I think our communities would be pleasanter places if more people asked questions. I well remember the summer of 1989 when so many people started asking why the repressive order in Eastern Europe was allowed to remain that it was overthrown, within weeks.
My take on purpose is that individually and collectively, our big-brained species decided that certain things matter, and we teach that belief to successive generations, who then act to protect and uphold those principles.
All humans fundamentally want the same things, although differences are apparent in the detail. It is this detail that comprises our purpose, which can be seen in our actions. We don't have to find it or know it. Our purpose is as we subconsciously decided in our early years, and we endeavour to fulfil that purpose during every moment of life. But those who are interested can easily identify it. Recurring patterns in behaviour communicate it.
We want life, you described that want clearly. There is evidence: our immediate desire to care for anyone dying. We'll spend any amount to stop lives ending. We value life so much that we've created a myriad of explanations about what happens 'after', so that we don't have to think about it as dying, but simply 'passing on' to something better.
But back to the living. We want comfort - a companion, health, safety ... we want separateness - the ability to think and do as we wish ... we want control over our path ... we want recognition for our contributions ... and we want our communities strengthened - meaning our collective assets safeguarded. These assets include the contributions each makes to the whole, and our structures and history.
All values are subjective. Some believe that killing off other communities strengthens theirs. Your life may not matter after all, if someone says you don't count. And control is often at the expense of others. We're all very good at turning a blind eye to the number of eggs that must be broken if breaking them will uphold principles we think matter.
Our inner motivation to uphold our values is only one aspect of our purpose, but even in a world where long comments are accepted, this one is long enough already.
Mhm ah okay, thanks for explaining. So we're always doing subconscious cost-benefit analysis with our values, according to their importance? Personally going with having a carpet then :)
Mhm ah okay yeah makes sense. I'd say yeah, even if the reasons behind caring are just because of evolution, biology, neurobiology, you care nonetheless. The love you feel for your friends, spouse, children etc. is essentially just a hormonal cocktail that is useful for reproduction. You still care. The reasons behind caring might be bullshit or illusionary, but the feeling you have isn't.
Well, as far as I know they've re-run that experiment and the results still hold. Even though at this point at least some of the participants must know about the initial study and notice the pattern. Yeah looked it up, and pretty much the same outcome. (Source: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replicating-milgram)
So are you essentially saying the participants just placed for example more value on acquiring knowledge than treating the student humanely, and that's why the majority were obeying?
Mhm yeah I agree these could be possible motives and I've never actually thought about it in this way. That maybe they've had "good" reasons for their actions. Although, the experiment was heavily criticised because of the ethics of letting somebody believe they hurt somebody as this could cause significant stress. Which is why a replication of that experiment wasn't conducted for a long time. If the participants have these reasons for their actions, then why are they feeling guilty and so stressed? Wouldn't this imply that they might be more rationalisation than reason? (Source https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html under section "additional results" )
Mhm ah okay. I like how this shows a simple mechanism for how we could make people behave morally. As long as we know why people put certain priorities on values. Do you have a hypothesis for that too?
Personally, would suggest a mix of genetic disposition, culture/parenting, current standing in society and life, as well as personal experiences.
Yes, your last sentence. I think there’s a cocktail of experiences that give us our values - and most of it, I think, happens unconconsiously, as does our upholding of them.
You wrote:
So are you essentially saying the participants just placed for example more value on acquiring knowledge than treating the student humanely, and that's why the majority were obeying?
Yes, I think that could have been a motivator for some. I think there were probably a lot of different motivators. We don’t want to be thought badly of for screwing up someone’s experiment - we might be criticised. We like the guy in the grey coat, he’s just a student, we’ll help him out, get him a good result. It’s just an experiment, can’t be much harm in that ,whatever the appearance of it … And some did stop when the subject screamed. Nonetheless, conforming to our community’s norms is a huge motivator. We don’t want to get “exiled from the cave”, there are sabre tooth tigers out there. And we only have skins to wear.
We shouldn’t assume that people will stop conforming to expectations, if they think their non conformity will be noticed.
I’m convinced that our interactions - with the environment and with other people - are all motivated by our beliefs about the best way to survive, which we get from the culture we grew up in. If we were still hunter gatherers in the Congo, we’d act appropriately and try to survive, as taught by our caregivers. We still act like that, though the jungle is concrete and glass now - and its still full of predators.
You wrote:
… If the participants have these reasons for their actions, then why are they feeling guilty and so stressed?
Well, I think its like this. Guilt arises when we don’t do what is expected and beat ourselves up for it, or others do. So we uphold one value because in the moment we just acted to support the principle that mattered most right then. Afterwards, we consciously realise that some individuals in an important community (our family, say) value something else and as good citizens we should have put that first because yes community DOES matter - arrgh - guilt! It’s hard to serve multiple masters and satisfy all. And values are masters. They demand time, resources, attention.
Subconscious cost-benefit analysis. LOL! But yes, I think your snappy summary covers it.
Thank you for the links. I think I was too tired to understand that version of Zen and the Art of Screwdriver Design, but I’ll read it again tomorrow.
I read about the replicating studies, and I don’t dismiss lightly the hypothesis that we’re all cruel bastards and don’t mind hurting our fellows. I just think that for some people (perhaps many), wanting ourselves to be ok matters more than wanting the other guy to be ok.
Let’s go back to the war, which is where the impetus for Millwall began. And the finger was pointed at Germany, so let’s go there. Why did people do so many terrible things? Why did so many support the Nazis (in the beginning, when they could simply have withheld their votes without being shot or gassed)? Per my hypothesis that says we value things on a continuum, I think there are lots of reasons, such as because they wanted prosperity again and thought Hitler’s lot would save them from the depression and communism, or because they wanted revenge for Versailles (Nationalism is a force in many countries, not just Germany), or because they felt good about supporting a team that seemed as if it was taking the country the right way - perhaps they worked for one of the industries receiving fat goverment contracts … and SO, they turned their backs on other things that also may have mattered, especially if they knew some of the people being dragged off, but the value that matters MOST in the moment of action is the one that motivates it.
Later, I think they were scared for their lives, primarily, and if that meant lining up to butcher others so they could keep believing that they might be ok themselves? Perhaps that is why.
My Dad lived through it all, and suffered, in occupied Europe. I am no friend of that regime.
I do think that Western Culture as a whole is very righteous. It’s ok if we do this or that, not ok if you do this or that. We see this attitude in all parts of our commuities. We don’t think people should speed, or drop litter, take advantage of others or, or … and yet we do those things. Self before community, all too often. (And I’m showing my values. LOL) It’s almost impossible to be objective, as everything we believe is a value judgement.
No, I’d not put in a fitted carpet if I built. By my deeds you will know me too, see? I’m a walking example of doing as my values demand. I think too much expensive fitted carpet is hidden under furniture and stays pristine, while it wears out in the room entrances, etc. A rug on the floor where feet walk advances comfort sufficiently.
I want to have a stone floor, or timber if not stone - I’m advancing separateness (my own ideas) and control (me choosing my path). These principles motive me more in this season of my life than the thought of having a carpet.
The tug to uphold those values is why I’m promoting my work on Substack. I want to make a splash.
You may not know what people value by what they do until you know them well - but they will, if they truly want to know.
Mhm. Yeah I understand and their actions do make sense from that perspective. So you agree with evolutionary psychology then, at least to a degree?
Ah okay mhm. So basically guilt arises because of value conflicts and not necessarily because we realise "bad" motives.
Thanks :) You're welcome, hope you enjoy them.
Mhm. Yeah and I wouldn't say that's bad. There's a reason we allow self-defence. It would be better if we'd just be honest of that and admit if this is immoral according to our value system. Guilt does not only arise due to a value conflict but also because it illuminates our self-deception regarding the importance we place on certain values. Instead of rationalising our behaviour and still identifying as a good person even though we'd judge others if they did the same.
Mhm yeah I understand. Of course the question is whether pursuing the currently most important value will be harmful or beneficial in the long run.
Mhm yeah exactly. Which doesn't help at all if you want to change something in the world.
Ah okay, interesting choice. So you see comfort/luxury in a more pragmatic light.
