Morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous
I have new neighbors. I could make a long list of things they already got away with, things that by traditional morality, would be considered immoral or otherwise bad. Some of them illegal.
They do not listen and they do not care about the damage they're doing.
My only recourse is to sue. It's just that the damage done to our property is less than what a lawsuit would cost.
If I don't sue, they feel justified to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.
If I clean up the damage myself, proof of their misconduct will be gone.
If I try a less formal route and go to the local authorities, the new neighbors will likely revenge themselves; they have connections with the local authorities. Me taking any action against them will most likely backfire, based on what I have seen so far.
So they always win.
Similar examples are common all over the globe and history.
Given this state of facts, the only conclusion is that morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Why bother about other people, their lives and their property, when you can get away with endangering and damaging it.
I dare you to prove this wrong.
They do not listen and they do not care about the damage they're doing.
My only recourse is to sue. It's just that the damage done to our property is less than what a lawsuit would cost.
If I don't sue, they feel justified to continue doing whatever it is they're doing.
If I clean up the damage myself, proof of their misconduct will be gone.
If I try a less formal route and go to the local authorities, the new neighbors will likely revenge themselves; they have connections with the local authorities. Me taking any action against them will most likely backfire, based on what I have seen so far.
So they always win.
Similar examples are common all over the globe and history.
Given this state of facts, the only conclusion is that morality is overrated and evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Why bother about other people, their lives and their property, when you can get away with endangering and damaging it.
I dare you to prove this wrong.
Comments (52)
Of course groups are advantagoues. Gangs, mobs, nepotism, cronyism. How does this prove that morality is worthwhile?
Or the simpler proof is: If it wasn’t advantageous it would’ve been phased out of us by now.
In other words, the behavior of my neighbors is advantageous. They are part of a group that protects them. I am sure they consider their behavior moral.
My neighbor has unruly sons who do stupid things. One of them bashed his car into my mailbox, and its concrete anchored 4x4 tore up the front of his car. Subsequently, he started parking two streets away, I guess to avoid a confrontation. I laughed when I spotted it.
But now that son seems to be gone. It rained super heavily for a week after that and the ground became saturated. I was able to push the mailbox back up out of the mud. It will become capable of destroying another plastic bumper when the ground gardens.
The greatest thing is that the son took his dog with him. That dog was annoying and it looked like this:
Like I said
Quoting baker
and
Quoting baker
I think (or at least, I used to think) ethics/morality is, to great extent, about not doing harm to other people and their property.
....all that, and upon finding out what morality is, one might also find another domain to which “getting away with” has power.
Close enough. “what their own strength shall furnish...” absent all else, I can adapt to the domain which he must answer to.
Hobbes doesn’t get the credit he should, methinks.
Nice find.
I don't understand what you mean. Do say more.
This can mean so many things, be taken so many ways.
The Nazis, for example, too, cared about themselves by "making the world a better place".
If life is all about boosting one's ego (and there's no indication that it isn't), then one could be lying in a ditch and still think himself king.
This isn't what the world seems to function like. I know many assholes whose corner of the world looks very nice, expensively furnished.
People who advocate turning the other cheek are people who never practice it themselves. Jesus didn't.
If they're not compulsive, how can they be relevant?
What do you mean?
Whom have I dismissed?
Frankly, this is such a dumb non sequitur, I wonder why anyone would bother. You make a sweeping, simplistic statement about a complex issue that has been a subject of research for more than a century in several scientific fields - all on the basis of one anecdote of some petty neighbor squabble? Really?
I invite you to walk a mile in my shoes. Or, in this case, live in my situation, with such a neighbor who doesn't care if because of his actions, your house collapses and buries you and your family.
It's one person (or couple, family, what have you) out of billions. Just remember that. Though, as I'm sure you'll come to contemplate, it's quite a bit more than that. We generally create the life and fate we wish. Now, I'm not going to automatically take your story at face value, perhaps there's more to it you're either neglecting to share or feel is not relevant. Still, at face value, if they feel no desire, need, or responsibility to correct damage done either willful or unintentional, they likely don't expect any recompense or recourse when it's done to them, ie. those who are hard on others are often hardest on themselves. Misery likes its company, they say. Not sure where you live but they are generally small claims courts or similar avenues to pursue.
