Better the illusions that exalt us ......

Well I understand that you seem to base your case entirely on a stipulative definition of your own, Rocketdodger. But I do not think it is possible to communicate if you insist on your idiolect
 
Yes... it's basic game theory, isn't it.?.. --maximizing a system in which everyone if everyone "acts this way" the group will function best and it will maximize individual a happiness. To me morality is basing decisions based on potential cost benefit analysis in regards to happiness versus suffering-- truth or illusion-- speaking up or staying silent. You allow others the rights you wish yourself to have and you do not engage in behaviors that you wouldn't want others to engage in. To me, mature forms of morality encourage a sort of "what comes around, goes around" understanding and a "pay it forward" way of ensuring that benefits are maximized (be they happiness, education, understanding, civil rights, security, health, freedom from harm )and detriments are minimized (expenses, suffering, pain, deception, confusion, anguish, poverty.)

For most important choices, it's easy for most people to do a rough analysis of why we should or should engage in certain behavior--in fact we evolved to do so. Our culture, religions, governments, social groups, available options, temptations, education, etc. refine and hone our choices within a social context--they encourage us to think about how what we do or say has the the potential to affect others.

I don't see where illusion is needed in the equation at all. And I am forever frustrated by this attempt to equate skepticism and all things related to it with a kind of non-emotionalism or immorality. It's a purposeful obfuscation in my opinion. It's a way of trying to infer that religion and other such woo is necessary for morality or uplifting feelings or something "positive". But it's just semantics, I suspect, to make up for the appalling lack of evidence behind this common belief. It's a way of arguing for keeping people paying heed to the notion that the emperor is wearing magical clothes...or at least not being vociferous in mocking those who claim as much.

Prove to me that he's wearing clothes or that it's good to at least foster this delusion. Prove that the costs of maintaining this illusion trump the costs of speaking up if you want to silence me. Prove to me that whatever illusion or paradigm or source for morality you find better than utilitarianism is better... and in what way. To me, it just sounds like fuzzy nothingness to cover for a big fat lie that people have to learned to call a "moral truth" in a crazy kind of doubletalk.

I prefer the morality of the truth tellers over the morality of the apologists and obfuscators.
 
articulett said:
Yes... it's basic game theory, isn't it.?.. --maximizing a system in which everyone if everyone "acts this way" the group will function best and it will maximize individual a happiness.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I think the fundamental communication breakdown between Fiona vs. Robin and I is that Fiona seems to assume we are saying "individuals should act this way to maximize overall happiness" when in fact we are saying "individuals should act to maximize their own happiness, which in an intelligent individual will be at least partially dependent on the happiness of others."

The most important insight that game theory and economics has had regarding morality is that once individuals understand their own happiness can best be served by the happiness of others -- just like how in economics an individual's wealth is dependent upon the wealth of others -- human selfishness becomes the most dependable driver of good deeds.
 
Can you show that acting to maximise your own happiness will necessarily lead to this outcome, Rocketdodger? There is a thread about the "missing women" in India which I started. It may be relevant

ETA: a quick search turned up this:

Game theory has been used to analyze the function of morality. A good example is Edna Ullmann-Margalit's The Emergence of Norms, in which she argues that moral norms enable agents to cooperate and coordinate their actions in situations where the pursuit of self-interest prevents this
Click to expand...

From this it appears that game theory emerged because utilitarianism was inadequate in some situations. It is hardly any wonder I am confused :)
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
Can you show that acting to maximise your own happiness will necessarily lead to this outcome, Rocketdodger?
Click to expand...

No, because it doesn't.

It does appear to do pretty well, however, in societies of intelligent individuals. Economics shows this pretty clearly.

Fiona said:
From this it appears that game theory emerged because utilitarianism was inadequate in some situations. It is hardly any wonder I am confused :)
Click to expand...

Thats because that person uses "self interest" where they should really be saying "immediate self interest." Game theory is about self interest -- long term self interest.

You can get wildly divergent behavior from a moral agent depending on how far you let them infer the consequences of their decisions. Admittedly the agents must be allowed to infer quite far or else any greed based morality doesn't turn out very well for most of the population -- that is why it is important that the agents be intelligent before such a system is adopted!

