We are the most moral of all living species, and we are the dominating one. Morality imply resources for social coordination.
Morality does imply resources for social coordination. However, this doesn’t imply universal moral values. Your values can still imply neglecting of fighting against an out-group.
For instance, when you take the way our current industrial society is treating non-human animals in factory farms, one could argue that this is deeply immoral, on all accounts, and I’d expect many non-industrial human societies to find that horrific.
So I’m really not certain that we are the most moral civilization.
Another example: companies and the financial system can be argued to be the most powerful actors today—very optimized to be “grabby” and powerful. But few people would seem theses structures very moral.
I argue that the capitalist system is the most moral social system ever, among other things because it has become universalist. Humans have created extreme competitive pressure towards social coordination. To some extent this is either “die or convert”. Globalization, Pax Democrstica or Human Rights ideology is on one hand a form of moral circle enlargement, on the other hand, a kind of Borg.
But given the alternatives, I happily support the Borg…
Oh, because all other species and social systems are even worse.
The degree of concern for others never extend beyond kin and at most peer group in the rest of beings. We have gone in 10.000 years from “kin and tribe” to “social class” and “nation” and currently we have so much moral progress that you can own equity 10.000 kms away from home and being able to collect the dividend.
Larger and larger reciprocity clusters have developed in centuries even decades, from NATO to World Trade Organization. Women (women!) can own property and even rule countries.
We are a few nuclear strikes away from losing everything. But so far, it is amazing how a system of beliefs on beliefs can impose itself so much on the natural brutality of life and matter.
Well, I’d rather argue that the moral circle has widened on some parts (humans) but not on others (animals).
(although I know some people who might disagree—several features of our current industrial civilization would be viewed as pretty immoral by many cultures: widespread inequality, private property since it strenghtens inequality, merchandization, environmental destruction...)
But when you include animals, I’m unconvinced that other systems are worse. The treatment of factory farmed animals is of a degree of brutality and cruelty rarely heard of in other cultures.
For instance, the number of vegetarians in India has declined over time: this sounds like a lower consideration given to animals.
“But when you include animals, I’m unconvinced that other systems are worse.”
The “net impact” of industrial civilization so far, when considering animals looks still net negative. But that is compatible with massive moralization of human behaviour. Simply, our capabilities have allowed us to exploit with incredible efficiency to those out of the moral circle while expanding (at incredible speed) the moral circle.
In the XVII century, empowered and emancipated european civilization were human net negative (but Europe net positive) by creating the transatantic slave trade. In my view by the middle XIX, the progressive western civilization has become “human net positive”, and exponentially, but when including animals, still the developed/industrial human civilization (today the West is only a part of it) is likely “net negative”.
Nothing of this change the fact that empowerment and moralization have grown together at incredible speed in the last 500 years.
However, it seems likely to me that a part of the recent improvements you quote were highly linked to the industrial revolution, and that moral progress alone wasn’t enough to trigger that. It’s easier to get rid of slaves when you have machines replacing manual labour at a cheap price.
Same for feminism—I recently attended to a conference in French titled “Will feminism survive a collapse?”. It pointed out that mechanization, better medicine and lower child mortality greatly helped femininism. A lot of women went into the worksplace, in factories and in universities because a lot a time previously allocated to household chores and child rearing was freed up.
It says that slavery often had a minor significance in most societies. It usually had nothing to do with ethics but rather that slavery is not an efficient economic system. Rome or Southern US are rather rare cases. Of course, it’s more complicated than that. Rome could acquire a lot of slaves and treat them in a worse way while it invaded a lot of territory (and acquired a lot of slaves).
Well, in my view the vast majority of moral progress has been triggered by material improvements.
What else could it be? We are not doing moralistic eugenics, are we?
In fact, moral progress is not based on some kind of altruistic impulses, but in the development of reciprocity schemes (often based on punishments) that imply evolutionary (often in geopolitical/economic competition space) advantages.