Interesting dynamic you say they "have connections with the local authorities". What support or evidence do you have of this? If those connections are worth jeopardizing the social fabric over (ie. documentable proof of conspiracy) it is unlikely you live in a poor or average neighborhood. A fact you should not take for granted.
Say I did. Then you'd never know who the people you don't want to have around/in your life are. Until too late.
"The utopia you imagine is actually a dystopia of the worst kind."
- Anonymous
You see, philosophy is fine, and abstractly discussing existential problems is fine -- unless one actually lives in the middle of one and actually needs a solution, on the spot.
Many philosophers decry moral realism. Yet when one looks at the world, when one doesn't ignore the obvious, moral realism is the name of the game.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
How would showing that it's worth bothering about other people have as a consequence not knowing who the people you don't want to have around/in your life are?
even though your were inclined to despise them. Still not too late . Make it about your vulnerabilities not about how irresponsible they are. If you’re too proud to do this, you’re screwed.
No, this are one-way relationship kind of people. They should be able to do harm unto (certain) others, but those others should be kind to them no matter what.
Can't share the details here, but there is such evidence.
It's a neighborhood that is rapidly becoming gentrified. And it looks like we "old settlers" are going to be pushed out.
Sure, I've been thinking about that. But what if they say, "Your life, your problem"?
Appealing to people's compassion generally doesn't go well.
You've yet to explain what they are actually doing. What are they doing?
Are you an introvert who's disinclined to be "neighborly" with your other neighbors? Like was said before there's strength in numbers. If they decrease your property value, they decrease not only their own but others around them. Which removes the "morality for the sake of morality" dynamic.
Better to appeal to people’s ego. People like to feel important and respected. Its surprising how much they’re willing to do for you if you tap into that.
I think you've turned your brain into a pressure cooker.
I can see that. You're conflating two separate ideals here. Those two being the ability to do so and the requirement to do so, respectively. Each offering their own benefits and drawbacks, with only one providing the function I mentioned.
Cutting into a slope and risking a landslide.
Burning trash close to the property line, so that the trees and grapevines on our side are damaged from the fire.
Damaging our fence when digging on their side.
Planting very tall trees (pines that will grow some 20 meters) in a direction that will put a considerable part of our property into complete shade.
And so on.
Not at all. It's these new neighbors who are on good terms only with one other neighbors (the ones who sold them the land), and their relatives who also live in the neighborhood.
It's all becoming more like life in a city, with distance and anonymity, whereas we "old settlers" are used to more cordial and considerate neighborly relations.
I don't understand that. What do you mean?
Do you think Donnie writes into his gratitude journal every day? Exactly.
Why ignore the obvious?
Why should the way things actually are IRL play no part in a theory of EM?
Given, for example, that bullies usually win, shouldn't that be taken to mean that bullying is morally good?
Has it never occured to you that being honest, fair, considerate, law-abiding actually makes you a loser and an untermensch?
Say I'm old and dying. I managed to amass considerable wealth in my lifetime and am slowly beginning to realize I cannot take it with me. I have two kids. Or none, even. I want my life's passion to be nurtured by someone caring and dedicated who is capable of respecting whatever it may be, perhaps even seeing a young version of myself in them, or something. How do you go about ensuring this will be so?
Placing a half-age ad in the largest paper in the city saying "million dollar business looking for young, smart, financial guru to take the reigns"
Or...
Finding a smaller niche magazine for whatever that interest/business/passion is and writing a humble black and white classified "small, rustic business of 50+ years looking for passionate, young enthusiast to manage and keep her afloat"
In the first example, someone who couldn't care less about what the business is about other than the money or benefit they could gain, probably just selling it off to a company that would turn it into a Wal-Mart or something after pocketing a sizable return would be the most likely, qualified candidates.
In the second example, there is no "huge payday" promised. If you truly have an interest in whatever the business is about, that would be the sole reason you would apply.
In both examples, the work could be observed and a judgement could be made, however in just one, would this be a true test of passion, dedication, and determination, not solely motivated by money. Sure a few may sneak through in the second example, but by only exposing a fraction of what the true inheritance/assets would be, in a rustic, run-down environment that still manages to test the applicant within the context of a scaled-down version of the true job/assets/etc to ensure the qualifications/ability is still there, you effectively screen out 95% of those who are just in it for the money/benefit who couldn't care less about what you care about after you're no longer in the picture.
