![\"\"](\"https:\/\/static.guim.co.uk\/sys-images\/Books\/Pix\/pictures\/2008\/09\/11\/benturrin460.jpg\" "\\"mad")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Bob Seidensticker has looked over my recent post on objective morality and hard to get at truths<\/a>, and he\u2019s got some more questions<\/a>. \u00a0Let me pull out a couple quotes from Bob\u2019s post:<\/p>\n I\u2019ll agree that there\u2019s nothing absolute<\/em> for the consensus to be truth about. When we say, \u201cCapital punishment is wrong,\u201d there is no absolute truth (the yardstick) for us to compare our claim against. Is capital punishment wrong? We can wrestle with this issue the only way we ever have, by studying the issue and arguing with each other in various ways, but we have no way to resolve the question once and for all by appealing to an absolute standard.<\/p>\n \u2026As for \u201carbitrary,\u201d my morals may be arbitrary in an absolute sense, but of course they don\u2019t feel arbitrary in a throwing-darts-at-a-list-of-possibilities sort of way. I consult my conscience with moral questions, and it gives me answers. No need for an external anything. (If you say, \u201cWait\u2014where did that conscience come from? Didn\u2019t that get put in there by an external agent?\u201d then I point to evolution as the source.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What I don\u2019t understand is why Bob sees his conscience as\u00a0worth<\/em> listening to. \u00a0There\u2019s a very boring possible answer to that question (\u201cIt\u2019s uncomfortable when I don\u2019t! \u00a0I dislike the queasy feelings that tend to result, so I\u2019m conditioned to follow my conscience\u2019s promptings!), that I hope he won\u2019t give. \u00a0 For one thing, that answer doesn\u2019t give much of a reason to pass up wireheading<\/a> or soma<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(typical error checks for hedonic philosophies). \u00a0But, if this is his answer, Bob should be prepared to recognize his conscience as his enemy, like Spike\u2019s chip was on\u00a0Buffy<\/em>.<\/p>\n We\u2019re getting closer to be able to tweak \u00a0brain chemistry through implants<\/a> and magnetic stimulation<\/a>. \u00a0It\u2019s not\u00a0too<\/em> science fictional to imagine Mad Scientist!Me deciding to put some new constraints on Bob\u2019s desires. \u00a0Can I make any\u00a0wrong<\/em> changes, such that Bob\u00a0should<\/em> want to pull out the implant? \u00a0Is there such a thing as brainhacking malpractice, if the patient is prepared to accept whatever sort of conscience seems to speak to him?<\/p>\n Let me give you another thought experiment. \u00a0Now, I\u2019m not a Mad Brain Scientist, I\u2019m a Mad Computer Scientist. \u00a0I\u2019ve put together some kind of computer program and I present it to you as a black box \u2014 you don\u2019t get to see how it works, but you can give it different inputs and see what it outputs.<\/p>\n \u201cHey, Bob<\/em>,\u201d I say. \u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got a pretty nifty computer program here. \u00a0It can give you advice about what to do when you\u2019re not sure about a moral problem. \u00a0In long-duration clinical trials conducted here in the present, people who did what the black box told them whenever they asked it a question were more likely to have children than people who ignored the black box\u2019s advice, people who weren\u2019t given a copy of my black box, and people who were just given a magic eight ball hidden\u00a0<\/em>in a black box. \u00a0(I had a devil of a time getting an IRB to approve all those control groups, but I wanted to be thorough). \u00a0Would\u00a0<\/em>you like a black box of your own?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure why Bob should turn me down. \u00a0The box I\u2019m offering him is optimized according to pretty similar criteria as the conscience he trusts because it was shaped by evolution. \u00a0In fact, my box is probably better optimized than his conscience, since it\u2019s more closely tailored to the world where Bob actually lives, instead of the ancestral environment that shaped slow-moving evolution. \u00a0And go ahead and assume that I\u2019m telling the truth, my studies are valid, and my box really<\/em> does tend to improve the reproductive fitness of Bob-type people by a significant margin.<\/p>\n I\u2019d say I didn\u2019t have enough data to accept the offer. \u00a0There are a number of ways to be strong and fit<\/a>, and some of them are awful<\/a>. \u00a0And, looking back at his post, it looks like Bob knows that. \u00a0He writes:<\/p>\n There\u2019s evidence that evolution built us to think that rape and slavery are okay, as long as you\u2019re on the giving end. We see this attitude in the Old Testament, for example. However, modern society teaches us something different. This is the instinctive moral sense being overridden by the societal moral sense. Sam Harris writes about this in his The Moral Landscape. As I understand this, he argues for an objective morality of the second kind\u2014one that we can hone with science and reason.<\/p>\n Here I agree with Leah that we aren\u2019t stuck with our evolutionary programming. We can and do rise above our instincts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cRise above\u201d presupposes some dimension of height. \u00a0\u201cHone\u201d implies some form that we\u2019re getting closer to by paring away extraneous material. \u00a0If you have a sense that more is possible, then you must have some expectation that an external standard exists, and that you have some kind of access to it (even if it\u2019s as limited as our access to physical laws, which we have to painstakingly deduce). \u00a0But, if you\u2019re looking for a guide, a conscience formed by evolution is no more trustworthy than my black box.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Bob Seidensticker has looked over my recent post on objective morality and hard to get at truths, and he\u2019s got some more questions. \u00a0Let me pull out a couple quotes from Bob\u2019s post: I\u2019ll agree that there\u2019s nothing absolute for the consensus to be truth about. When we say, \u201cCapital punishment is wrong,\u201d there is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[82,18,147],"class_list":["post-5572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-epistemologyphilosophy","tag-evo-psych","tag-transhumanism","tag-whence-moral-law"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.metrolic.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/mad_scientist.jpg\" "\\"mad")
<\/p>\n