# Artificial Morality-Better Than No Morality At All **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190 "2010-10-14T23:17:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/21 "2010-10-15T21:47:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@RitterSport](#): > > > > For example, if the dominant intelligent species on this planet were descended from lions instead of [apes][our pre-cursor, since we are apes][whatever is the proper way to say this], would it be considered moral to, for example, take over a family by killing or chasing away the current head of the family, and then killing all the babies? That seems ridiculous to us, but you know what, chimps don’t do that either. If we were descended from lions, though, that sort of behavior could result in complete acceptance (“how else could Leo expect Elsa to become fertile?” “Did you hear about Simba? He took over Scar’s pride and then didn’t kill Scar’s babies. I think that kind of behavior is deviant and Simba shouldn’t be allowed to marry Nala.”). > > Actually I somewhat disagree. Not that they might develop such a system, but that it would be moral even for them. On the contrary, I think moral behavior for the lionfolk would be for them to overcome their instincts and develop a system that doesn’t involve killing competitor males and children then raping the females, because no one involved wants that to happen to them. No one wants to be the male who gets killed, or has his/her children killed, or to be raped; that behavior is against their collective self interest. While I agree with much of your post, **DT** , I have a slight problem with describing the coitus of lionesses with a lion who has taken over their tribe as _rape_. I don’t think the term is meaningful for a non-sapient species, and I’m not convinced lions are sapient. I could be wrong about the latter, I freely admit. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/22 "2010-10-15T22:03:54Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > While I agree with much of your post, **DT** , I have a slight problem with describing the coitus of lionesses with a lion who has taken over their tribe as _rape_. I don’t think the term is meaningful for a non-sapient species, and I’m not convinced lions are sapient. Well, we are talking about sapient descendants of lions, not real world lions. Lion-women smart enough to know that the male mating with them killed their children. For that matter, smart enough to form a mob, kill him and leave his crucified body as a warning to others. The more I think about it, the less I think that a society where one male brutally lords it over a large number of females is likely to last past the Paleolithic. It’s not like humans, where it was a matter of males plural lording it over females; it would be a matter of one against many, and that tends to turn out badly for the one. For that matter, sooner or later it would occur to a male to try to convince his females that if they fight with him no male will survive any attempt to take over the pride and therefore won’t kill their babies. A lion type society doesn’t strike me as one that would survive participants who were capable of thinking and talking; it is set up so everyone loses. Even the dominant males since they can’t be dominant forever. ---
**Author:** ![Bad\_Astronaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Bad\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/23 "2010-10-15T22:23:08Z")
I’ve been reading Sam Harris’ new book on morality and I think he has very interesting things to say on this issue. To boil it down to a few bullet points: -Morality hinges solely on the well-being of conscious creatures (particularly humans) -The well-being of a conscious creature depends on facts about the state of the creature’s brain and the environment it finds itself in. -It’s possible to investigate these facts, therefore it’s possible for there to be a science of morality that is not based on instinctual behaviours or current cultural practices. Clearly some moral codes produce more overall well-being than others, and by investigating these differences we can learn more about “true” morality. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/24 "2010-10-15T22:31:03Z")
**Bad Astronaut** , i’ve been thinking about reading Harris’ book. I saw him on _The Daily Show_ recently, and while it’s clear that he’s a smart guy and has some good ideas, i found his own explanation of his book’s argument in that interview to be completely unconvincing. It could be that he suffered from the necessarily abbreviated and simplistic format of the interview itself, but his explanation of his book’s main point seemed incredibly reductionist and seemed to rest on the rather problematic assumption that we can not only reach a universal notion and a quantification of what constitutes well-being, but that we can get everyone to agree about whether reaching greater well-being justifies certain moral codes. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/25 "2010-10-15T22:37:50Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > **Bad Astronaut** , i’ve been thinking about reading Harris’ book. > > I saw him on _The Daily Show_ recently, and while it’s clear that he’s a smart guy and has some good ideas, i found his own explanation of his book’s argument in that interview to be completely unconvincing. It could be that he suffered from the necessarily abbreviated and simplistic format of the interview itself, but his explanation of his book’s main point seemed incredibly reductionist and seemed to rest on the rather problematic assumption that we can not only reach a universal notion and a quantification of what constitutes well-being, but that we can get everyone to agree about whether reaching greater well-being justifies certain moral codes. I’ve also been reading Harris’ book, The Moral Landscape, and I recommend it. I didn’t see the Daily show interview, but it would be hard to get the arguments he’s making into the time span Stewart normally allots. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/26 "2010-10-15T22:39:44Z")
> [@Bad\_Astronaut](#): > > It’s possible to investigate these facts, therefore it’s possible for there to be a science of morality that is not based on instinctual behaviours or current cultural practices. I haven’t read the book, but discounting our moral instincts seems like a recipe for disaster. It’s sort of like coming up with a perfect economic system that only functions if everybody rationally stops being selfish. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/27 "2010-10-15T22:44:59Z")
**Hamster King** Harris isn’t discounting our moral instincts, he’s more pointing out that in morality, as in many things, our instincts aren’t necessarily always right. He’s also arguing against moral relativism, which I loudly applaud him for. ---
**Author:** ![Bad\_Astronaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Bad\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/28 "2010-10-15T22:54:52Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > **Bad Astronaut** , i’ve been thinking about reading Harris’ book. > > I saw him on _The Daily Show_ recently, and while it’s clear that he’s a smart guy and has some good ideas, i found his own explanation of his book’s argument in that interview to be completely unconvincing. It could be that he suffered from the necessarily abbreviated and simplistic format of the interview itself, but his explanation of his book’s main point seemed incredibly reductionist and seemed to rest on the rather problematic assumption that we can not only reach a universal notion and a quantification of what constitutes well-being, but that we can get everyone to agree about whether reaching greater well-being justifies certain moral codes. As far as well being, he draws an analogy with the concept of ‘health’. There is no exact definition and there may be disagreements about certain aspects, but there are many propositions for which pretty much everyone can agree that one state is healthier than another. It’s still possible to have a science focused on improving health (medicine) without having a bulletproof definition of health. As to your second point, he talks a lot in the book about consensus and how people want to apply a different standard of agreement for morality than they do in other scientific areas. A consensus can exist despite many dissenting viewpoints. Plus, in other areas a lack of consensus is seen as indicating the more data is needed, not that the question is fundamentally unanswerable. He also points out that there could be a consensus among ‘moral experts’ that the public in general does not agree with. This would be parallel to the consensus among biologists concerning evolution by natural selection, which a large swath of America disagrees with. This does not make the ideas invalid. Anyway, he certainly elaborates on his ideas with plenty of detail and addresses many potential objections. It’s worth a read if you’re interested in the topic. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/29 "2010-10-15T23:40:26Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > If there is no natural, absolute morality, then there is no natural, absolute “better than.” That may certainly be the case. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The basic problem with your idea I think is that lions aren’t alien enough, at least when it comes to the consequences of the behavior you are talking about. They still want to live, they feel pain, they care for their offspring. You could be right, of course. It’s difficult to separate what seems right because we evolved that way from what is objectively right, if there is such a thing. However, there are societies today where powerful men have multiple wives, where women are treated not all that differently from lionesses, and so on. It’s hard to argue that some form of that kind of society would never get off the ground, since we have some similar forms today (not as extreme, of course). How about ants? They are pretty alien. In a sapient ant society, slavery would be run of the mill. I guess one could argue that, while the queen could be highly intelligent, the workers (or drones? I’m no entomologist) would remain mentally inferior or naturally submissive, or something. You seem to be defining “moral” as that which causes the least amount of suffering or promotes the most happiness. But, that’s a Vulcan view of morality. I think that most humans would not consider it moral to, for example, push one person in front of a train in order to save three people (or whatever the example from that recent study was). I feel like we’re really hijacking this thread, though, so I guess I’ll leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/30 "2010-10-15T23:53:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, we are talking about sapient descendants of lions, not real world lions. Lion-women smart enough to know that the male mating with them killed their children. > > For that matter, smart enough to form a mob, kill him and leave his crucified body as a warning to others. The more I think about it, the less I think that a society where one male brutally lords it over a large number of females is likely to last past the Paleolithic. It’s not like humans, where it was a matter of males plural lording it over females; it would be a matter of one against many, and that tends to turn out badly for the one. For that matter, sooner or later it would occur to a male to try to convince his females that if they fight with him no male will survive any attempt to take over the pride and therefore won’t kill their babies. > > A lion type society doesn’t strike me as one that would survive participants who were capable of thinking and talking; it is set up so everyone loses. Even the dominant males since they can’t be dominant forever. I think what would happen instead is that some lion group would mutate either in the genetic or meme sense to ceremonially neuter the beta males instead of killing them. They would then be available to support their relatives by hunting or even developing technology. Tribal structures would no doubt grow so that they would be honored, and lionesses could mate without any feeling of oppression. In fact these neutered males could be the risk takers: explorers and warriors, since their fate does not affect the genetic pool of the population. And as far as morality went, mating with the genetically superior male would be considered moral, and our society where females are excluded from access to “superior” men through monogamy would be considered foolish, and forcing breeding with inferior stock considered immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/31 "2010-10-16T00:27:12Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > So even if that was true if artificial morality bring more stability than no morality than it is better. Is security better than freedom? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/32 "2010-10-16T00:46:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > > > So even if that was true if artificial morality bring more stability than no morality than it is better. > > Stability seems to be your most important criteria in determining how good a society or an idea is. How much have you examined this assumption? Stability in most cases reduces violence and maintains order and prosperity. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/33 "2010-10-16T00:48:57Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > > > So even if that was true if artificial morality bring more stability than no morality than it is better. > > Is security better than freedom? Ancient Chinese tyrants think so. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/34 "2010-10-16T00:48:59Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > > > So even if that was true if artificial morality bring more stability than no morality than it is better. > > Is security better than freedom? Yes in most circumstances. If for instance 90% of a nation were uneducated mobs under the sway of demagogues a rational dictatorship would work better. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/35 "2010-10-16T00:57:10Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > The basic problem with your idea I think is that lions aren’t alien enough, at least when it comes to the consequences of the behavior you are talking about. They still want to live, they feel pain, they care for their offspring. > > You could be right, of course. It’s difficult to separate what seems right because we evolved that way from what is objectively right, if there is such a thing. However, there are societies today where powerful men have multiple wives, where women are treated not all that differently from lionesses, and so on. It’s hard to argue that some form of that kind of society would never get off the ground, since we have some similar forms today (not as extreme, of course). However, there is an important difference; with humans (like chimps\*), males are the ones naturally prone towards organization. Women can organize of course, but it isn’t instinctive with them. Just look at basic groups like street gangs; males get together in alliances, females are usually just the hangers-on. Males have typically run society because almost always any dispute between the genders boiled down to one or a few women against many men. Women finally successfully fought for their rights when they gathered together in large organizations and eventually a social movement; when it was finally many women against many men, they eventually got their way. Lion-people would have the opposite dynamic; females are the organized hunters, the males are the ones with the trouble forming alliances. > [@RitterSport](#): > > How about ants? They are pretty alien. In a sapient ant society, slavery would be run of the mill. I guess one could argue that, while the queen could be highly intelligent, the workers (or drones? I’m no entomologist) would remain mentally inferior or naturally submissive, or something. Actually I suspect the opposite; the idea that the queen is “in charge” is just a bad analogy to human societies. If anything the workers and soldier would be smart and the queen would be stupid; she’s an egg machine after all, while the workers actually work. As for slavery being run of the mill maybe, maybe not. Real ants practice “slavery” after all. On the other hand a sapient ant-person might be too dangerous to enslave depending on how their loyalty to the hive works; they might be prone to wait until the work possible moment then strike out in the most destructive way possible at the enslaving hive, even at the cost of their own death. “Obey or die” works better against creatures that value their own lives after all. > [@RitterSport](#): > > You seem to be defining “moral” as that which causes the least amount of suffering or promotes the most happiness. But, that’s a Vulcan view of morality. More of a collective one. Morality is in part a collection of rules against things that none of us want to happen to us, and which we are willing to forswear doing to others if it means we never suffer such ourselves. A sort of social contract. No one wants to be murdered, or robbed, or enslaved; therefore murder, theft and slavery are immoral. - Bonobo females, unlike chimps DO form alliances and are therefore not nearly as poorly treated by their males as female chimps are. A female chimp abused by a male is typically on her own; a a male bonobo that abuses a female is likely to be mobbed by angry female allies of the abused one. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/36 "2010-10-16T01:18:49Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Stability in most cases reduces violence and maintains order and prosperity. This is, it seems to me, completely ass-about. It’s meaningless to say that stability _causes_ a reduction in violence, or an increase in order and prosperity. Rather, order and prosperity, and a lack of violence, are some of the symptoms or characteristics or causes of stability. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/37 "2010-10-16T01:41:03Z")
A stable social order can be enforced brutally and keep a society impoverished, anyway. Admittedly only the very worst social orders are worse than outright anarchy, but that’s a very low hurdle. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/38 "2010-10-16T02:26:31Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Stability in most cases reduces violence and maintains order and prosperity. Yes, but this is an artificial stability, usually with an undercurrent of rebellion and increasing harsh dictatorship tendencies. Real stability really comes from an open society, through peace and prosperity. I guess the question is, is an artificial stability better than no stability at all? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/39 "2010-10-16T03:23:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A stable social order can be enforced brutally and keep a society impoverished, anyway. Admittedly only the very worst social orders are worse than outright anarchy, but that’s a very low hurdle. A very low hurdle indeed. IMHO that’s why the “argument from nature” is a fallacy. We not only _can_ do better, it’s _obviously_ better to live in a society that punishes rape and murder. I don’t particularly care about logical arguments for rape and murder. We humans don’t work like that, and it’s a good thing too. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190/40 "2010-10-16T10:43:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, we are talking about sapient descendants of lions, not real world lions. Lion-women smart enough to know that the male mating with them killed their children. > > For that matter, smart enough to form a mob, kill him and leave his crucified body as a warning to others. The more I think about it, the less I think that a society where one male brutally lords it over a large number of females is likely to last past the Paleolithic. It’s not like humans, where it was a matter of males plural lording it over females; it would be a matter of one against many, and that tends to turn out badly for the one. For that matter, sooner or later it would occur to a male to try to convince his females that if they fight with him no male will survive any attempt to take over the pride and therefore won’t kill their babies. Maybe you could even read something like this along the lines of de Sade’s “artificial morality,” from the OP—“true” Lion-person morality might be, “don’t slaughter all the males and rape the Lion-women because it’s causes suffering, it’s harmful to our civilized Lion-society, and by extension our species as a whole,” and “artificial” lion-person morality might be “don’t fight back or resist when the new Lion-king slaughters the males and rapes the females, because the Lion-god orders it thus, and his roar be law.” The latter might bring _order_, or at least make things go quieter, than if Lion-people tried to fight back when things didn’t go their way. But I’ll leave it to the board if that makes it “better,” more “moral,” or what. As much as any of those means anything, of course. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-morality-better-than-no-morality-at-all/557190.md?page=3)