This of course means that it would not work globally, given the current intelligence of the average human.
 
articulett said:
I prefer the morality of the truth tellers over the morality of the apologists and obfuscators.
Click to expand...
Very good.

I also prefer the morality of fine rational humanists like Kant over the morality of chunky charlatans like Peter Singer.
 
rocketdodger said:
Yes.

I think the fundamental communication breakdown between Fiona vs. Robin and I is that Fiona seems to assume we are saying "individuals should act this way to maximize overall happiness" when in fact we are saying "individuals should act to maximize their own happiness, which in an intelligent individual will be at least partially dependent on the happiness of others."

The most important insight that game theory and economics has had regarding morality is that once individuals understand their own happiness can best be served by the happiness of others -- just like how in economics an individual's wealth is dependent upon the wealth of others -- human selfishness becomes the most dependable driver of good deeds.
Click to expand...

I think the fundamental communication breakdown comes from people who need to see skeptics or "rationalists" or atheists as lacking something special that they have... they need to see themselves as more moral-- they believe their morality comes from some "higher source" or that scientific sorts don't have their same feelings and, thus, don't behave equally morally. They want to protect religion or spiritualism or their imagined source of morality from those "mean skeptics" who disregard it or claim that it's not the source of their morality though they might think it is. They resort to outlandish examples and imaginary scenarios, increasing goalpost moving, and semantics to do so. But I'm not sure they are aware that they are doing this or why.

They believe we should be more like them... that there is something good or nice or moral or rational or diplomatic about some view that they hold or some social skill they are advocating-- but they can't really elucidate their view without playing semantic games. Because they do not have evidence for this belief about their superior morality and opinions (which they confuse with fact) on the subject, they resort to characterizing those who see things differently through their own lens... they have to make those who disagree into the bad guy so they can feel superior.

If their way or viewpoint or communication was clear or valuable or "superior" in some way, we'd seek to incorporate it. But since it involves a straw man view of opposing viewpoints, and is so unclear on specific benefits it just ends up sounding like every other bit of apologetic woo to me... and I feel defensive regarding the malignment of a group of people whom I know better than the critic does... and who the critic has greatly mischaractherized while showing no willingness to correct their stereotype. I think of how much more I prefer the morality and communication of those they criticize rather than the critics themselves.

There is a world of real choices and real examples... it would be easy to design a study which examined when illusions were better than truths and in which ways... what or how moral choices differ amongst "utilitarians" and whatever other systems others subscribe too. But all the talk about utilitarianism is just a way to make it sound like those who value "truth" over "illusions" are missing something that those who find the OP deep or useful imagine themselves as having. The apologists need their straw man view of skeptics so they can feel superior without having to provide or show evidence of superiority... without having to model behavior or communication or respect that they feel entitled to for themselves. They believe it's better to think as they do... but they cannot explain why.

I find conversations with them nearly impossible, because they need their straw man of the "opposition" as much as they need their illusions. I think that since there is one truth, that conversations should be about furthering the understanding of that truth. I'm fine with people preferring belief, opinions, and straw men over facts... I don't care to try to change the minds of people who don't want to change. But it helps me to determine what peoples' motives are in such communications--even if they are not aware of their motives. I want to understand the big picture... the part that is the same for everyone... where opinions differ... what the facts are.

I think that the people on this thread whom you are having the most trouble understanding and communicating with are people who are aiming to support their opinion as "right" in their head. Opinions aren't about right or wrong. You are aiming to address the OP and explain why the characterization of skeptics/utilitarians/jref/atheists/rationalists/scientists is wrong, because you presume that they care to understand the facts. But they are not aiming to have a common understanding... they are aiming to prove to themselves that their viewpoint is superior. Fiona needs to prove to herself that those who subscribe to illusions have something that those who dismiss them do not. Her goal is not to understand why she nor anyone else has furthered a false stereotype over those who don't agree with the OP. All her conversation is designed to prove to herself by attempting to prove to you that there's something good at subscribing to "illusions"... something that you and I and others are missing--though she can't define what it is... clearly, it has something to do with morality.

Remember, Fiona believes in "moral truths" - a term no one agrees on or has defined or even agrees makes sense. I suspect that she's building up one of those "moral truths" in her head via this dialogue. I think she's angry because she doesn't want this to be the truth. She needs you or someone to agree that skeptics are missing something because of their rejection of "illusions" as being something worth respecting. The conversation can never go anywhere because there are some who are seeking a common understanding... and some who are pretending to to win points in a game that is actually going on in their heads.

There are some people who cannot admit that they may have inadvertently mischaracterized a group of people, because they need to believe they have not. Rocketdodger, Fiona needs to see her viewpoint as morally superior to yours-- more "exalt worthy". She needs to see yours and all those who disagree with the OP as lacking.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
No, because it doesn't.

It does appear to do pretty well, however, in societies of intelligent individuals. Economics shows this pretty clearly.



Thats because that person uses "self interest" where they should really be saying "immediate self interest." Game theory is about self interest -- long term self interest.

You can get wildly divergent behavior from a moral agent depending on how far you let them infer the consequences of their decisions. Admittedly the agents must be allowed to infer quite far or else any greed based morality doesn't turn out very well for most of the population -- that is why it is important that the agents be intelligent before such a system is adopted!

This of course means that it would not work globally, given the current intelligence of the average human.
Click to expand...

But it does... through connections and tribes and trade... and the internet... we evolved a need or desire to "punish" or constrain those who threaten the social system--cheaters. Other social animals do this too. We use social inclusion and exclusion, rules, sanctions, and so forth to compel a degree of compliance and lessen cheating. Religions are sort of a primitive way of codifying this... but it's childish... it makes it all based on imaginary man in the sky who has a rubric that determines your eternity. But, just as this forum has rules to maximize freedom of expression, there are rules and jokes and so forth that aim to keep the forum maximally beneficial for the whole.

We have a basic algorithm for understanding the basics of game theory... and we are forced and conditioned to play the game if we want to derive the benefits of being a part of any group. It's Pavlovian on some levels and in some people... others evolve the concept to their own benefit and the benefit of others.
 
articulett said:
But it does... through connections and tribes and trade... and the internet... we evolved a need or desire to "punish" or constrain those who threaten the social system--cheaters. Other social animals do this too. We use social inclusion and exclusion, rules, sanctions, and so forth to compel a degree of compliance and lessen cheating. Religions are sort of a primitive way of codifying this... but it's childish... it makes it all based on imaginary man in the sky who has a rubric that determines your eternity. But, just as this forum has rules to maximize freedom of expression, there are rules and jokes and so forth that aim to keep the forum maximally beneficial for the whole.

We have a basic algorithm for understanding the basics of game theory... and we are forced and conditioned to play the game if we want to derive the benefits of being a part of any group. It's Pavlovian on some levels and in some people... others evolve the concept to their own benefit and the benefit of others.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the only reason it works, given the number of stupid people in the world, is that the governments (well, most of them at least) have adequate inference ability and they in turn tell their people what to do. I agree that people like you and I do not need the government to parent us, because we and others like us would do fine in communication with each other. I wouldn't say the same about the majority of people in the world, though -- they can't infer far enough to see the immense benefits they would reap from true cooperation. In fact, very few can, even among the governments.
 
articulett said:
Remember, Fiona believes in "moral truths" - a term no one agrees on or has defined or even agrees makes sense. I suspect that she's building up one of those "moral truths" in her head via this dialogue. I think she's angry because she doesn't want this to be the truth. She needs you or someone to agree that skeptics are missing something because of their rejection of "illusions" as being something worth respecting.
Click to expand...
I like very much Fiona's calm, reasonable and skillful argumentation.

But, likewise, confabulations of a telepathical, mind-reading clairvoyant like yourself are so unintentionally comical, that I also enjoy them alot!

So hey! Keep your ludicrous posts coming. :D
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Yeah but the only reason it works, given the number of stupid people in the world, is that the governments (well, most of them at least) have adequate inference ability and they in turn tell their people what to do. I agree that people like you and I do not need the government to parent us, because we and others like us would do fine in communication with each other. I wouldn't say the same about the majority of people in the world, though -- they can't infer far enough to see the immense benefits they would reap from true cooperation. In fact, very few can, even among the governments.
Click to expand...