So the mechanism behind motivating people to behave morally is to observe their actions and then convince them to change their behaviour?
"... So the mechanism behind motivating people to behave morally is to observe their actions and then convince them to change their behaviour?"
If we want to change someone's behaviour, we can do it by force, if we have the ability. We can change it by persuasion. We can also accept it and them, and maybe they will change their behaviour down the line.
People act (behave as they do) because they are advancing/upholding values. A 'moral choice' is simply a value someone thinks needs upholding, labelled 'moral choice' instead of 'important principle'. When someone calls a choice 'morally good', they are simply projecting their values >> "I say it's the right thing (or a majority of people do) , so it is."
The reality is that everyone's idea of the 'most important thing that needs fixing' is different.
The water gets even murkier when people who want to uphold the SAME value disagree on the way to do it - and this is because other values determine the relative importance of punishments and incentives.
[For example, "drunk driving destroys communities, so we should not allow it." Many would agree that 'we should not allow this', but some will want punitive penalties for infractions, others will want safety nets so drunk people are intercepted before they drive and no tragedies occur. Which is better - the fence at the top of the cliff, or the ambulance and sherriff at the bottom? The fence costs a lot more in the short term.
For me, the importance of value consciousness is because an understanding of why we do what we do helps predict what we will do next, given certain circumstances - always helpful - and means that we can actively look for ways to uphold those important values, even if no one else in our circle thinks they matter very much.
Mhm yeah I'd agree with your take on morality. Morality is kind of subjective, based on our instincts, and a coordination game. Though it definitely feels objective.
Mhm yeah. Like if the right and the left for example want to have more money for the government budget, the left will probably want to do that via raising taxes for the rich. The right will want to reduce taxes for the rich.
Depends on the prevalence of crashes. If they happen often, the fence is better because it will save more lives. If crashes happen very rarely, just having emergency services might be enough if you use the saved money for another good cause. Which shows that ethical issues often also hinge on facts and science.
Mhm yeah for a pragmatic reason. Would you say humans have free will if you can predict their actions through knowing their values?
Mhm yeah I agree. Especially because we often don't even know if we miss something until it's an option. We begin to desire freedom once we know it's a possibility. My family partly lived through that order in Romania, so I'm very glad it got overturned.
Mhm ah okay interesting. So basically cultural/social imprinting in any way? Would you say that the things that matter are arbitrarily chosen and we just care about them because of conditioning? Or that they also possess intrinsic meaning?
I'd agree with your description of desires that we want. The fact that "main character Syndrom" was quite popular on social media a while back kind of illuminates what you've commented.
If you say all values are subjective, would you say meaning is subjective too? Yeah especially if an authority commands us to break these eggs. Do you know the Milgram experiment?
Well I've enjoyed your comment, interested in your reply :)
I believe that the priority we give to a principle depends on its meaning; the two are halves of a value - something is prioritised only if the result when we do so is meaningful - and all of it is subjective.
For example, the presence of carpet in a home is meaningful if the presence increases our comfort, and not meaningful if it doesn't. Some think a home without carpet needs it, so the want is there to put it in (advancing the value Pursuing Comfort). To others, the idea of having carpet installed over a perfectly good and attractive polished wood floor, while it might be nicer under bare feet in winter, might mean that more effort would be needed to keep the place clean - so the want is not there to install it (the individual is not motivated to Pursue Comfort in the current moment as the value is sufficiently satisfied.
I think we get our values primarily from observation of the norms in our culture as we grow - we are learning how to fit in and we are a social species so want to fit in. As we separate from our caregivers and childhood culture (every home in every street has a slightly different culture), our values morph and reflect more the communities we associate with as adults (our clubs, neighbourhood, work environments, etc). Thus, values are indeed a result of social imprinting. I think we all have the same ones, essentially, and so the differences between us amount to the priority we give to these in any given ,moment, and our interpretation of it [For example, what is "fashionable" right now? There are obviously many answers. Some will be almost the same as others, some will be substantially different.]
