Ethics - What is best in life?

**Byrthnoth** · 2015-01-17 18:58

Almost all discussions in this subforum could benefit from a discussion of the term "ethical." To start, I would like to invite a guest speaker to give his opinion on the subject:

Conan's response to the most fundamental ethical question raises two points:
1) There is a commonly-missed distinction between the field of Ethics and each person's definition of ethics in practice (ethos). The field of Ethics argues about what the ideal should be, based on logic. Ethos is what a given person or community actually values and believes, potentially based on nothing at all.
2) Ethos can vary substantially and are frequently defined by society, but even within a society there is significant variability. People, even including philosophers, frequently let any variability in ethos quickly devolve into the meaningless quagmire of ethical relativism. Remember, Ethics would be useless if it was just a field based on opinion. People can be wrong even if they sincerely believe that they're right.

For an actual discussion of ethics, you first have to define your base truth. What is this "greatest good" that you are trying to optimize with your decisions between right and wrong? Your happiness? The happiness of your social group? Human happiness? Adherence to rules in a religious text?

If you cannot answer this question or if you believe that there can be multiple valid answers, then you cannot make any objective ethical statements because you have no logical grounds on which to base any future argument. This is the so-called "ethical relativism," where something can be fine in one culture that's not fine in another. As an example, is entering a 1000-person village with 200 young male friends, killing the men, and raping the women a good thing to do?
A) Optimizing personal happiness: Yes, because it makes me happy for a few days. (example: hedonist)
B) Optimizing friend happiness: Yes, because it makes me and 200 of my friends happy for a few days. (example: Conan)
C) Optimizing human happiness: No, because it makes 1000 people suffer for the rest of their lives and only 200 people happy for a few days.
D) Optimizing God's happiness: Depends, but probably yes as long as we follow a few rules and convert people to his/her religion. (example: Boko Haram)

Now, I will warn you here that the question "What is best in life?" is just a convenient place to start an ethical debate. If you can't logically justify your answer then you're not going to be very convincing. Still BG, I ask you, "What is best in life?"

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-17 19:24

Science.

Done. Thread over.

**Athas** · 2015-01-17 22:20

Conan is just plagiarizing Genghis Khan.

**Thunder** · 2015-01-17 23:00

Can be more specific than just science - I think evolutionary biology has a lot to say about this. Selfish Gene is in my top 5 important books to have in your head

Our brains can do some pretty spectacular stuff... but they're also cognitive misers who will minimize their workload when possible - and most often we're not even in control. Everyone on average sees thousands of ads a day and we're so dumb that the #1 most powerful brands out there destroy wealth, health, love, and happiness. You might say what the media does isn't ethical - pumping people's emotions/stress and having a similar effect on a body's endocrine system that a lion chasing you would have 20,000 years ago. But the truth is that if "they" didn't do it, somebody else would because that's just what sells to a people who spent 12 years of their lives learning about english, social studies, math, and "science" in school. They're easy prey

Best in life, in my opinion, is understanding the cognitive biases that we're all at risk to fall into. Another great book that further explains why "science" is the answer is "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking by Jordan Ellenberg". She does a really nice job of conveying a lot of boring ass math things into a narrative format with jokes, which coincidentally is the BEST way to convey information to another human being (evidence: Pitch Anything by Oren Klaff - this one's one of my mega-favorites, explains how best to convey information to people through the eyes of a guy who pitches companies to investment bankers)

Oh, and speaking of cognitive biases here's an excerpt of a speech by Charlie Munger on his personal list of the cognitive biases. The irony is he and Warren Buffet own ~1/3 of coca cola - the strongest brand in the world that's taking advantage of cognitive biases to make the world a worse place, lol. I've read a lot of books on the subject and his list is pretty all-encompassing but I'll admit it's a tough read if you're lacking a lot of background knowledge

Best in life? I'd just list a couple dozen books lol

**Mazmaz** · 2015-01-17 23:08

Originally Posted by SathFenrir

Science.

