The progress of civilisation implies, above all, the control of aggressive behaviour. Economic precariousness, punitive justice, irrational beliefs and ignorance are also direct consequences of (natural) aggressive behaviour, since they could not occur without a direct repression of the (natural) desires of benevolence, altruism, cooperation and empathy.
Civilisation gradually establishes cultural controls on aggression which, in its most evolved form, imply an internalised prosocial morality.
At the present historical moment, we are threatened by the failure of the three main mechanisms of social change on which the civilising process has been based: political change, educational change, and technological change.
Political change seems to have reached its limit with the social market economy within the framework of the ideology of the Enlightenment. Let us say the “social democracy” of the EU. And it does not seem to be expanding. Educational change was expected to have had a very positive influence by this time − 2025 - with almost eradication of illiteracy, a huge increase in higher education, a large consumption of books and other cultural products, and the incorporation of women into all productive sectors. But we find clear signs of ideological regression in the opposite direction to the Enlightenment. Technological change has progressively increased world wealth… without having eradicated extreme poverty… and putting the environment at risk.
The EA community should reflect on the need to explore new mechanisms of social change. The expansion of altruism in a quantitative sense is an unequivocal good, but does it take into account the cultural origin of all social changes? And if the EA community itself is part of a cultural change, what could be its long-term consequences? Can we expect a large-scale expansion of effective altruism initiatives without a prior profound change in moral behavior patterns, comparable to those that have already occurred in the past?
Historically, the expansion of altruism has been related to changes in the symbolic expressions of our interpersonal relationships. Concepts such as “charity”, “soul”, “mercy”, “dignity”, “freedom”, “compassion”, “pity” … have determined different conceptions of virtue and consequent changes in human social behavior.
The popular idea of ”Christian virtues” is basically a pattern of prosocial behavior based on the internalization of extreme values of empathy, compassion, altruism and benevolence … equivalent to the tightest control of aggression. Nobody knows what its limit is. Nobody has ever tried to find out. For a minority of strongly motivated individuals it could be a realistic goal. Let us think not only of the monastic experiences of the past but of more prosaic examples such as “Alcoholics Anonymous” (an association of individuals motivated to change behavior) . The social sciences can provide us today with a wide variety of resources for a rational and exhaustive improvement of human behavior in a prosocial sense.
An experience of life without aggression—and aggression, like “sin”, is everywhere in our contemporary lifestyle- could be attractive to a minority of individuals who could thus promote moral evolution in the mainstream world—this is how moral cultural advances have always been historically. None of this would be incompatible with quantitative altruistic contributions… quite the contrary. And the cost-benefit ratio could be the most profitable.
Failure of political, educational and technological social changes
The progress of civilisation implies, above all, the control of aggressive behaviour. Economic precariousness, punitive justice, irrational beliefs and ignorance are also direct consequences of (natural) aggressive behaviour, since they could not occur without a direct repression of the (natural) desires of benevolence, altruism, cooperation and empathy.
Civilisation gradually establishes cultural controls on aggression which, in its most evolved form, imply an internalised prosocial morality.
At the present historical moment, we are threatened by the failure of the three main mechanisms of social change on which the civilising process has been based: political change, educational change, and technological change.
Political change seems to have reached its limit with the social market economy within the framework of the ideology of the Enlightenment. Let us say the “social democracy” of the EU. And it does not seem to be expanding.
Educational change was expected to have had a very positive influence by this time − 2025 - with almost eradication of illiteracy, a huge increase in higher education, a large consumption of books and other cultural products, and the incorporation of women into all productive sectors. But we find clear signs of ideological regression in the opposite direction to the Enlightenment.
Technological change has progressively increased world wealth… without having eradicated extreme poverty… and putting the environment at risk.
The EA community should reflect on the need to explore new mechanisms of social change. The expansion of altruism in a quantitative sense is an unequivocal good, but does it take into account the cultural origin of all social changes? And if the EA community itself is part of a cultural change, what could be its long-term consequences? Can we expect a large-scale expansion of effective altruism initiatives without a prior profound change in moral behavior patterns, comparable to those that have already occurred in the past?
Historically, the expansion of altruism has been related to changes in the symbolic expressions of our interpersonal relationships. Concepts such as “charity”, “soul”, “mercy”, “dignity”, “freedom”, “compassion”, “pity” … have determined different conceptions of virtue and consequent changes in human social behavior.
The popular idea of ”Christian virtues” is basically a pattern of prosocial behavior based on the internalization of extreme values of empathy, compassion, altruism and benevolence … equivalent to the tightest control of aggression. Nobody knows what its limit is. Nobody has ever tried to find out. For a minority of strongly motivated individuals it could be a realistic goal. Let us think not only of the monastic experiences of the past but of more prosaic examples such as “Alcoholics Anonymous” (an association of individuals motivated to change behavior) . The social sciences can provide us today with a wide variety of resources for a rational and exhaustive improvement of human behavior in a prosocial sense.
An experience of life without aggression—and aggression, like “sin”, is everywhere in our contemporary lifestyle- could be attractive to a minority of individuals who could thus promote moral evolution in the mainstream world—this is how moral cultural advances have always been historically. None of this would be incompatible with quantitative altruistic contributions… quite the contrary. And the cost-benefit ratio could be the most profitable.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FotvcbDexjYY4gAgY/possible-importance-of-effective-altruism-in-the-civilizing