To continue this thread, does 'what is fashionable' matter? If someone is asking the question, it must matter. It could be because the individual wants to appear cool to the person they love - they want that companionship, so will endeavour to wear their preference. It could also be because the individual wants to donate clothing, and wants the recipients to feel some additional self-worth, so wants to give clothing that will be appreciated as much as possible.
In these two examples, both individuals value the same information, but for different reasons. One will use their knowledge to pursue comfort (the most inwardly-focused value of the five primal values), the other will use it to strengthen community (the most outwardly-focused value of the five).
I know of the Millwall experiment, though I have not studied either the original or the follow ups in detail. I've never carried out research of this nature. However, I'll make this observation:
Millwall's experiments required people to carry out actions.
He believed that people behave in two ways in social situations.
- they direct their own actions, taking responsibility
- they allow others to direct their actions, and don't take responsibility for the moral right of these - this is considered borne by those who directed the action.
Millwall thought that people would act as agents if they believed that the authority requesting their action was legitimate, and would take responsibility.
I think the reasons people act are more nuanced than this. I believe that all actions are motivated by values - that is, we act if motivated by a principle we think matters, and we don't act if we aren't. I believe this is an inseparable element of our humanness.
I also think that people are driven to cause change in four distinct ways: alone (doing it themselves), authoritatively (through influencing others to act), supportively (helping others who are leading the process), and collaboratively (working cooperatively).
If conducting experiments similar to the ones Millwall did, I would expect to discover why participants acted only through discussing their actions with them afterwards because neither motivation nor drive can necessarily be inferred by watching actions being taken.
People realising that they are being asked to 'punish' others for mistakes in the course of their participation in a study might be motivated to do it because:
- they want to alleviate any risk of not fitting in - which they might feel would happen if they didn't do as others were expecting (this is an aspect of Pursuing Comfort)
- they want the experience of observing themselves doing the actions expected - they are roaming, finding themselves, testing their own boundaries (this is an aspect of Asserting Separateness).
- they want to be in charge of something and show their competence, so they might do the actions expected (this is an aspect of Exerting Control)
- they want to comply with requirements and do a good job and aid the study and be seen doing so (this is an aspect of Accruing Recognition)
- they want to help the researcher advance their work (this is an aspect of Strengthening Community)
There are many other possible motives, of course.
Ahh but ...
What about the victim?
Indeed. It's all a question of priorities. We act to support the value that matters most. So, suppose the participant believes that teachers should be patient - that pupils should be honoured where they are (an aspect of Strengthening Community) MORE than they believe that researchers should be helped to advance their work (also an aspect of Strengthening Community). In that case, they will administer much less punishment for infractions by students.
Interesting piece. I've been thinking about things similar to this as well recently, like how I define philosophy and if there's any point in just breaking things down just to prove that things are uncertain and pretty subjective.
I think yeah it's hard to find a comfortable solution of meaning in a purely intellectual way. Meaning seems to always be a result of a reciprocal process - social ties, rituals, or creating things; doing what we love.
Maybe this urge is intrinsic, or a result of my life so far, but I have hope. I see no point in using philosophy to only break things down, or rationalize a conclusion I don't feel connected to. So yeah maybe it is subjective in a way. But that's fine. Philosophy was never meant to find truth - science was. Philosophy is more meant to show us what CAN be, not what SHOULD. Should suggests there's some intrinsic hierarchy to things. Can gives us options and new perspectives to look from.
Mhm, yeah I wouldn't say that deconstruction for the sake of it is useful. It's more of a tool. You can see that your old opinion was wrong, and then begin the search for truth again. Or it's used to break a concept down into its building blocks so you can develop a clearer perspective.
I agree. We often intellectualise stuff too much and try to solve problems via clever arguments when that might not be the best solution. We live in the world and we're social animals. Why should every answer be found in our solitary minds then?
Mhm. That's interesting, I've never heard that. So far, I've always heard philosophy is about finding truth. Science is now a different discipline but was first a subsection of philosophy. So it's more about ideas/ideals?
I'm glad I came across you, Doris. You question.
I think our communities would be pleasanter places if more people asked questions. I well remember the summer of 1989 when so many people started asking why the repressive order in Eastern Europe was allowed to remain that it was overthrown, within weeks.
My take on purpose is that individually and collectively, our big-brained species decided that certain things matter, and we teach that belief to successive generations, who then act to protect and uphold those principles.
All humans fundamentally want the same things, although differences are apparent in the detail. It is this detail that comprises our purpose, which can be seen in our actions. We don't have to find it or know it. Our purpose is as we subconsciously decided in our early years, and we endeavour to fulfil that purpose during every moment of life. But those who are interested can easily identify it. Recurring patterns in behaviour communicate it.
We want life, you described that want clearly. There is evidence: our immediate desire to care for anyone dying. We'll spend any amount to stop lives ending. We value life so much that we've created a myriad of explanations about what happens 'after', so that we don't have to think about it as dying, but simply 'passing on' to something better.
But back to the living. We want comfort - a companion, health, safety ... we want separateness - the ability to think and do as we wish ... we want control over our path ... we want recognition for our contributions ... and we want our communities strengthened - meaning our collective assets safeguarded. These assets include the contributions each makes to the whole, and our structures and history.
All values are subjective. Some believe that killing off other communities strengthens theirs. Your life may not matter after all, if someone says you don't count. And control is often at the expense of others. We're all very good at turning a blind eye to the number of eggs that must be broken if breaking them will uphold principles we think matter.
Our inner motivation to uphold our values is only one aspect of our purpose, but even in a world where long comments are accepted, this one is long enough already.
Mhm ah okay, thanks for explaining. So we're always doing subconscious cost-benefit analysis with our values, according to their importance? Personally going with having a carpet then :)
So for reproductive success basically? Just that the mechanism for promoting it, culture, has evolved a life of its own. There's an interesting post by Yudkowski on this phenomena. https://www.readthesequences.com/Adaptation-Executers-Not-Fitness-Maximizers
Mhm ah okay yeah makes sense. I'd say yeah, even if the reasons behind caring are just because of evolution, biology, neurobiology, you care nonetheless. The love you feel for your friends, spouse, children etc. is essentially just a hormonal cocktail that is useful for reproduction. You still care. The reasons behind caring might be bullshit or illusionary, but the feeling you have isn't.
Well, as far as I know they've re-run that experiment and the results still hold. Even though at this point at least some of the participants must know about the initial study and notice the pattern. Yeah looked it up, and pretty much the same outcome. (Source: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replicating-milgram)
So are you essentially saying the participants just placed for example more value on acquiring knowledge than treating the student humanely, and that's why the majority were obeying?
Mhm yeah I agree these could be possible motives and I've never actually thought about it in this way. That maybe they've had "good" reasons for their actions. Although, the experiment was heavily criticised because of the ethics of letting somebody believe they hurt somebody as this could cause significant stress. Which is why a replication of that experiment wasn't conducted for a long time. If the participants have these reasons for their actions, then why are they feeling guilty and so stressed? Wouldn't this imply that they might be more rationalisation than reason? (Source https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html under section "additional results" )
Mhm ah okay. I like how this shows a simple mechanism for how we could make people behave morally. As long as we know why people put certain priorities on values. Do you have a hypothesis for that too?
Personally, would suggest a mix of genetic disposition, culture/parenting, current standing in society and life, as well as personal experiences.
Yes, your last sentence. I think there’s a cocktail of experiences that give us our values - and most of it, I think, happens unconconsiously, as does our upholding of them.
You wrote:
So are you essentially saying the participants just placed for example more value on acquiring knowledge than treating the student humanely, and that's why the majority were obeying?
Yes, I think that could have been a motivator for some. I think there were probably a lot of different motivators. We don’t want to be thought badly of for screwing up someone’s experiment - we might be criticised. We like the guy in the grey coat, he’s just a student, we’ll help him out, get him a good result. It’s just an experiment, can’t be much harm in that ,whatever the appearance of it … And some did stop when the subject screamed. Nonetheless, conforming to our community’s norms is a huge motivator. We don’t want to get “exiled from the cave”, there are sabre tooth tigers out there. And we only have skins to wear.
We shouldn’t assume that people will stop conforming to expectations, if they think their non conformity will be noticed.