Done. Thread over.

Your thoughts on Nazi experimentations?

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-17 23:32

5 posts to Godwin.

Not bad guys, not bad at all.

**Byrthnoth** · 2015-01-17 23:38

Science ultimately doesn't have anything to say about what we should value. It can quantify things that people generally consider ephemeral, but it can't tell us what we should optimize as a society or individual.

**Thunder** · 2015-01-17 23:46

Originally Posted by Byrthnoth

Science ultimately doesn't have anything to say about what we should value. It can quantify things that people generally consider ephemeral, but it can't tell us what we should optimize as a society or individual.

Eh, I disagree?

I see it that science tells us exactly what to value and is the best at telling us what to optimize as a society or individual for whatever purpose (here being happiness, fulfillment, healthwealthlove, etc etc?)

Any philosophical/religious/etc conversation about ethics/morality is the "ephemeral" one to me

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-17 23:52

From a purely detached point of view, I would argue that, in fact, it is science and mathematics that are solely qualified to define quantities to be optimized as a society or individual.

The idea of assigning weights to variables under consideration and algorithmically choosing the optimum decision based on specified parameters is something that, on the grand scale, may benefit from being removed from emotion.

While the above isn't exactly how I feel about it all, the larger the scale, the more the favor tips toward calculated rationality as the "correct" choice for the masses. Unfortunately this brings into play many concepts that none us of want to come about. E.g. Democracy probably isn't the best choice for progress or survival, rights should probably take a backseat to sustainability, on and on. Stuff that, on paper, can absolutely be quantified to be better for the world as a whole, but renders us devoid of all humanity, which is bad.

Despite all that I do stand on the side of more information, more rationality, more quantifiable considerations, will make for better decision-making. However, in response to your statement that science doesn't have anything to say about what we should value; I disagree. I think if you remove emotional considerations from the equation entirely and assign weights to things based on preservation of resources, advancement of the species as a whole, increased quality and length of life, things that are still somewhat hardwired into us from hundreds of thousands of years ago, I would say that those are the things science would tell us to value. Though that is just my opinion, and not something that I am advocating.

Though, I think it can be reasonably argued, that it is an appeal to base emotion flown directly in the face of scientific research that is responsible for the drastically unsustainable course humanity is on currently re: population, water supply, food supply, energy sources, etc. But hey, what are you gonna do, kill everyone?

**thetruepandagod** · 2015-01-18 00:26

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

Your thoughts on Nazi experimentations?

Sensationalist shitposting, at least say Dr. Mengele or Shiro Ishii. And even though I know you didn't ask me i do think that ethics impede a fair amount of scientific progress not only in regards to mutilation but also taboo thoughts which I think is wrong.

**Thunder** · 2015-01-18 01:29

I don't think you need to detach yourself emotionally to make "scientific claims". Neuroscience/psychology are hard sciences, just like math/physics/chem/bio, and they've worked out pretty well the common occurrences of human bias, mistakes, etc that you probably attribute to emotion.

For instance, in just the last couple years this guy + others have zoned in on what happiness is and why it's so difficult for the layman to try and explain what being happy is. Here are excerpts from big ass emails I got explaining the linked articles/videos:

Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and his research on happiness that says,

“Princeton psychologist Daniel Kahneman has made an important distinction between two types of happiness: (i) happiness as we experience it on a moment-to-moment basis; and (ii) happiness as we remember it after-the-fact."

And!

As the Nobel prize winning author Daniel Kahneman says, you need to make at least $75,000 per year in order to achieve the happiness 'tipping point'.

Finally I can tell the guy who says "well it's hard to say what being happy means.. someone can be happy living on dirt if he's surrounded by the love of his family" to shove it up his ass

Despite all that I do stand on the side of more information, more rationality, more quantifiable considerations, will make for better decision-making. However, in response to your statement that science doesn't have anything to say about what we should value; I disagree. I think if you remove emotional considerations from the equation entirely and assign weights to things based on preservation of resources, advancement of the species as a whole, increased quality and length of life, things that are still somewhat hardwired into us from hundreds of thousands of years ago, I would say that those are the things science would tell us to value. Though that is just my opinion, and not something that I am advocating.

