Hunger, malnutrition… it is just a question of food. What a shame!
idea21
Karma: −2
In my view, nothing is stance-independently valuable. Things are only valuable because they are valued.
It is difficult to understand why awareness of moral evaluation changes with cultural changes and, above all, why we can also voluntarily educate ourselves to value things. This happens in the processes of moral conversion.
Altruism does not have so much to do with the phenomenon of economic inequality but with an evolution of moral sensitivity through the use of new symbolic cognitive instruments throughout the civilizational process. It is not inequality that becomes morally intolerable, but empathic sensitization that makes the suffering of others emotionally intolerable. Economic inequality has often been called “systemic violence” and that is the dimension in which altruism has to be addressed: as an element of development of the control of aggression, which is in reality the authentic human problem par excellence.
“We need to do research into effective ways to awaken others to the moral necessity of acting on behalf of others and have answers to questions”
The first step in a research of this kind is to consider the phenomena of cultural evolution of which the phenomena of moral evolution are a part. One of the errors of the “effective altruism movement” is to forget that moral-structural changes are much more effective than the mere accumulation of means from current cultural-moral structures.
Promoting cultural changes is much more effective than promoting fundraising within the current culture. How are cultural changes promoted? The civilizing process shows us that the most rapid and effective cultural changes, especially from a moral point of view, are activated using religious mechanisms. It is not that effective altruism evolves into a traditional religion, but that, by carrying out unequivocal projects of effective altruism, psychosocial mechanisms are put in place that can behaviorally change moral action with results similar to those of religious conversion… but without any of its drawbacks of irrationality, prejudice and lack of control. In short, it is necessary to do with religion what was done in its time with astrology—which became astronomy—and with alchemy—which became chemistry -. We need to produce materialistic, rational and efficient “communities of saints.” The raw material of “effective altruism” is socially active human moral behavior.
And an important point: to achieve this it is not necessary to “transform society”, it is enough to change a subculturally organized minority, in the style of the ancient monastic communities.
Hi, Everyone
I dare to insert here a proposal which is, at the same time, vague and ambitious; just to discuss about it. It is nothing firm, just an idea. I excuse for my defective English.
After a long life and many books read, I realize that if we want to improve human life in the sense of prosociality the real target must be human behaviour. If we improve our moral view –our ethos- in a sense of benevolence, altruism and non-aggression –in a rational way, of course- the charities, the economic acts, the deeds must be a necessary consequence of this previous human change.
We know that moral evolution exists. Humanitarian movements like EA show that. Why not to try to go farther? Which is the limit to moral change?
I don´t see anything in this forum dealing with the possibilities of improving moral behavior in individuals –and, consequently, in groups and societies- in order to achieve the highest effective altruism. I mean, doing the job that in the past did the moralistic religions of the Axial Age… but now, independently from irrational religious traditions. So, doing it finally the right way: non-political social change.
We have today the experience, the knowledge in social sciences and the clarity of thought enough to ponder the means for improving human behavior in the sense of extreme prosociality. I realize that no one is just discussing the question. You write about getting as much as possible –with charitable goals- from the people as they are. Don´t you realize that you could get much more by changing morally the people first?
A person is made out of motivations, feelings, rewards and desires. Moral change can act on them. This is historical evidence… And if the outcome of that process of change turns to be unconventional, is not that also the usual result of social change along the history?
At least, just to discuss it…
Neither deontology nor utilitarianism: virtue ethics. It is the only one that considers human behavior in its sense of cultural evolution. Kant’s deontology did not allow him to take a rational and impartial position on ethical issues such as women’s rights, extreme social inequality or slavery, in which he was dependent on the prejudices of his time. And consequentialism-utilitarianism is not consequentialist enough if it ignores that all human action depends on internalized patterns of moral behavior: lifestyle, ethos.
If we want to develop the greatest good for the greatest number, the most convenient thing is to develop the most benevolent, empathetic and rational human behavior possible as a lifestyle and foundation of a prosocial culture.