I agree with that—but I still don’t see why this implies that humans will give a lot of moral value towards animals.
So far, material improvements have worsened the conditions of farmed animals—as a lot of factory farming is not the result of a biological necessity, but is rather done for personal taste. This seems like regress, not progress.
So I don’t see why, given the current trajectory, moralization would end up including animals.
I’m highly suspicious about this “logical” factor. Humans don’t always do logical things—just a look at the existence of fast fashion should be enough to be sure of that.
So I’m really not certain that we are the most moral civilization.
I agree it is pretty unclear whether humanity has so far increased/decreased overall welfare, because this is probably dominated by the quite unclear effects on wild animals.
However, FWIW, the way I think about it is that the most moral species is that whose extinction would lead to the greatest reduction in the value of the future (of course, one could define “most moral species” in some other way). I think the extinction of humanity would lead to a greater reduction in the value of the future than that of any other species, so I would say humans are the most moral civilization.
I agree that most of the result ends up depending on the effects on wild animals. Always troublesome that so much of the impact depends on that when we have so many uncertainties.
most moral species is that whose extinction would lead to the greatest reduction in the value of the future
We probably don’t have the same definition—if wild lives are net negative and we destroy everything by accident, I wouldn’t count that as being “moral” because it’s not due to moral values. But the definition doesn’t matter that much, though.
Still, I’m not certain that the “value in the future” of industrial civilization (a different concept than humanity) will be so positive, when there are so many uncertainties (and that we could continue to expand even further factory farming).
Morality does imply resources for social coordination. However, this doesn’t imply universal moral values. Your values can still imply neglecting of fighting against an out-group.
For instance, when you take the way our current industrial society is treating non-human animals in factory farms, one could argue that this is deeply immoral, on all accounts, and I’d expect many non-industrial human societies to find that horrific.
So I’m really not certain that we are the most moral civilization.
Another example: companies and the financial system can be argued to be the most powerful actors today—very optimized to be “grabby” and powerful. But few people would seem theses structures very moral.
I argue that the capitalist system is the most moral social system ever, among other things because it has become universalist. Humans have created extreme competitive pressure towards social coordination. To some extent this is either “die or convert”. Globalization, Pax Democrstica or Human Rights ideology is on one hand a form of moral circle enlargement, on the other hand, a kind of Borg.
But given the alternatives, I happily support the Borg…
I’m curious. How exactly do you explain our current treatment of animals, if we are in the most moral social system ever ?
(I’m talking about what the majority does, not about the fact that some people here take the topic seriously)
Oh, because all other species and social systems are even worse.
The degree of concern for others never extend beyond kin and at most peer group in the rest of beings. We have gone in 10.000 years from “kin and tribe” to “social class” and “nation” and currently we have so much moral progress that you can own equity 10.000 kms away from home and being able to collect the dividend.
Larger and larger reciprocity clusters have developed in centuries even decades, from NATO to World Trade Organization. Women (women!) can own property and even rule countries.
We are a few nuclear strikes away from losing everything. But so far, it is amazing how a system of beliefs on beliefs can impose itself so much on the natural brutality of life and matter.
Well, I’d rather argue that the moral circle has widened on some parts (humans) but not on others (animals).
(although I know some people who might disagree—several features of our current industrial civilization would be viewed as pretty immoral by many cultures: widespread inequality, private property since it strenghtens inequality, merchandization, environmental destruction...)
But when you include animals, I’m unconvinced that other systems are worse. The treatment of factory farmed animals is of a degree of brutality and cruelty rarely heard of in other cultures.
For instance, the number of vegetarians in India has declined over time: this sounds like a lower consideration given to animals.
“But when you include animals, I’m unconvinced that other systems are worse.”
The “net impact” of industrial civilization so far, when considering animals looks still net negative. But that is compatible with massive moralization of human behaviour. Simply, our capabilities have allowed us to exploit with incredible efficiency to those out of the moral circle while expanding (at incredible speed) the moral circle.