Small nitpick,

Spoiler: show

I can't say I was thinking on the level of global issues like you, but I definitely agree that science tells us what to value in the global arena, too. Capitalism/economics explain the distribution of wealth, and major investors (guys investing in things well beyond their lifetimes) tell us just where the value lies: Bill Gates + others vs global diseases, Elon Musk + others vs planetization

Past that, and onto what I thought was the more ethical/moral side of things though, science does a reasonably good job (better than any philosophical/religious point of view) at telling us what to value in ourselves, a friend, idea, mate, product, service, food, commercial, tv show, movie, insurance rates, and everything else.
Plus, it tells us how to react/act towards different people, friends, ideas, mates, products, services, food, etc etc etc

I'm having trouble seeing what it doesn't give us AT LEAST a firm direction in now a days. It's not easy though, I bet my life that 90%+ people don't read enough books or take enough time to learn from people ahead of them through whatever medium (internet, magazines, youtube, email lists, etc)

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-18 01:50

Originally Posted by Thunder

I don't think you need to detach yourself emotionally to make "scientific claims". Neuroscience/psychology are hard sciences, just like math/physics/chem/bio, and they've worked out pretty well the common occurrences of human bias, mistakes, etc that you probably attribute to emotion.

Not for all, but for some.

Ex: It is undeniably true (and easily verifiable) that the rate of population growth far exceeds what the planet is able to sustain. Within as early as 100 years we may find ourselves in extremely dire straights.

If something isn't done about it, it's going to lead to a monumental amount of death, whether it be from war, starvation, disease, or other. It is a result that is only avoidable by A) moving the human race to somewhere that isn't Earth (not a possibility within 100 years no matter what you read, sorry) or B) forcibly acting to curb population growth (since doing it voluntarily doesn't even work here in America, let alone third world countries).

Option B is the only realistic option moving forward, no matter how you look at it, but it's a topic that's mired in controversy due to emotional appeals from a number of angles. "Muh rights! GMOs are bad!" Etc. To see the proper solution to the problem you do have to detach yourself from it emotionally.

People are all up in arms and have been for decades about China's one child policy. Sorry folks, it's coming to a country near you in your grandkids' lifetime (or some variation of it). And rightfully so, from an emotional standpoint, science can absolutely tell you who SHOULD be the ones breeding, but nobody is going to listen.

And I can confidently claim this is going to happen because numbers and data don't lie. The massive undertaking that would be required to curb this growth would need to be starting now, and would need to not be voluntary, and would fly in the face of world religions and blah blah blah. Finite resources + growing population + growing amount of livestock required to feed said growing population (which require crops to eat, water to drink, just like us) = bad times for all.

Edit: I won't sidetrack this conversation by explaining the gory details of why we wont be leaving Earth within a 100 years (despite what people who want you to invest in them will say) but I can discuss in PM. Long story short though, until we can change human anatomy and physiology, our collective asses aren't going fucking anywhere. (Inertia negation is pure fucking science fiction. First person to bring that shit up is getting hit with a 2x4 with Conservation Laws written on it).

**Thunder** · 2015-01-18 02:05

Originally Posted by SathFenrir

Not for all, but for some.

Ex: It is undeniably true (and easily verifiable) that the rate of population growth far exceeds what the planet is able to sustain. Within as early as 100 years we may find ourselves in extremely dire straights.

If something isn't done about it, it's going to lead to a monumental amount of death, whether it be from war, starvation, disease, or other. It is a result that is only avoidable by A) moving the human race to somewhere that isn't Earth (not a possibility within 100 years no matter what you read, sorry) or B) forcibly acting to curb population growth (since doing it voluntarily doesn't even work here in America, let alone third world countries).

Option B is the only realistic option moving forward, no matter how you look at it, but it's a topic that's mired in controversy due to emotional appeals from a number of angles. "Muh rights! GMOs are bad!" Etc. To see the proper solution to the problem you do have to detach yourself from it emotionally.

People are all up in arms and have been for decades about China's one child policy. Sorry folks, it's coming to a country near you in your grandkids' lifetime (or some variation of it). And rightfully so, from an emotional standpoint, science can absolutely tell you who SHOULD be the ones breeding, but nobody is going to listen.

And I can confidently claim this is going to happen because numbers and data don't lie. The massive undertaking that would be required to curb this growth would need to be starting now, and would need to not be voluntary, and would fly in the face of world religions and blah blah blah. Finite resources + growing population + growing amount of livestock required to feed said growing population (which require crops to eat, water to drink, just like us) = bad times for all.

I've gotta ask, how is it undeniably true and easily verifiable? Because if you're going to quote current population growths and just project that infinitely I'm gonna have a problem with that. War, famine, disease does an excellent job at curbing population growth and keeping it from being exponential. I just did some shit-1minute research and it looks like growth in the last 60 years is linear and MUCH of that is from immigration rather than child bearing (http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html)

Dawkins actually has a little rant about it in his book (hate to keep bringing it up but I do think it's one of the cornerstones of 20th century science) and projects that sometime soon in the future mexicans will be shoulder to shoulder in mexico and in just X short years after that we will be able to stack them to the moon and back

I dunno, I do a lot of reading and population growth hasn't ever seriously come up to me, what do you recommend I look at to get a better idea of just how serious the issue is?
quickedit:

Originally Posted by SathFenrir

Edit: I won't sidetrack this conversation by explaining the gory details of why we wont be leaving Earth within a 100 years (despite what people who want you to invest in them will say) but I can discuss in PM. Long story short though, until we can change human anatomy and physiology, our collective asses aren't going fucking anywhere. (Inertia negation is pure fucking science fiction. First person to bring that shit up is getting hit with a 2x4 with Conservation Laws written on it).

Ya, I follow. Like I said, Musk + others are investing in things way past their lifetimes

**Deejay** · 2015-01-18 02:10

Originally Posted by SathFenrir

Edit: I won't sidetrack this conversation by explaining the gory details of why we wont be leaving Earth within a 100 years (despite what people who want you to invest in them will say) but I can discuss in PM. Long story short though, until we can change human anatomy and physiology, our collective asses aren't going fucking anywhere. (Inertia negation is pure fucking science fiction. First person to bring that shit up is getting hit with a 2x4 with Conservation Laws written on it).

CC me plz

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-18 02:14

It's population growth in non-first world countries that is going to be the big problem.

The industrialization of previously impoverished societies leads to an increase in demand for "first-world-food", namely meat, which leads to increasing amounts of livestock. As is, each cow bred for slaughter contributes enough methane from belching to add greenhouse gas on the order of 1:1 with a car. Not to mention that more land is needed, more crops needed to feed them, etc.

In nations where population growth and industrialization are not going hand in hand you have increasing population density + unsanitary conditions = increased breeding grounds for disease. More hosts = more chance for mutation = more chance for an epidemic. Same argument for war.

Population growth in FWC isn't going to be what brings about war and stuff. Civil wars in third world countries over limited resources / aid combined with lackluster intervention from the outside world is already a rampant problem. See: all of Africa between the Sahara and Johannesburg (exaggeration, but you get the point).

Also, it doesn't need to be exponential. Linear growth at our current population is unsustainable. Hell, iirc (it's been a while since I read relevant figures) we're already at an unsustainable population number if it stays constant (on larger order of years).

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-18 02:18

As far as sources, I'm posting 100% from my phone for now.

I don't like WHO or CDC prediction trends because iirc they are a bit on the doom and gloom side and over exaggerate how soon things will get bad, but I believe there are studies hosted through those sites. WHO for sure.

