one sex acts as the pursuer and the other the gatekeeper. Maybe that isn't what you intend, but it is the most likely way for that scenario to continue from the present day.

I don't think this sort of sexual dimorphism is something human beings, interested in lasting equality, can engage in permanently. And I think it is part of why some gender issues seem so intractable, because sexuality is seen as a type of transactional supply/demand problem among heterosexuals. Some sort of change to that dynamic is necessary. A return to even more Puritan courting rules isn't it.

 

[Joshua Jones]

The problem with this is that it is most likely to happen by enforcing traditional gender roles, where one sex acts as the pursuer and the other the gatekeeper. Maybe that isn't what you intend, but it is the most likely way for that scenario to continue from the present day.

I don't think this sort of sexual dimorphism is something human beings, interested in lasting equality, can engage in permanently. And I think it is part of why some gender issues seem so intractable, because sexuality is seen as a type of transactional supply/demand problem among heterosexuals. Some sort of change to that dynamic is necessary. A return to even more Puritan courting rules isn't it.

Setting aside the question of preferability (we have been warned twice about going off course, and I am not particularly eager to discover if we will get a third warning), I will limit my comments to the fact that there myriad ways this idea could be implemented apart from a "puritanical" approach. There is nothing intrinsically gender normative, or even heterosexual, to the idea that one ought to mature as an individual in order to persuade a prospective sexual partner, who is likely doing the same. Nor does the statement that this is likely better for society, or that people should be defined as more than their sexual interests.

But, I anticipate Western civilization to become more hedonistic, not less. If automation and guaranteed living income replace an employment model, society is nearly certain to shift this way. Now, I am not going to mate a judgement call about if this is good or bad, but I will say that when this happened in Rome, it marked the beginning of its colapse.

That actually does lead to a prediction... People will depend on drones for combat more and more until they cannot imagine humans fighting each other, until another force exploits the weaknesses of drones that humans don't share, and conquers those who use them.

 

[Onyx]

There is nothing intrinsically gender normative, or even heterosexual, to the idea that one ought to mature as an individual in order to persuade a prospective sexual partner, who is likely doing the same. Nor does the statement that this is likely better for society, or that people should be defined as more than their sexual interests.

The problem is that there are only two people involved in a standard sexual arrangement, so the roles of applicant and judge can only fall to those people. Add the problem of maturity vs sexual maturation and you have what we've got right now - boys chasing girls. The only way to really change that is to alter the timing or degree of sexual maturity with medical interference, or impose moral roadblocks that are drastic enough to stymie adolescent drives through fairly severe social penalties so adolescents are "forced" to wait until the community judges them ready. What are the other ways?

And my value judgement that one thing is "better" than another is just from a egalitarian vs. dystopian POV. I think more people being able to make choices at a personal rather societal level is a move toward liberty, while increasing the barriers to free interaction has to be imposed on individuals.

But, I anticipate Western civilization to become more hedonistic, not less.

"Hedonistic" is a value judgement, similar to "promiscuous". To use it, you first have to believe that there is something intrinsically damaging about pleasure seeking. This is a Puritanical view, and not necessarily the "natural order" as many primates live that way with "Rome collapsing".

I think Rome had more of a lead ingestion problem than anything else. But the Christian world has historically associated the collapse with the kind of pleasure seeking pagans engaged in at the behest of Satan. I don't know if any modern sociologists necessarily agree with that.

 

[Joshua Jones]

The problem is that there are only two people involved in a standard sexual arrangement, so the roles of applicant and judge can only fall to those people. Add the problem of maturity vs sexual maturation and you have what we've got right now - boys chasing girls. The only way to really change that is to alter the timing or degree of sexual maturity with medical interference, or impose moral roadblocks that are drastic enough to stymie adolescent drives through fairly severe social penalties so adolescents are "forced" to wait until the community judges them ready. What are the other ways?

And my value judgement that one thing is "better" than another is just from a egalitarian vs. dystopian POV. I think more people being able to make choices at a personal rather societal level is a move toward liberty, while increasing the barriers to free interaction has to be imposed on individuals.


"Hedonistic" is a value judgement, similar to "promiscuous". To use it, you first have to believe that there is something intrinsically damaging about pleasure seeking. This is a Puritanical view, and not necessarily the "natural order" as many primates live that way with "Rome collapsing".

I think Rome had more of a lead ingestion problem than anything else. But the Christian world has historically associated the collapse with the kind of pleasure seeking pagans engaged in at the behest of Satan. I don't know if any modern sociologists necessarily agree with that.

Physical maturation is not in view here, but relational, emotional, and possibly economic maturation. Hedonism is a technical term for a social value of pleasure, and promiscuity is only a negative term if one assumes there is an intrinsic fault in having sex with a range of individuals. It is simply a historic fact that the disciple of the legions laxed over time, and the "barbarians" likely could not have overrun Rome if they were as disciplined as before.

 

[Onyx]

Physical maturation is not in view here, but relational, emotional, and possibly economic maturation. Hedonism is a technical term for a social value of pleasure, and promiscuity is only a negative term if one assumes there is an intrinsic fault in having sex with a range of individuals. It is simply a historic fact that the disciple of the legions laxed over time, and the "barbarians" likely could not have overrun Rome if they were as disciplined as before.

But you're associating a lack of discipline in the military with sex?

I don't see how you can separate physical and mental maturation from questions of sexuality. They don't happen in a convenient order for what you're describing.

 

[Montero]

I'm going to chime in here with Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series. Beta Colony and how she created that:

1. There are all sorts of permutations and combinations going on - including hermaphrodites.
2. There is rigorous sex education, not just about the physical aspects but also the emotional and psychological ones.
3. There is state enforced contraception - in order to get the contraception removed you have to get a parenting licence - and both parents are judged.
4. It is an advanced science world with artificial wombs and DNA manipulation - so it is possible for a same sex couple to have kids with both their DNA.
5. The society is based on openness - you wear ear-rings to indicate your status, from not interested in sex, to interested in xxx, to in a stable monogamous relationship - and lying with a false status earring is a big social no-no.

So it would be entirely possible, in future society, to have systems in place that assess the maturity of individuals. The Beta colony one isn't a perfect system in the book, people still pull crap, but when it is working well, a couple (or larger grouping) can ease into a relationship, or solve problems in a relationship with a very highly trained therapist.

To me, one of the joys of the whole Vorkosigan series is how Bujold creates some very different socials systems and puts them in a sandbox to play together - nicely or not.

 

[awesomesauce]

For me, I don't like predicting based on what I hope humanity will do, but what history has shown we will likely do and what trends exist in the present.

I think there's a place for both in speculative fiction. It's a way to talk about what we could be, if we choose. The future can be an awful warning of a grim and dystopian future, but it doesn't have to be. There's value in imagining we can become better than we are, also. I guess I feel like this optimism has eroded from sf somewhere. Corny and naive as it might seem now, in the old sci-fi shows and pulp stories, there's often an enthusiasm for the future that seems like it's missing in a lot of the current stuff.

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” (O. Wilde)

 

[Joshua Jones]

I think there's a place for both in speculative fiction. It's a way to talk about what we could be, if we choose. The future can be an awful warning of a grim and dystopian future, but it doesn't have to be. There's value in imagining we can become better than we are, also. I guess I feel like this optimism has eroded from sf somewhere. Corny and naive as it might seem now, in the old sci-fi shows and pulp stories, there's often an enthusiasm for the future that seems like it's missing in a lot of the current stuff.

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” (O. Wilde)

Fair point. To be fair, I don't think the future is fully dystopian or utopian; I think no matter how we order society, there will be advantages and disadvantages, those who have and those who have not. So, I come at this from the perspective of "If (insert societal value here) were to change, what would be the effects? Who would benefit and how? Who would loose out and in what ways? What would the society try to do to fix that?" If all of these are not present, I don't think I have fully analyzed the situation.

But, that is just my approach, and I see the value of dystopias and utopias.

 

[MWagner]

"Hedonistic" is a value judgement, similar to "promiscuous". To use it, you first have to believe that there is something intrinsically damaging about pleasure seeking. This is a Puritanical view, and not necessarily the "natural order" as many primates live that way with "Rome collapsing".

I read "hedonistic' to mean to pursue personal pleasure to the exclusion of all other aims. There's a classic ethical philosophy scenario that asks if you were able to enter a box that stimulates intense and unrelenting pleasure, with the proviso that you could never leave the box, would you do it? Most people answer no, even it they can't articulate exactly why.

My mind has been turning to that scenario recently, as we're not far off from it becoming reality. I think I'll live to see a time when most people do not leave their homes, and instead lie twitching in tanks, hooked up to VR, blood coursing with nutrients and pleasure-enhancing drugs. The pleasure box made real. And I don't think the people who eschew the pleasure box will do so out of puritanism.

 

[MWagner]

I have my doubts that we'll be looking at universal morality for much longer. Society is already fragmenting, and fragmenting rapidly, into mutually incomprehensible political and social tribes. Give it another 30 or 40 years and the various tribes will demonstrate their own distinct values and virtues. Each may enforce its social norms fiercely within the group, but be powerless to influence or sanction those outside it.

And I wonder how easily people will be able to move between the tribes. As social identity shifts from meat space to virtual space, who's to say people won't have several social identities, and switch between those tribes - even hostile tribes - as the need warrants. Humans have very strong instincts to police social norms, but it's unclear how those could be enforced in a world where 90+ per cent of your socialization takes place in the environment where you can hide or swap identities at will. Perhaps espousing and defending various values and causes will become no more than an elaborate social media game.

 

[Parson]

A return to even more Puritan courting rules isn't it.

But it would at least be an interesting scenario in an S.F. book. It seems to me that most S.F. writers tend to explore the boundaries of libertinism; I for one would find a society that was functioning in an accepting but constrained manner very interesting indeed. It seems when S.F. writers go for constrained societies they assume a "Handmaid's Tale" kind of repressive society which is then flouted by the rich and powerful. Couldn't we at least imagine something different and more wholesome for a future society?

I have my doubts that we'll be looking at universal morality for much longer. Society is already fragmenting, and fragmenting rapidly, into mutually incomprehensible political and social tribes. Give it another 30 or 40 years and the various tribes will demonstrate their own distinct values and virtues. Each may enforce its social norms fiercely within the group, but be powerless to influence or sanction those outside it.

I don't believe we've ever had anything like a "universal morality." Humans have been tribal essentially all of our existence. And every tribe has some of their own morals and exceptions to them. I would further posit that anything that even looks like "universal ethics" is based in either shared tribal mores (Tribes don't last if they allow much killing of members) or something that has it's roots in the time when human trading became possible which is a very short time in human existence. ---- One of the things I've always loved about S.F. is it's ability to look at societies in a kind of uncluttered way, which is very different than the world we live in. And I don't see a lot of originality in that sense lately.

 

[Onyx]

My mind has been turning to that scenario recently, as we're not far off from it becoming reality. I think I'll live to see a time when most people do not leave their homes, and instead lie twitching in tanks, hooked up to VR, blood coursing with nutrients and pleasure-enhancing drugs. The pleasure box made real. And I don't think the people who eschew the pleasure box will do so out of puritanism.

You should read "The Unincorporated Man" for an interesting take on this.

I have my doubts that we'll be looking at universal morality for much longer. Society is already fragmenting, and fragmenting rapidly, into mutually incomprehensible political and social tribes. Give it another 30 or 40 years and the various tribes will demonstrate their own distinct values and virtues. Each may enforce its social norms fiercely within the group, but be powerless to influence or sanction those outside it.

I think we've already lived through more extreme periods of divergent sociology. We joke about groupthink and truth police, but the mental adjustment people who lived through the Cultural Revolution went through to denounce each other and adamantly believe things they knew were not true is pretty astoundingly outside the Western mindset. I think the assumptions about people demonstrated in Three Body Problem really bring home how different the Chinese view of people is from our own. Much more so than arguments about "living wage" or the mild xenophobia of the alt-right.

But it would at least be an interesting scenario in an S.F. book. It seems to me that most S.F. writers tend to explore the boundaries of libertinism; I for one would find a society that was functioning in an accepting but constrained manner very interesting indeed. It seems when S.F. writers go for constrained societies they assume a "Handmaid's Tale" kind of repressive society which is then flouted by the rich and powerful. Couldn't we at least imagine something different and more wholesome for a future society?

I know I've read more than a few SF books about formalized societies with constrained expression, the most obvious being Dune. The New Victorians of The Diamond Age would be another. And for all the sex and drugs of the Culture, notions like ecology, fairness and duty are much more part of those people's principles than they are ours. You really aren't a true libertine if you care about stuff.

 

[Parson]

I know I've read more than a few SF books about formalized societies with constrained expression, the most obvious being Dune.

Dune ..... Yes, that would be an example (one I should have thought about) especially in the first book or two, after that the series got too weird to be taken seriously.