I’m convinced that our interactions - with the environment and with other people - are all motivated by our beliefs about the best way to survive, which we get from the culture we grew up in. If we were still hunter gatherers in the Congo, we’d act appropriately and try to survive, as taught by our caregivers. We still act like that, though the jungle is concrete and glass now - and its still full of predators.
You wrote:
… If the participants have these reasons for their actions, then why are they feeling guilty and so stressed?
Well, I think its like this. Guilt arises when we don’t do what is expected and beat ourselves up for it, or others do. So we uphold one value because in the moment we just acted to support the principle that mattered most right then. Afterwards, we consciously realise that some individuals in an important community (our family, say) value something else and as good citizens we should have put that first because yes community DOES matter - arrgh - guilt! It’s hard to serve multiple masters and satisfy all. And values are masters. They demand time, resources, attention.
Subconscious cost-benefit analysis. LOL! But yes, I think your snappy summary covers it.
Thank you for the links. I think I was too tired to understand that version of Zen and the Art of Screwdriver Design, but I’ll read it again tomorrow.
I read about the replicating studies, and I don’t dismiss lightly the hypothesis that we’re all cruel bastards and don’t mind hurting our fellows. I just think that for some people (perhaps many), wanting ourselves to be ok matters more than wanting the other guy to be ok.
Let’s go back to the war, which is where the impetus for Millwall began. And the finger was pointed at Germany, so let’s go there. Why did people do so many terrible things? Why did so many support the Nazis (in the beginning, when they could simply have withheld their votes without being shot or gassed)? Per my hypothesis that says we value things on a continuum, I think there are lots of reasons, such as because they wanted prosperity again and thought Hitler’s lot would save them from the depression and communism, or because they wanted revenge for Versailles (Nationalism is a force in many countries, not just Germany), or because they felt good about supporting a team that seemed as if it was taking the country the right way - perhaps they worked for one of the industries receiving fat goverment contracts … and SO, they turned their backs on other things that also may have mattered, especially if they knew some of the people being dragged off, but the value that matters MOST in the moment of action is the one that motivates it.
Later, I think they were scared for their lives, primarily, and if that meant lining up to butcher others so they could keep believing that they might be ok themselves? Perhaps that is why.
My Dad lived through it all, and suffered, in occupied Europe. I am no friend of that regime.
I do think that Western Culture as a whole is very righteous. It’s ok if we do this or that, not ok if you do this or that. We see this attitude in all parts of our commuities. We don’t think people should speed, or drop litter, take advantage of others or, or … and yet we do those things. Self before community, all too often. (And I’m showing my values. LOL) It’s almost impossible to be objective, as everything we believe is a value judgement.
No, I’d not put in a fitted carpet if I built. By my deeds you will know me too, see? I’m a walking example of doing as my values demand. I think too much expensive fitted carpet is hidden under furniture and stays pristine, while it wears out in the room entrances, etc. A rug on the floor where feet walk advances comfort sufficiently.
I want to have a stone floor, or timber if not stone - I’m advancing separateness (my own ideas) and control (me choosing my path). These principles motive me more in this season of my life than the thought of having a carpet.
The tug to uphold those values is why I’m promoting my work on Substack. I want to make a splash.
You may not know what people value by what they do until you know them well - but they will, if they truly want to know.
Mhm. Yeah I understand and their actions do make sense from that perspective. So you agree with evolutionary psychology then, at least to a degree?
Ah okay mhm. So basically guilt arises because of value conflicts and not necessarily because we realise "bad" motives.
Thanks :) You're welcome, hope you enjoy them.
Mhm. Yeah and I wouldn't say that's bad. There's a reason we allow self-defence. It would be better if we'd just be honest of that and admit if this is immoral according to our value system. Guilt does not only arise due to a value conflict but also because it illuminates our self-deception regarding the importance we place on certain values. Instead of rationalising our behaviour and still identifying as a good person even though we'd judge others if they did the same.
Mhm yeah I understand. Of course the question is whether pursuing the currently most important value will be harmful or beneficial in the long run.
Mhm yeah exactly. Which doesn't help at all if you want to change something in the world.
Ah okay, interesting choice. So you see comfort/luxury in a more pragmatic light.