But, because cooperation between groups works to enhance the groups and individuals in the groups... order and basic game theory tend to emerge... so that those that don't have or follow a personal code... are forced to follow a code via rules, punishments, favors and so forth... Schools, forums, cities, etc. evolve codes of conduct because it's the best way to maximize the goals of the group...

I don't think most governments work particularly well; they evolve and dissolve just like species,, but I think that humans recognize that cooperation or at least the appearance of cooperation often leads to furthering goals better and that all moral systems are all utilitarian even as they claim they are not... or based on something different. What could be more "useful" than pleasing some god so you get to live happily ever after and not suffer eternally? The price of ignoring the feelings of others can result in a high cost to oneself and ones loved ones-- we intuit this... or learn it right away-- the price of ignoring god is, of course, scarier.

Morals are codes of conduct designed to maximize social order and happiness over suffering... it's a way of codifying game theory... our inborn algorithm for social reciprocity and care of the vulnerable and trust of authority. In many ways it's a reason for us to explain to ourselves why we behave as we do or to get others to behave in a way that benefits us, themselves, or others--or at least doesn't harm us.

I think most groups function better with rules and probably with some degree of hierarchies and niche filling... I think humans intuitively know this... and if not, they are taught through trial and error. I think religions have exploited these tendencies of humans... as have all scam artists and profferers of illusion. Governments capitalize on this for better or for worse.

In regards to the Emperor's new clothes analogy... I don't care that there's an Emperor... I don't think there is any need for ruling by divine decree... and I think it's wrong to exalt those who claim to see his clothes... and wrong to NOT speak up when you recognize a manipulation. I recognize that, if I feel cowed into silence for daring to point out that --as far as I can tell-- the emperor's new clothes are indistinguishable from a delusion of magical clothes, then others do too. And it's time to let them know of what I think so we are not alone.

Aiming for a utopian government or means of morality is an ideal... thinking you'll actually achieve it, is an illusion. But that doesn't mean things won't get better if we aim for improvement. Humans evolved to aim for that improvement. We never get perfection, but things keep getting "better" or more efficient... like our technology... our knowledge... our means of teaching others... our morals... our understanding... if it doesn't, it dies out.

If you look at our planet from afar... we are an increasingly cooperative and communicative species... teaching and educating each other. Yes... lots of stupidity--but less stupidity and savagery and suffering than before by percentage of population and life span.



Humanity has outgrown its need lessons by illusion. We have facts that trump the confabulations and parables of humans past. Even stupid people should have a chance to benefit from these discoveries... to learn that the people they trust for "truths", may not be the most trustworthy of sources-- and that most valuable truths are equally available to all. Most people ought to be given the opportunity to consider whether there really is such a thing as divine truths, don't you think? Most people ought to be able to decide for themselves whether they prefer truth to illusion. And we all benefit from an increase of critical thinking... an increase of people who can separate a fact from everything else... an increase of understanding and communication skills.

I think the internet is our great achievement at sharing knowledge regarding the immense benefits of true cooperation you mention. (Of course, I'm idealistic... though not delusional.) I prefer the wisdom of skeptics like Carl Sagan and James Randi over poetic mumbo jumbo and religious doublespeak.

BTW, I think greedy and manipulative people will always manipulate words and morality so that they can feel good about what they say and do and believe. I think social constraints--(rules, laws, shunning, etc.) are ways humans attempt to modify the behavior of such people with varying degrees of success. And we applaud and encourage those who are exemplar. We are constantly learning from our mistakes and refining our methods.

Ignorance may be bliss... and illusions may make individuals happier... but for society as a whole, less ignorance and less illusion is better. The ignorant and deluded have much less to add to humanity than they imagine, and others are left to bear the cost of their deficiencies--their children, for one-- and those of us who live amongst them, for another.
 
Last edited:
Scientology is an illusion that exalts people. Tom Cruise sure seems exalted. So the quote in the OP could apply to him. If the quote is "true for religion in general" as the OP suggested... then it would be true for Scientology specifically. And yet, anyone can see why the OP would be "apologistic" if it was used to argue for Scientology.... how skepticism was being used as a straw man to make Scientology look good or moral or better than those who thought it nonsense.

