Could a society survive without morality?

[Chaotic Neutral]

^Sorry about the quote tags, I screwed them up horribly.

[Simon_Jester]

CN, aside from the part where I thought you conceded, the fundamental problem is that most people in real life who lack what we'd call morals have this problem. They get so caught up in how pissed off they are, or how great a right they think they have to whatever they want, that in the absence of a sense of right and wrong they just... ignore consequences. It's one of the reasons that disregard for the consequences of one's actions figures so prominently in diagnoses of psychopathy.

So your saying that without morals people become horribly short-sighted idiots?

I'm saying a huge number of people without morals ARE short-sighted idiots, and a huge number of people are already short-sighted idiots even with morals.

Being less moral doesn't make you smarter, you see. It can even make you dumber. Because it removes automatic blocks that a lot of people have against stupid, self-destructive behavior when the stress hormones are racing and they're in a shitty mood. Very few people remain fully rational and in command of their faculties in the kind of situation where it is even plausible that a fight would start or a crime would be committed.

There are people who would start a lot more fights, except that they feel it would be wrong to haul off and punch someone for no reason. Not "stupid," not "dangerous," wrong. They would feel bad if they hurt others. Remove that aversion to harming other people, and you will get more people starting more trouble when their reptile-brain instincts or their temper runs away with their judgement.

Why would these other officers not likewise take up banditry? Do we now have to make policemen millionaires to keep them at their jobs? How is that different from a protection racket?

Policemen will continue to do their job, or be fired, I see no reason that everyone will immediately go crazy and attack everyone..[/quote]Who will fire them? WHY NOT take up banditry? What makes enforcing the law code a more appealing option to anyone here than just grabbing a sidearm and going a-viking? It's not even a question of them randomly charging out into the street and firing at bystanders. It's that you've given them power to screw over others in more organized ways, while removing the little voice in their heads that tells them not to.

How can you possibly expect that not to have an effect?

PeZook describes really happens in some lower-end third world countries: the police force starts acting like a bandit troop, randomly stopping people and hitting them up for bribes, because they know they can get away with it.

Good thing this isn't a 3rd world country we're talking about.

First World countries don't have magic Civilization Fields that make them immune to these problems. What they have is people who care, and institutions designed to limit the abuses that human beings naturally tend to commit when given power over other humans.

Remove the motivation to keep that system working and suddenly the problems come back.

Also, I think you grossly underestimate the role of personal ethics and honor codes in making police agencies work. Do you have any actual experience with the police?

I try to avoid the PD.

So, no then. Perhaps you might consider actually finding out how they work and what the officers are like before assuming they'd automatically continue to work even when the officers are replaced with sociopaths?

[Junghalli]

The first spontaneous reaction is No. But once I think a bit more I would have to say yes, if you replace morality with terror. It hardly matters if people obey the law because it is the right thing to do or out of fear, as long as they obey some form of society can continue.

On the other hand the thing about trying to control people purely through force and fear is it only works when you have direct power over them, or at least they think you plausibly do. The second it's in their interests and they think they can get away with it they'll disobey you, or turn on you.

It might be possible to impose some sort of order on a society of amoral sociopaths for all I know, but I suspect it'd be a lot harder than trying to control neurotypical humans.

[Akhlut]

But you're not getting punched right now.

I said no morals, I didn't say "idiots".

That doesn't change the fact that amoral people are going to be a lot more likely to get involved in very risky behavior and be a lot more likely to engage in behaviors that might eventually get them caught and killed in retaliation.

You don't need money if you have no morality.

Please state an alternative way of acquiring objects that doesn't have the police involved.

As I explained above, there's no reason for the police to be anything other than predators on people.

They're police. They have guns. They can just take the money from whoever the fuck they want.

No, they are captured or killed by other officers who like getting payed.

Here's exactly what I said in an above reply: And some officers like donuts; why would you need to get paid when you can simply have the baker give you protection donuts? Same with everything else the officer needs/wants. Anyone with a gun has the power to do what they like to the unarmed, and the other people who are armed will get into an arms race. And a shitload of people are going to die as theft becomes widespread and rampant because no one gives a shit.

If they can't tell right from wrong, that's what they'll do, and nobody will care enough to stop them: if anything, their superiors will want a cut, which they will either get or get shot by te underlings.

So they will start a rebellion just for "TEH EVULZ"?

No, they'll start it out of greed; hell, there are known cases of people killing other people over shoes or petty insults, much less one's own livelihood. Hell, in areas of weak central government control (as in traditional pastoralist cultures), it was necessary to be a ruthless, amoral murderer who would kill people at the drop of a hat to keep yourself safe from thieves.

Then the Army will roll in and take the money for themselves, promptly disintegrating once they start fighting over the spoils.

Right....

That's happened often enough with people who actually have some sense of right and wrong, much less in a nation without morals.

CN, aside from the part where I thought you conceded, the fundamental problem is that most people in real life who lack what we'd call morals have this problem. They get so caught up in how pissed off they are, or how great a right they think they have to whatever they want, that in the absence of a sense of right and wrong they just... ignore consequences. It's one of the reasons that disregard for the consequences of one's actions figures so prominently in diagnoses of psychopathy.

So your saying that without morals people become horribly short-sighted idiots?

Given that amorality and inability to comprehend long-term consequences are a part of the diagnostic test for antisocial personality disorder (which used to be known as psychopathy), I'm gonna go ahead and say "yes."

They're police. They have guns. They can just take the money from whoever the fuck they want.

No, they are captured or killed by other officers who like getting payed.

Why would these other officers not likewise take up banditry? Do we now have to make policemen millionaires to keep them at their jobs? How is that different from a protection racket?

Policemen will continue to do their job, or be fired, I see no reason that everyone will immediately go crazy and attack everyone..[/quote]

Because back when morality extended only to the immediate tribe, humans were more than happy to slaughter each other over minor conflicts. Without morality, there is no other value to humans than what they can offer to you personally, and if they're worth more dead than alive, well, why let them live?

Actually, what PeZook describes really happens in some lower-end third world countries: the police force starts acting like a bandit troop, randomly stopping people and hitting them up for bribes, because they know they can get away with it.

Good thing this isn't a 3rd world country we're talking about.

What would keep them from descending into something worse than the 3rd world?

[Alyrium Denryle]

CN. You are an idiot(Your username, I add, is otherwise known as Chaotic Stupid, so this fits). I will not be bothered to address your specific points. Instead, I will simply hit you with a wall of text that I expect you to slog through.

So, we humans are social animals. We are specifically adapted to live in groups. We have an advanced social intelligence, and the ability to think in the abstract and innovate tools to solve problems. But that is not the question you need to ask yourself. You need to ask yourself how these groups are maintained. After all, a person who sacrifices for the good of the group will not reproduce as much as individuals who do no such thing, and will leave less of his genes (I am using he as a neutral pronoun) in the next generation. Eventually natural selection will remove such individuals from the population.

To put this in a fun thought experiment, you know the old wives tale about lemmings jumping off cliffs to control the population? Who leaves the most offspring? The lemming that jumps, or the lemming that says "Screw you sucka!"? Obviously it is the later.

The first step is ecological constraints that force group living. I wont bother describing those in too much detail, but it can start any number of ways from increasing foraging efficiency to anti-predator defense. The next step is family groups.

In a family unit (like a small tribe) everyone is closely related. So by helping out the group you also increase your own fitness. Individuals who do not help will not have their genes as well represented in the next generation and they get selected out of the system.

This is mediated by empathy and social bonds, because humans lack a kin recognition system that consists of anything other than "You were around when I grew up, and look vaguely like me." Empathy and social bonds are key components in all human morality. As a result, if morality goes, so do those things. Family groups, the basis of all human social functioning, collapse. Mothers no longer bond with their children and strangle them because they are annoying when they cry, fathers no longer care a sufficient amount to teach their sons vital skills, or protect their daughters from the rape that in such a society will run rampant.

The sick part is, no one will care about these things, but will still need them for their own mental development. Twisted isn't it? So, no one will be affectionate toward their children, but said children will desperately need their affection of their parents even if all of their physical needs are required. Even sociopaths that already exist (which is what you will be creating, but even current sociopaths recognize the need to pass as normal in society... most of the time, because the group will punish them if they dont. More on that later) need this as infants.

You know what happens to rhesus macaques that are denied love? They go insane. Batshit fucking crazy. If given a choice between a wireframe "mother" that provides food, and starving to death on a "mother" made of terry cloth, all macaques will cling to that terry cloth mother until they are at the brink of starvation. Oh the things researchers could get away with back in the '60s!

Lets ignore this for a second, and move up a level of organization.

Now, eventually because inbreeding is bad, resources are limiting, etc individuals have to disperse to new groups. Eventually the groups become genetically heterogenous (and a bit bigger). This means that, while you have your family, the social group as a whole is much bigger,and not everyone is related. This means that a cheater is no longer hurting himself, but is hurting everyone else both directly through not contributing, and indirectly for damaging the groups ability to compete with other groups.

You can think of a situation like this as being like an office where one guy never works and drags everyone else down with him. What has to happen? Well in most groups a power hierarchy develops. A dominant individual(the boss) will depress the fitness of the person socially cheating. This individual might do this in a number of ways. He might do it by withdrawing protection from that individual allowing the group to engage in ostracism, or denial of goods and services, or he might simply beat the crap out of him. This entails a cost however on the dominant individual which is offset by access to matings due to high social status and resource appropriation. But who watches the watcher?

As David Sloan Wilson puts it, the ability to pick up and throw rocks was probably the first tool used to force egalitarianism in human social groups. The alpha male cant be too much of an ass without open rebellion.

The problem here, is that these interactions are mediated by morality as well. Those same social bonds that make family units stick together, and for each individual to think the others have worth and value are pretty much the same ones (though the strength is a matter of degree). Ecological constraints forced our social systems that operated in family groups to be extended to larger groups. The evolutionary incentive to cheat however got larger, because the fitness tradeoff became more favorable. As a result, the role of enforcer had to become more specialized, with checks on the enforcers. With the empathy, sense of justice etc that mediate this whole system gone, there is no reason for the whole system not to eat itself. No one feels a duty not to slack off at work out of a sense of responsibility or loyalty to their fellow workers. They each however get pissed off at the others for slacking, because the slacking of others hurts them. Violence will probably ensue because the only thing keeping violence out of the picture now is potential danger to one's self. The boss then comes down and kills one of them to restore his profits. They kill him. Cycle repeats. The system eats itself. Oh, and the workers would not get paid anyway because the boss no longer feels any obligation to his workers, and will end up holding their children ho.... oh wait. They no longer care about their children. No work ever actually gets done. Nevermind.

Lets move up another level of organization and talk about societies.

The first thing you have to remember is that humans usually prioritize short term benefit over long term benefit. The second thing to remember is that unlike ants we do not have access to chemical signals that allow us to know if someone is cheating when we are not looking, there a lot of things in a large society that we cannot easily evaluate. For example, testing standards on medication.

We need a dedicated third party to handle this stuff for us, which we as a society grant the ability to do social policing full time. We subsidize the costs they incur, and via "social contract" (not to equivocate with a legal contract) grant them the authority to do things like set standards, and regulate business etc for our own benefit, and grant the resources to evaluate the things we in our day to day lives cannot (like the efficacy of pharmaceuticals).

Lets take this example, and run with it. There is already a massive problem with corruption in government agencies. All of the sudden in this hypothetical scenario, no one feels any sense of moral duty whatsoever. No one will ever again say "maybe I should not take this bribe". All of the sudden, the standards go away, and pharmaceutical companies start shipping their shit out with no testing. Why? because they stop caring if their customers die. If the costs of testing outweigh the loss of repeat business, no testing gets done. Normally even in the absence of regulation, the consumers would eventually say "That is horrible" because they empathize with the victims and will boycott that company, leading to competition driving that company out of the market. That will no longer occur. Have you read The Jungle? The same thing happened in the meat processing and packing industry prior to regulation, but it was because no one could evaluate food safety. Same problem, different mechanism, and it will happen in every industry, and every sector of government. To say nothing of the lawlessness in the streets because now the people with guns wont even need to pay for goods and services anymore... and the fact that no work involving more than one person will ever ever get done.

[Chaotic Neutral]

OK, I get it now, thanks.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The first thought that went though my head when I saw the thread title was "most every city and town of any size is destroyed by arson". Arson is a way even one person can potentially cause massive destruction, and with no morality you'll have people starting fires all over simply for amusement. Fire's pretty after all, as well as good at destroying things you don't like, and easy to start; the main things stopping that from happening right* now is the reluctance of most people to cause random mass destruction, and that there are people willing to risk their lives to stop the fires that do start. Neither the self restraint nor the willingness to risk oneself against a fire will exist anymore.


*It's not the police; the police can't be everywhere, which they'd have to be to stop someone in some random spot starting a fire. And arson is good at destroying evidence.

[K. A. Pital]

A society full of psychopaths (because that's what is proposed - psychos don't feel a shred of empathy and are highly amoral, they aren't necessarily violent, although some are)? Such a "society" could "survive", but in a very small timeframe it will devolve to a situation far worse than modern Third World nations. The psychos will spend several years killing each other and looting stuff. With the enormous potential for conflict due to every single man being affected... it will be more than a bloodbath. Hell on Earth is a good description.

[Rye]

I said no morals, I didn't say "idiots".

There is no purely rational way to justify caring more about the way things are going to be than the way they are. Remove morality, that is, the mostly unconscious set of learned and automatic processes that govern behaviour, especially social behaviour, and you remove a lot of the base motivations to do anything, recognise the value of anything.

They're only "idiots" in as far as assumptions of the way we ought to behave and succeed. Unfortunately, there is actually very little reason to do a lot of things, or to care about a better tomorrow. Even long term selfishness involves a morality of a sort; the emotional value one attaches to someone else who is not you (yet).

Please state an alternative way of acquiring objects that doesn't have the police involved.

Who's going to contact the police? Why would the police do what they're told?

[Aranfan]

If morality is understood as a system of obligation based on generalized empathy, then I see no reason why getting rid of it would collapse society (understood as a bunch of people associating). Getting rid of particular empathy certainly would, but that's different from getting rid of morality (at least as I understand it).

[Bernkastel]

Well, since having the ability to empathise with others is a part of morality, yes it would. By getting rid of morality, you are also getting rid of empathy. If you don't get rid of it, this ability would result in morality continuing to exist. Since the scenario has morality being removed, then empathy is also removed.

Now, without that ability, there would be far less motivation for people to care about the harm that their actions might cause to others. After all, in this scenario, everyone in this random first world country has just lost the ability to identify emotionally with others along with all other systems of morality. Overall, that would obviously make it difficult for society, or as you put it "a bunch of people associating" to function, since the people in those groups would have lost the ability to empathise or care about the other members of the group and therefore would no longer have a problem in committing actions that harmed the other members of the group.

[Akhlut]

If morality is understood as a system of obligation based on generalized empathy, then I see no reason why getting rid of it would collapse society (understood as a bunch of people associating). Getting rid of particular empathy certainly would, but that's different from getting rid of morality (at least as I understand it).

Morality involves assigning value to other people, and that that value is intrinsic. By removing other people's inherent value as beings unto themselves, people only have value to one's self in terms of what they can provide for you. To that end, the only reason one wouldn't engage in murder is that someone's value to you is more if they are alive than if they are dead. Similarly, the only reason to not commit crimes against people is because their value is higher if you don't commit crimes against them than if you did.

[Sarevok]

Laws are made and enforced by men. Witout morality they are nothing more than words on paper. Case in point - most third world countries, Laws exist but they are not followed because the populace as a whole has serious moral failings.

[Bottlestein]

most third world countries, Laws exist but they are not followed because the populace as a whole has serious moral failings.

You can, of course, back this claim up?
Especially amusing coming from someone from Bangladesh - a country whose inception is due to a "Third World Country", i.e. India version 1971, trying to enforce legal/moral standards.

[Aranfan]

Well, since having the ability to empathise with others is a part of morality, yes it would. By getting rid of morality, you are also getting rid of empathy. If you don't get rid of it, this ability would result in morality continuing to exist. Since the scenario has morality being removed, then empathy is also removed.

Now, without that ability, there would be far less motivation for people to care about the harm that their actions might cause to others. After all, in this scenario, everyone in this random first world country has just lost the ability to identify emotionally with others along with all other systems of morality. Overall, that would obviously make it difficult for society, or as you put it "a bunch of people associating" to function, since the people in those groups would have lost the ability to empathise or care about the other members of the group and therefore would no longer have a problem in committing actions that harmed the other members of the group.

Not quite. The ability to empathize is part of morality. Yet it is only part, and you could get rid of morality by removing obligation, without getting rid of empathy.

If morality is understood as a system of obligation based on generalized empathy, then I see no reason why getting rid of it would collapse society (understood as a bunch of people associating). Getting rid of particular empathy certainly would, but that's different from getting rid of morality (at least as I understand it).

Morality involves assigning value to other people, and that that value is intrinsic. By removing other people's inherent value as beings unto themselves, people only have value to one's self in terms of what they can provide for you. To that end, the only reason one wouldn't engage in murder is that someone's value to you is more if they are alive than if they are dead. Similarly, the only reason to not commit crimes against people is because their value is higher if you don't commit crimes against them than if you did.

Precisely. You are worth more to me alive because you have unique views that I very much doubt I would be able to come up with on my own, and I would not deny myself your insight.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not quite. The ability to empathize is part of morality. Yet it is only part, and you could get rid of morality by removing obligation, without getting rid of empathy.

No. You cant. Empathy is the cause, not a part of, morality and ethics.

[Aranfan]

Not quite. The ability to empathize is part of morality. Yet it is only part, and you could get rid of morality by removing obligation, without getting rid of empathy.

No. You cant. Empathy is the cause, not a part of, morality and ethics.

I refuse any obligation society puts on me not to stab kittens. Rather, I don't stab kittens because I don't like to see them in pain. Society's opinion doesn't enter into it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not quite. The ability to empathize is part of morality. Yet it is only part, and you could get rid of morality by removing obligation, without getting rid of empathy.

No. You cant. Empathy is the cause, not a part of, morality and ethics.

I refuse any obligation society puts on me not to stab kittens. Rather, I don't stab kittens because I don't like to see them in pain. Society's opinion doesn't enter into it.

That, moron, is because you empathize with the kitten and its suffering. Any obligation society places on you is an outgrowth of that applied across humans to form social groups. See my lengthy post above.

[Aranfan]

I have now read your lengthy post above, which I hadn't read previously.

No. You cant. Empathy is the cause, not a part of, morality and ethics.

I refuse any obligation society puts on me not to stab kittens. Rather, I don't stab kittens because I don't like to see them in pain. Society's opinion doesn't enter into it.

That, moron, is because you empathize with the kitten and its suffering. Any obligation society places on you is an outgrowth of that applied across humans to form social groups. See my lengthy post above.

That's because you are not differentiating between particular empathies and a generalized empathy that entails obligations. I say that society could survive without the later but would die quickly without the former. You can get rid of morality, as I defined it, by just getting rid of obligation. You could also get rid of it by getting rid of empathy, but I don't see how an obligation to society not to stab kittens follows from my desire not to see kittens get stabbed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's because you are not differentiating between particular empathies and a generalized empathy that entails obligations.

That is because there is no differentiation to make. Which one you need depends on the scale at which your society exists. If you are defining society as a tribe then you have a point. A modern first world nation needs much more generalized senses of empathy, or it falls victim to dissolutive social cheating such as seen in my exposition regarding the pharmaceutical industry.

Moreover, the two have the same neurophysiological basis. As a result, getting rid of the one will often reduce your ability to have the other.

You could also get rid of it by getting rid of empathy, but I don't see how an obligation to society not to stab kittens follows from my desire not to see kittens get stabbed.

Because (almost) everyone has the same feelings regarding the stabbing of kittens, and they form that into a social more and will punish you if you do not obey. Why? Because your willingness to stab kittens is highly predictive of your willingness to do other things like stab babies. How pray tell will a society larger than a family group survive if your empathies are not generalized to the population such that you feel obliged not to harm people you dont personally interact with?

[Aranfan]

That's because you are not differentiating between particular empathies and a generalized empathy that entails obligations.

That is because there is no differentiation to make. Which one you need depends on the scale at which your society exists. If you are defining society as a tribe then you have a point. A modern first world nation needs much more generalized senses of empathy, or it falls victim to dissolutive social cheating such as seen in my exposition regarding the pharmaceutical industry.

Moreover, the two have the same neurophysiological basis. As a result, getting rid of the one will often reduce your ability to have the other.

I don't interact with those people, why should I care? Perhaps what happens to them effects me? Yet I cannot watch the watchman who is two states over.

You could also get rid of it by getting rid of empathy, but I don't see how an obligation to society not to stab kittens follows from my desire not to see kittens get stabbed.

Because (almost) everyone has the same feelings regarding the stabbing of kittens, and they form that into a social more and will punish you if you do not obey. Why? Because your willingness to stab kittens is highly predictive of your willingness to do other things like stab babies. How pray tell will a society larger than a family group survive if your empathies are not generalized to the population such that you feel obliged not to harm people you dont personally interact with?

If there were to happen to be a social obligation to stab kittens, I still wouldn't do it. Someone who would stab kittens is not me. Also, how the heck could I harm people I don't personally interact with? Harming someone is a very personal interaction.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't interact with those people, why should I care? Perhaps what happens to them effects me? Yet I cannot watch the watchman who is two states over

If society at large had your attitude, it would collapse. Thankfully, you are but one sociopathic randroid.

Also, how the heck could I harm people I don't personally interact with? Harming someone is a very personal interaction.

Have you been paying attention to how the US economy has been in a state of freefall, and why? Have you ever studied the history of certain transitional periods in human society? You do not have to stab someone to harm them. If you are in the risk analysis department of a car company and you discover a defective brake pad in a model, and you decide not to recall because it will cost the company too much money, you will harm people.

[Aranfan]

I don't interact with those people, why should I care? Perhaps what happens to them effects me? Yet I cannot watch the watchman who is two states over

If society at large had your attitude, it would collapse. Thankfully, you are but one sociopathic randroid.

Ayn Rand is a moron, and I would ask you not to associate me with her ilk. For one, I'm a socialist.

Also, how the heck could I harm people I don't personally interact with? Harming someone is a very personal interaction.

Have you been paying attention to how the US economy has been in a state of freefall, and why? Have you ever studied the history of certain transitional periods in human society? You do not have to stab someone to harm them. If you are in the risk analysis department of a car company and you discover a defective brake pad in a model, and you decide not to recall because it will cost the company too much money, you will harm people.

That would be because I am, personally, breaking the trust between the costumers and the company. In my role as a company man, I do interact with them, because the company interacts with them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That would be because I am, personally, breaking the trust between the costumers and the company. In my role as a company man, I do interact with them, because the company interacts with them.

You are moving your goalposts fuckstick

[Aranfan]

That would be because I am, personally, breaking the trust between the costumers and the company. In my role as a company man, I do interact with them, because the company interacts with them.

You are moving your goalposts fuckstick

I shall ignore the personal attack, and ask how I am doing so.