Edit: http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/en/ first semi-relevant thing I could bring up on my phone. Search around in that vein
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/ehinde...en/index1.html

**Deejay** · 2015-01-18 02:22

LAYMAN HERE-

With the amount of uninhabited land in the continental US and other whoamg huge countries, what's stopping us from just populating and breeding livestock there? The entire northwest region of the US map is barely populated. 3rd world countries and islands seem fucked (especially when you take global warming into account), but if we can cram millions of people into places like NYC and feed them, what's stopping us from doing the same in the idle ass areas like the Montanas?

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-18 02:25

Originally Posted by Deejay

LAYMAN HERE-

With the amount of uninhabited land in the continental US and other whoamg huge countries, what's stopping us from just populating and breeding livestock there? The entire northwest region of the US map is barely populated. 3rd world countries and islands seem fucked (especially when you take global warming into account), but if we can cram millions of people into places like NYC and feed them, what's stopping us from doing the same in the idle ass areas like the Montanas?

We do already (not Montana specifically, but yeah)

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0096084

And as livestock number goes up, so must the percentage of crops harvested annually that is dedicated to them. So then more farmland is needed. Both of these things reduce the remaining area with which to cram people into.

Edit: link to map as of 2006 http://www.livestock.geo-wiki.org

**BerenTebogo** · 2015-01-18 02:30

@Thunder: From your own link

Can not solve third-world population problems

U.S. overimmigration does not relieve overpopulation problems in third-world countries. Over 4.9 billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico.43 Each year the populations of the world's impoverished nations grow by tens of millions. Mexico grows by 2.5 million per year, Latin America by 9.3 million, South America by 5.4 million, and China by 8.3 million.4 U.S. overimmigration cannot have any significant affect on this number, even at current high mass immigration levels of over 1,000,000 per year.

Exponential growth

U.S. population is projected to double.2 Although current population growth rates are not strictly exponential, an analysis of exponential growth44 reveals how quickly a population can grow. Exponential growth is like compound interest. With 1% growth rate, population will double in 70 years, a 2% growth rate will cause doubling in 35 years, 10% in 10 years. (Divide 70 by the percentage number to get the approximate doubling time).

U.S. population has grown by 1.2% per year over the last 50 years. This "low" growth rate means it has taken only 58 years for our population to double. We can expect this doubling to continue, drastically magnified by the impact of unrealistically high levels of mass immigration.

------

US immigration, despite being such a large shift in population numbers, isn't diminishing population growth in TWC at all.

**Thunder** · 2015-01-18 03:03

Yeah, read that over since.

Still not really convinced? All this "we can expect this doubling to continue" and "population is projected to double" language is unsettling. At some point food or/and space is going to stop that growth..

I mean, for one, it's not really a problem I can intervene in so my "ethical science guidance" is telling me to fuck off and worry about things I can change and have enough skills/experience in to dick around in (no use worrying about shit you can't/won't do anything about). But for another.. it really just sounds like food shortages (plus disease/war like you mentioned in your post, but I feel bad for quoting just this since it helps my point, bad science amirite) will keep the issue in check. Similar to what I read in Dawkin's book, so I'm at peace with it atm lol

What are the issues that overpopulation brings to the world that we live in today? Literally running out of food in the 1st world? Running out of housing/space in the 1st world? Running out of food in 3rd world countries? As far as I understand atm from your post + the gov sites only 3rd world countries will be the grounds for strain and those are the people that are gonna get hit with the consequences. So there'll more disenfranchised children (and as if anyone gives a shit about that today) in 3rd world countries while we (1st world) wont really be hit by this negatively besides media/stories of MORE starving children. We'll just benefit, economically from the industrialization of those areas, afaik

Seems like we're in agreement with the larger point of the thread though. Science, inquiry, learning > all; which requires a fluid morality/ethics that develops through discussion/learning/etc. I'm gonna wait for some other ideas in the thread - I'm not gonna be too great in the overpopulation discussion besides what I already said

Thread: Ethics - What is best in life?

Thread Tools