And yet... all these words... because some people think that some woo deserves more respect than Scientology... yet they cannot tell us why-- and so it's straw men and goal post moving as always.
 
Herzblut said:
I like very much Fiona's calm, reasonable and skillful argumentation.
Click to expand...

You should try to follow her example.

In particular, she hasn't dodged any questions directed at her.

You still haven't said why you think shooting the plane down and killing one person breaches human dignity while letting the plane crash and kill 4001 people does not.
 
articulett said:
If you look at our planet from afar... we are an increasingly cooperative and communicative species... teaching and educating each other. Yes... lots of stupidity--but less stupidity and savagery and suffering than before by percentage of population and life span.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Its just hard to remember this when Muslims want to kill me because they can't infer that their leaders are robbing them of the good money us westerners pay for their oil. Its hard to remember when Christians want to shut down science because they can't infer that their leaders are lying to them about the source of their standard of living. Its hard to remember this when North Koreans can't infer that their leader is literally one of the most evil humans currently alive on the planet.
 
rocketdodger said:
Fair point. Its just hard to remember this when Muslims want to kill me because they can't infer that their leaders are robbing them of the good money us westerners pay for their oil. Its hard to remember when Christians want to shut down science because they can't infer that their leaders are lying to them about the source of their standard of living. Its hard to remember this when North Koreans can't infer that their leader is literally one of the most evil humans currently alive on the planet.
Click to expand...

I agree... that's why I hope we are moving towards humanism... a human based morality... where we understand that we all rely on each other... all life comes from the same sources... all life depends on getting along with other life... the future of all humans depends on the choices of today's humans. We can't afford to relegate these decisions to imagined divine overlords or gurus or people who claim that illusions trump the facts. I think it's divisive to stereotype skeptics as being "immoral" or "unfeeling" because they understand this and aren't afraid to say it.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Yeah but the only reason it works, given the number of stupid people in the world, is that the governments (well, most of them at least) have adequate inference ability and they in turn tell their people what to do. I agree that people like you and I do not need the government to parent us, because we and others like us would do fine in communication with each other. I wouldn't say the same about the majority of people in the world, though -- they can't infer far enough to see the immense benefits they would reap from true cooperation. In fact, very few can, even among the governments.
Click to expand...

It is interesting because Bentham ( and Mill, I think) raised the tension which utilitarianism presents for the idea of government. I confess I am extremely uncomfortable with the easy assumption that most people are stupid: this is not my experience. But even if you are correct I think you may be insufficiently aware of the real differences between people and their circumstances. If you consider the situation in India which I raised in another thread. People there are taking decisions on their own self interest. They are correct about the economic implications of having daughters: they have a means to avoid having daughters: the do not have daughters. I can see nothing stupid there. There is no reason to suppose that they are unaware of the potential long term problems of these individual decisions. Their governments is certainly aware and has policy which clearly shows that. The policy is ignored because it is detrimental to each family which has the opportunity to choose. Now it is possible that there will be no long term bad effect: the rape of the Sabine women was effective in dealing with a similar problem in early Rome, so far as I can see. So although I consider the abduction and rape of large numbers of women to be morally wrong I cannot see how it would be wrong within the terms of a utilitarian system since the long term outcome was not demonstrably bad in those terms.

Similarly, at present we seem to have evidence that global warming is bad for the planet and for our own species. Without wishing to get into the debate about whether the problem is real, let us suppose for a moment that it is. Let us suppose further that our use of fuel is a big contributory factor. If those are given then there is no reason to suppose that individuals are not intelligent enough to grasp the facts: it is not that hard, after all. The long term good therefore depends on a reduction in use of fuel. But individuals make the decision about which car to buy and how much to drive it on the basis of their own perception of their needs and wishes. They are not wrong about this. They make correct self interested decisions. On the basis of those decisions the use of fuel rises.

The problem I see with your formulation is that every one of those people is acting rationally and in pursuit of their own utility. Again the outcome may well be beneficial in the long run but I see no reason to assume that it will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom