Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tony V's avatar

We are not non-consequentialist, we are meta-consequentialist.

That is we are playing an imperfect, impartial information game. Not everyone has the same level of finiteness in their analysis of outcomes, so we resort to proxy heuristics. In network theory, the level of reputation or memory-depth layer or Theory-of-mind-of-mind-of-mind becomes the scope over which we find ourselves having conscience rules like never kill-- because we lived over centuries to be in hierarchies, and we trust authority, or there is a bunch of less valuable and more valuable people but we can use comparative advantage, and indirectly benefit better instead of wasting energy trying to kill each other the moment someone becomes one unit of less worthiness in a strict utilitarian sense for whatever metric. There is intra-group, inter-group and inter-individual dynamics at play that all unify to codify such rules and it has mainly to do with not defecting, or situationally defecting in an adaptive social sense. That said we do so well, that we consume all the resources and more intelligent people, especially psychopaths that bypass this empathy gradient of closeness can do even better because the degree or extent to which you depend on the extrinsic value of a group or individual is inversely proportional to the extent of innate extrinsic value you possess-- that is if you can do everything, you do not need others at all, especially if the distribution of energy of all tasks can be done by a set of technologies or tools you invented. Although humans have finite time and specializations.

There is no such thing as a non-consequentialist rule, it is merely an approximative meta-heuristic that was abstracted away to work better than usual like a phobia from falling from heights. Or deciding the voting age was 18 even when a precocious genius at 12 would have a greater capacity of informational awareness to make better judgements than a low-intelligence 25 year old.

Deception games play an important role in keeping the social entropy low, in terms of strategic ambiguity. This is simply another second-order depth-of-mind rule. It's like tit for tat works well, but it stops working well when white collar crime, or abstracted slow-slavery incrementalism policies are implemented to steal your time/wealth -- you can see all these moral rules are something that is done at the first-order of observable effects-- feeling more cognitive pain for immediate violence than being forced to submit as a slave or being misled into some series of decisions under the guise of an illusion by a more complex and abled schemer. That said there is also descendence-mechanics, where you are just playing against yourself if you inherit that part of the set of social strategies you play against others; like in China, everyone is just lowering their standard of living through, defection-maximizing heuristics "cheating is winning" mentality. The reason we impose variable punishments is the degree of culpability varies with the aptitude of the person to make cognitive judgements, and again we boiled it down to meta-heuristics that are implemented inside our cognition, as most 30 year olds are more longer-term oriented than 6 year-olds at the 99.99 percentile of effect, especially considering we lived in villages and whatnot. If by happenstance everyone was a 6 year old genius tomorrow, we would see evolutionary pressures for allele work overnight and our complex-set of moral judgement rules inoculated from repeated play against ourselves and others would be re-shaped. There is no such thing as a consequentialist-free judgement; like you can claim we say an action is wrong in itself, but it is wrong because historically it led to bad consequences, for the group or the individual, because of the nature of the norm itself and not the action in particular, and the sequences of violative acts is as you say a second-hand form of signalling. Just like the correspondence to proportionality of harm or benefit, free-loading or negligence -- forgiveness and discounted emotions are there because humans cannot infinitely waste their energy on warring eachother or being bothered, and we are just not good at small-scale observations or simple-deception in a perceived high-trust environment due to the regularization schema inside our brains.

Expand full comment
Steven C.'s avatar

"Morality Police" is more accurately "Immorality Police', since it is immorality they are policing. For example in modern western societies it's a crime to steal from charities, but not to refrain from donating to charities. As for the harmful consequences issue; it isn't always necessary to have a clear negative outcome for every instance of an act, because it may be a pattern of behavior that is being discouraged that can be reasonably expected to lead to negative outcomes. Such as incest, underage sex, or public drunkenness. This does mean that such prohibitions should have carefully nuanced punishments; we shouldn't impose the same punishment on two 15 year-olds having sex as on a 30 year-old having sex with a 6 year-old.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts