10 KiB
Are human values stupid and inherently self destructive?
-
Author: u/OrzBrain Fingers to dance, hands to catch, arms to pull*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3ql0ki/are_human_values_stupid_and_inherently_self/
-
Score: 1
-
Created: 2015-10-28T17:06:09
Post:
[removed]
Comments:
u/C_Densem [+7] LessWrong (than usual) (21 minutes later)
I think part of the problem is you're using an incoherent definition of "human values" here. What human values? Self-preservation? Intellect can certainly help with that one. Reproduction? Not universal, and often selects for intellect anyway. Helping people? Being smarter can help define that and also subsequently achieve it.
Also, aside from human values, what else would motivate someone? While it's interesting to explore non-human values, it's also important to remember we don't really have any actual examples of any to go look at - only those which are imagined by particularly creative humans using that intellect given to us by that idiot evolution.
Furthermore, just because you can solve problems more quickly with advanced intelligence doesn't mean the actual execution of said solutions is quick or easy. Even if you can conceive of and design say, a super bacta tank that can grant immortality, it might well take forty years to actually develop and design the thing.
Sorry to counter a ramble with a ramble, but I hope it helps? If not, I'd be happy to expand on anything or address something I missed.
u/OrzBrain [+2] Fingers to dance, hands to catch, arms to pull (36 minutes later)
I'm not sure if human goals and values, collectively the things that make us happy, can be defined very coherently. We have names for various concepts we refer to as these things, but are they correct? Can they be correct? Are goals and values not variable between people? What designed them -- dumb evolution. With a huge fudge factor thrown in to allow for new environments and threats. Goals and values can be wildly divergent, either because of upbringing or because of the way one's brain grew. It might make one person happy to have everyone on earth be stupider than him and worship him. Another might be made happy by occasionally being able to kill someone who bothers him. Another might like to make everyone happy, but only in certain ways.
I think a good way of being able to see this is to look at the stories we like. The strife and hardship and cruelty in these stories are something we like, aren't they? They fulfill some sort of value for us. Perhaps we wouldn't really like to experience these things. Or really inflict them on others. But they fulfill some kind of value. Just like before mechanized war and nuclear weapons, having a "good" war was something that a lot of people considered "fun" and valuable. The horror of war is a modern concept, not something that is a pillar of reality. And consider how flat and sterile and pointless most "after paradise was achieved" descriptions feel. Are the things referenced here simple things that can be reduced to mating, self preservation, and reproduction? Or are human descriptions of human values hopelessly flawed because we are a bunch of kludges that survived, not something that makes sense?
u/C_Densem [+6] LessWrong (than usual) (46 minutes later)
I've always sort of figured that goals and such can be right or wrong about as much as they can be orange or pine-scented. That is to say, it's incoherent to even suggest it.
People go after their goals, the moral rectitude of such is defined by the masses. Success or failure is determined by how well they achieve said goals. Are they correct to want these things? Again, it's a nonsense question. We want what we want, and we can optimize within that space. And yes, some goals and values are ones that the majority of people would consider "wrong" or "evil". But so what?
Also about strife and such in stories - generally (according to my own limited sample size) it's put in there to give the protagonists an opponent. To make them work for their victory instead of just having it. It would be a pretty boring Hero's Journey if it consisted of "and he lived happily on his farm for the rest of time the end"!
We don't value these things in and of themselves though, what we seem to value is earning things. Hence many paradises seeming flat - there's nothing left to go do or earn or strive for. Naturally it's kind of ridiculous, if all our base needs were met, we'd find more things to go do. If there's one thing humans excel at, it's complicating things.
More on this later if you want, I've got to run for now.
u/OrzBrain [+2] Fingers to dance, hands to catch, arms to pull (an hour later)
Also about strife and such in stories - generally (according to my own limited sample size) it's put in there to give the protagonists an opponent. To make them work for their victory instead of just having it. It would be a pretty boring Hero's Journey if it consisted of "and he lived happily on his farm for the rest of time the end"!
I think there's more to it than that. Why do people like villains so much? Why does thinking of the Simurgh in Worm give me a chill of pleasure? Why does personifying death, the destroyer, taking all from us, snuffing out a universe of perception and memory with each person it kills, make conquering death so feel much more attractive than just thinking of it as something very bad that happens to everyone? Is one of our values having or imagining strong enemies? Watch the first Terminator movie. Is not Arnold's character attractive for some reason? Something the director realized, which was why he gets added to the hero's party next movie, with another, even worse villain added, who is also attractive as a character for some reason.
I'm not criticizing particular values, I'm criticizing human values for being slapdash and self contradictory, rather than designed with intelligence.
u/C_Densem [+3] LessWrong (than usual) (2 hours later)
"I'm criticizing human values for being slapdash and self contradictory, rather than designed with intelligence."
I suppose I've just never encountered this tendency you mention. Are you sure it's as widespread as you seem to think it is? Many people hold value-packages that are perfectly self-consistent, often clustered around a core value and built off of such.
Also some people like villains because they're generally powerful and successful - or other positive traits we'd like to emulate. Otherwise they wouldn't serve their story role very well. Also they tend to appeal to "the darker parts of our nature" too, as cliche as that phrase is. Who hasn't wanted to just cut loose and start smacking people now and again? Seeing someone else do it, even a fictional someone, is cathartic. Nobody sane would argue that humans are perfect or even "good" all the time, but that doesn't make us monsters.
u/None [+1] (6 hours later)
I've always sort of figured that goals and such can be right or wrong about as much as they can be orange or pine-scented. That is to say, it's incoherent to even suggest it.
Don't make me invite /r/badphilosophy for a raid. 'Cuz I actually really hate them.
u/eaglejarl [+5] (3 hours later)
Getting a few basics out of the way:
This does not belong on /r/rational. I suggest taking it to a philosophy sub, or to /r/nihilism (if there is such a thing, which there probably is).
I only just had the thought and probably shouldn't be posting.
Any time you find yourself saying this, stop and don't do the X that you think you shouldn't be doing.
Moving on:
The question itself is based on a false premise. Goals are not universally held, so there's no point in talking about "human values" or "human goals."
As to consistency: goals can be consistent or inconsistent based on the person. Most people share a basic package of evolution-installed goals, which you can find on the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy. Not everyone has even these most basic goals, which makes it even harder to have this conversation. These goals are relatively consistent; inasmuch as a person's goals are inconsistent, it's because they have goals that were installed by culture or personal choice. These goals may be inconsistent with the evolutionary goals -- for example, a firefighter likely values protecting others more than personal safety, to the extent that he's willing to run into a high-danger environment like a burning building. These high-level goals might be inconsistent with one another -- someone might have the goals "be honest" and "be rich". When presented with an opportunity for theft, one of those goals has to win over the other. To this I say: so what? People are usually aware of the contradictions, and the choices we make on an individual and culture level help us to self-modify such that the goals become more consistent.
u/None [+1] (6 hours later)
This does not belong on /r/rational[1] . I suggest taking it to a philosophy sub, or to /r/nihilism[2] (if there is such a thing, which there probably is).
You know what? Agreed. Removed.
u/LiteralHeadCannon [+3] (3 hours later)
You are not an alien zoologist. Your values are, in fact, human values!
u/krakonfour [+2] (3 hours later)
Human values are built on human instincts, and those are designed for maximal efficiency in a low population scenario, where food is punctually available and predators chase you on a plain.
Survival of your social unit was primordial.
Today, your family unit in the Western world has been reduced to just yourself.
Stress-release mechanisms and seemingly rationally-motivated decisions work all wrong in our intllectual, technological world.
Reward loops meant to encourage us to vary our diets, play games to improve motor skills and appreciate patterns to help us exploit our environment have been captured, distilled and enhanced by advertisements, drugs and superfood.
Human nature is not inherently bad.
It's just that the very same nature is driving fully conscious minds into analyzing themselves, finding their weaknesses, then using them en masse against their fellow man.
Think about this next time you wonder while people wear 'brighter than white' clothes.
u/None [+1] (6 hours later)
In answer to your title question, no.