In the XVII century, empowered and emancipated european civilization were human net negative (but Europe net positive) by creating the transatantic slave trade. In my view by the middle XIX, the progressive western civilization has become “human net positive”, and exponentially, but when including animals, still the developed/industrial human civilization (today the West is only a part of it) is likely “net negative”.
Nothing of this change the fact that empowerment and moralization have grown together at incredible speed in the last 500 years.
Hmm, ok, I can get that.
However, it seems likely to me that a part of the recent improvements you quote were highly linked to the industrial revolution, and that moral progress alone wasn’t enough to trigger that. It’s easier to get rid of slaves when you have machines replacing manual labour at a cheap price.
Same for feminism—I recently attended to a conference in French titled “Will feminism survive a collapse?”. It pointed out that mechanization, better medicine and lower child mortality greatly helped femininism. A lot of women went into the worksplace, in factories and in universities because a lot a time previously allocated to household chores and child rearing was freed up.
Of course, people figthing for better rights and values did play an important role. But moral progress wasn’t enough by itself. Technology changed a lot of things. And access to energy that is not guaranteed: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wXzc75txE5hbHqYug/the-great-energy-descent-short-version-an-important-thing-ea
For animals, technology with alternative proteins could help, but that’s far from certain: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bfdc3MpsYEfDdvgtP/why-the-expected-numbers-of-farmed-animals-in-the-far-future.
So I’m not convinced that we’ll inevitably have moral progress in the future.
On the topic of slavery, see this paper : https://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/manumission.pdf
It says that slavery often had a minor significance in most societies. It usually had nothing to do with ethics but rather that slavery is not an efficient economic system. Rome or Southern US are rather rare cases. Of course, it’s more complicated than that. Rome could acquire a lot of slaves and treat them in a worse way while it invaded a lot of territory (and acquired a lot of slaves).
Well, in my view the vast majority of moral progress has been triggered by material improvements.
What else could it be? We are not doing moralistic eugenics, are we?
In fact, moral progress is not based on some kind of altruistic impulses, but in the development of reciprocity schemes (often based on punishments) that imply evolutionary (often in geopolitical/economic competition space) advantages.
I agree with that—but I still don’t see why this implies that humans will give a lot of moral value towards animals.
So far, material improvements have worsened the conditions of farmed animals—as a lot of factory farming is not the result of a biological necessity, but is rather done for personal taste. This seems like regress, not progress.
So I don’t see why, given the current trajectory, moralization would end up including animals.
Because it is logical and probably it will be relatively cheaper as long as we become richer.
I think this is hopeful but not very inspiring argument …
I’m highly suspicious about this “logical” factor. Humans don’t always do logical things—just a look at the existence of fast fashion should be enough to be sure of that.
For the “alternative proteins will be cheaper”, I fear that’s not enough. See this post about why such a position is pretty optimistic : https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bfdc3MpsYEfDdvgtP/why-the-expected-numbers-of-farmed-animals-in-the-far-future.
Hi Corentin,
I agree it is pretty unclear whether humanity has so far increased/decreased overall welfare, because this is probably dominated by the quite unclear effects on wild animals.
However, FWIW, the way I think about it is that the most moral species is that whose extinction would lead to the greatest reduction in the value of the future (of course, one could define “most moral species” in some other way). I think the extinction of humanity would lead to a greater reduction in the value of the future than that of any other species, so I would say humans are the most moral civilization.
I agree that most of the result ends up depending on the effects on wild animals. Always troublesome that so much of the impact depends on that when we have so many uncertainties.
We probably don’t have the same definition—if wild lives are net negative and we destroy everything by accident, I wouldn’t count that as being “moral” because it’s not due to moral values. But the definition doesn’t matter that much, though.
Still, I’m not certain that the “value in the future” of industrial civilization (a different concept than humanity) will be so positive, when there are so many uncertainties (and that we could continue to expand even further factory farming).