So the mechanism behind motivating people to behave morally is to observe their actions and then convince them to change their behaviour?
"... So the mechanism behind motivating people to behave morally is to observe their actions and then convince them to change their behaviour?"
If we want to change someone's behaviour, we can do it by force, if we have the ability. We can change it by persuasion. We can also accept it and them, and maybe they will change their behaviour down the line.
People act (behave as they do) because they are advancing/upholding values. A 'moral choice' is simply a value someone thinks needs upholding, labelled 'moral choice' instead of 'important principle'. When someone calls a choice 'morally good', they are simply projecting their values >> "I say it's the right thing (or a majority of people do) , so it is."
The reality is that everyone's idea of the 'most important thing that needs fixing' is different.
The water gets even murkier when people who want to uphold the SAME value disagree on the way to do it - and this is because other values determine the relative importance of punishments and incentives.
[For example, "drunk driving destroys communities, so we should not allow it." Many would agree that 'we should not allow this', but some will want punitive penalties for infractions, others will want safety nets so drunk people are intercepted before they drive and no tragedies occur. Which is better - the fence at the top of the cliff, or the ambulance and sherriff at the bottom? The fence costs a lot more in the short term.
For me, the importance of value consciousness is because an understanding of why we do what we do helps predict what we will do next, given certain circumstances - always helpful - and means that we can actively look for ways to uphold those important values, even if no one else in our circle thinks they matter very much.
Mhm yeah I'd agree with your take on morality. Morality is kind of subjective, based on our instincts, and a coordination game. Though it definitely feels objective.
Mhm yeah. Like if the right and the left for example want to have more money for the government budget, the left will probably want to do that via raising taxes for the rich. The right will want to reduce taxes for the rich.
Depends on the prevalence of crashes. If they happen often, the fence is better because it will save more lives. If crashes happen very rarely, just having emergency services might be enough if you use the saved money for another good cause. Which shows that ethical issues often also hinge on facts and science.
Mhm yeah for a pragmatic reason. Would you say humans have free will if you can predict their actions through knowing their values?
Hi Ant! Thanks a lot for your comment :)
Mhm yeah I agree. Especially because we often don't even know if we miss something until it's an option. We begin to desire freedom once we know it's a possibility. My family partly lived through that order in Romania, so I'm very glad it got overturned.
Mhm ah okay interesting. So basically cultural/social imprinting in any way? Would you say that the things that matter are arbitrarily chosen and we just care about them because of conditioning? Or that they also possess intrinsic meaning?
I'd agree with your description of desires that we want. The fact that "main character Syndrom" was quite popular on social media a while back kind of illuminates what you've commented.
If you say all values are subjective, would you say meaning is subjective too? Yeah especially if an authority commands us to break these eggs. Do you know the Milgram experiment?
Well I've enjoyed your comment, interested in your reply :)
I believe that the priority we give to a principle depends on its meaning; the two are halves of a value - something is prioritised only if the result when we do so is meaningful - and all of it is subjective.
For example, the presence of carpet in a home is meaningful if the presence increases our comfort, and not meaningful if it doesn't. Some think a home without carpet needs it, so the want is there to put it in (advancing the value Pursuing Comfort). To others, the idea of having carpet installed over a perfectly good and attractive polished wood floor, while it might be nicer under bare feet in winter, might mean that more effort would be needed to keep the place clean - so the want is not there to install it (the individual is not motivated to Pursue Comfort in the current moment as the value is sufficiently satisfied.
I think we get our values primarily from observation of the norms in our culture as we grow - we are learning how to fit in and we are a social species so want to fit in. As we separate from our caregivers and childhood culture (every home in every street has a slightly different culture), our values morph and reflect more the communities we associate with as adults (our clubs, neighbourhood, work environments, etc). Thus, values are indeed a result of social imprinting. I think we all have the same ones, essentially, and so the differences between us amount to the priority we give to these in any given ,moment, and our interpretation of it [For example, what is "fashionable" right now? There are obviously many answers. Some will be almost the same as others, some will be substantially different.]
To continue this thread, does 'what is fashionable' matter? If someone is asking the question, it must matter. It could be because the individual wants to appear cool to the person they love - they want that companionship, so will endeavour to wear their preference. It could also be because the individual wants to donate clothing, and wants the recipients to feel some additional self-worth, so wants to give clothing that will be appreciated as much as possible.
In these two examples, both individuals value the same information, but for different reasons. One will use their knowledge to pursue comfort (the most inwardly-focused value of the five primal values), the other will use it to strengthen community (the most outwardly-focused value of the five).
I know of the Millwall experiment, though I have not studied either the original or the follow ups in detail. I've never carried out research of this nature. However, I'll make this observation:
Millwall's experiments required people to carry out actions.
He believed that people behave in two ways in social situations.
- they direct their own actions, taking responsibility
- they allow others to direct their actions, and don't take responsibility for the moral right of these - this is considered borne by those who directed the action.
Millwall thought that people would act as agents if they believed that the authority requesting their action was legitimate, and would take responsibility.
I think the reasons people act are more nuanced than this. I believe that all actions are motivated by values - that is, we act if motivated by a principle we think matters, and we don't act if we aren't. I believe this is an inseparable element of our humanness.
I also think that people are driven to cause change in four distinct ways: alone (doing it themselves), authoritatively (through influencing others to act), supportively (helping others who are leading the process), and collaboratively (working cooperatively).
If conducting experiments similar to the ones Millwall did, I would expect to discover why participants acted only through discussing their actions with them afterwards because neither motivation nor drive can necessarily be inferred by watching actions being taken.
People realising that they are being asked to 'punish' others for mistakes in the course of their participation in a study might be motivated to do it because:
- they want to alleviate any risk of not fitting in - which they might feel would happen if they didn't do as others were expecting (this is an aspect of Pursuing Comfort)
- they want the experience of observing themselves doing the actions expected - they are roaming, finding themselves, testing their own boundaries (this is an aspect of Asserting Separateness).
- they want to be in charge of something and show their competence, so they might do the actions expected (this is an aspect of Exerting Control)
- they want to comply with requirements and do a good job and aid the study and be seen doing so (this is an aspect of Accruing Recognition)
- they want to help the researcher advance their work (this is an aspect of Strengthening Community)
There are many other possible motives, of course.
Ahh but ...
What about the victim?
Indeed. It's all a question of priorities. We act to support the value that matters most. So, suppose the participant believes that teachers should be patient - that pupils should be honoured where they are (an aspect of Strengthening Community) MORE than they believe that researchers should be helped to advance their work (also an aspect of Strengthening Community). In that case, they will administer much less punishment for infractions by students.
Interesting piece. I've been thinking about things similar to this as well recently, like how I define philosophy and if there's any point in just breaking things down just to prove that things are uncertain and pretty subjective.
(Here are my thoughts) https://open.substack.com/pub/azark/p/what-is-the-value-of-philosophy?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31vkue
I think yeah it's hard to find a comfortable solution of meaning in a purely intellectual way. Meaning seems to always be a result of a reciprocal process - social ties, rituals, or creating things; doing what we love.
Maybe this urge is intrinsic, or a result of my life so far, but I have hope. I see no point in using philosophy to only break things down, or rationalize a conclusion I don't feel connected to. So yeah maybe it is subjective in a way. But that's fine. Philosophy was never meant to find truth - science was. Philosophy is more meant to show us what CAN be, not what SHOULD. Should suggests there's some intrinsic hierarchy to things. Can gives us options and new perspectives to look from.
Excuse my long comment hah :')
And don't worry about long comments, appreciate it :)
Thanks :)
Mhm, yeah I wouldn't say that deconstruction for the sake of it is useful. It's more of a tool. You can see that your old opinion was wrong, and then begin the search for truth again. Or it's used to break a concept down into its building blocks so you can develop a clearer perspective.
I agree. We often intellectualise stuff too much and try to solve problems via clever arguments when that might not be the best solution. We live in the world and we're social animals. Why should every answer be found in our solitary minds then?
Mhm. That's interesting, I've never heard that. So far, I've always heard philosophy is about finding truth. Science is now a different discipline but was first a subsection of philosophy. So it's more about ideas/ideals?