Imagine this wealth/passion in life was about sailing and boats. You have a multi-million dollar shipyard loaded with yachts and other worthy vessels that would have to "go to" or otherwise be managed by someone. By seeing how they perform in a small run-down boatyard with maybe a few average vessels and one small yacht, perhaps even saying none of those are "included", or even saying none of it is "included" and it's just an hourly/per-task job... you remove any factors that would affect the performance and passion of the person who you may potentially wish to carry on your life's work.
It makes for more than just a heartwarming story of "young man with a love for the sea and sailing, spends life savings to buy small shipyard, ends up inheriting multi-million dollar seaport" it's now damn near the only way to do things. The only way to make sure your passion in life is preserved and will live on, and not just the money it accrued.
Does this apply directly to your scenario? It would appear not. But you never know.
How can something that leads to success in the world be morally wrong?
That's assuming that rules apply equally to all people, regardless of their status and power.
That's not how the world works.
The assumption that there is such a thing as objective morality (which would have the same type of function as the rules in chess) tends to lurk in the back of discussions about morality.
You're going to argue that, say, becoming the president of the most powerful country in the world is not success?
No, I'm expecting to deduce what EM is, based on known facts about the world.
The world generally sides with whoever is better off, and this can be either the mugger or the muggee.
If a rich and powerful person beats up a poor person, the rich and powerful person is deemed as having done nothing wrong.
If it's the poor person who beats up the rich one, it's the poor person who is the criminal.
Don't forget that the police was invented to protect the upper class from the lower class.
I have lived in several homes around cities where the neighbors are concerned and upright citizens. Where they are considerate and mindful of how they behave. Where homes are safe and if there are any problems they can be settled peacefully following a discussion.
There are many safe and happy places like this all over the globe and in history.
Given this state of affairs, the only conclusion is that morality works and is evolutionarily advantageous.
Actually I don't make any conclusion based on my own experience or examples culled from elsewhere. How people behave in the world is a separate matter for whether or not morality or some code of conduct is useful. There are better and worse places to live and if people follow a code of conduct life tends to be better for all.
Sounds like your life is challenging and I don't minimize the risk you face.
Too, if you haven't noticed (I have), morality makes so much sense that some, if not all, people have come to believe in "good for the sake of good". It is/has become a reason unto itself - it needs no argument to hold it in place, it's self-justifiying.
If you have a group of people who behave morally (what is, in some traditional sense considered "moral"), and then comes one who doesn't behave morally, chances are he'll get away with it, because the "good guys", being the "good guys" that they are, won't be able to do anything against him. That is, unless they give up on their goodness.
Human goodness is weak and easy to exploit.
I'd like to believe that, very much so.
But then Blondie Orange wins the elections, and one has to wonder what it is that really counts in life.
Inertia, fear of conflict, minding one's own business, physical exhaustion due to overwork and stress.
I'm not convinced that people set out to try to "maintain peace". For that, they would actually have to know what brings about peace. Rather, I think peace is one of those states that are essentially byproducts of other things.
It's not up to me to decide how much 2 and 2 is.
If there is objective morality, it cannot be up to me to decide what it is.
*tempted to do a feminist pun*
By your logic above, can a good man do bad things?
Quoting baker
Really, fear? Fear of what? As I mentioned the police forces are spread thin over large urban settlements - it would be quite easy, in my humble opinion, for people to, as you said,
Quoting baker
I don't think you're giving good people due credit.
Like I said:
Quoting baker
The prospective conflict isn't just with the police, but primarily with owners who are willing to protect their property and their lives.
Quoting TheMadFool
But who are the good people? You want to argue that, say, Blondie Orange is not a good person?
No, that's one and the same solidity.
However, there are two sides to this coin. As I mentioned earlier, the opportunities to engage in criminal activity and then being able to, in your words, "...get away with it..." are aplenty given the citizen to police ratio is huge in most places around the world and yet peace and calm are more the norm than the exception.
I concede that fear does play a role, probably a huge one, in morality but I don't agree that it's the only reason that we're, society is, good.
I said:
Quoting baker
I said:
Quoting baker
"Getting away with it" does not refer only to not being prosecuted for one's crime by the official legal system. More than that: it refers also to the people one has harmed not taking any action of vigilante justice against one on their own.
In my original list, fear of conflict was just one of the items listed.