Clarifying Universally Preferable Behavior and Its Limits
Regarding this post by Stefan Molyneux
1) Every group varies in genetic ability, geography, resources, neighbors, group strategy, grammar of it’s traditions, norms, values, in its institutional sequence of development (anchoring), degree of institutional success, degree of development, and degree of trust in one another.
2) As such while negative morality “Impose no costs on the demonstrated interests of others that would provoke retaliation from mild to severe in order to preserve the returns on cooperation, trust, and resulting economic social and political velocity.” - the positive morality results in a portfolio of trade offs the population has evolved in order to maintain cooperation given their constraints.
3) Thus when Stefan says ‘universally preferable morality’ he is and can only be referring to negative morality. While ‘particularly preferable morality’ or “positive morality” varies substantially between sex, class, polity, ethnicity, civilization and race.
4) I face this same natural confusion when I discuss our Natural Law (of cooperation). While like Stefan I would favor the anglo < scandinavian < germanic < mediterranean < ancient greco-roman < corded ware < west indo european evolutionary (pastoralist) arc. I would do so not just because its my culture but because it’s the most evolved ethic for the highest trust people outside of the utterly homogeneous Japanese. And because of the english invention of the modern rule of lw state is the closest to the aristotelian optimum promised millennia ago, and might have occurred earlier without the jewish > christian > muslim destruction of the civilizations of teh ancient world.
I am not saying every polity can do such a thing as universally positive morality. I’m saying its a benchmark optimum against which we can jusde our differences in progress and condition.
Stefan could make the argument that I am saying the same thing - universally preferable - at a different scale. I would counter that I am saying what is preferable is what is possible. And the differences in mean and median genetic difference in neotenic evolution, genetic load, demonstrated intelligence, sex difference and distribution of those differences between the sexes, class differences and class sizes, mean different things are possible in different populations. In other words I do not make the error of idealism. Most of the world is below the 85iq threshold for what we consider responsibility in a modern economy, and a study of the rate at which reason decays under 105 is rather frightening, There is a cliff effect in the high nineties and it becomes impossible to construct a first world participatory government with a modern economy below that threshold and through immigration the west is demonstrating it is approaching that state. Not just in voting. In everything,
Morality requires prediction to both identify ignorance error bias and deceit, as well as permutations on opportunities and how to exploit them. Without the ability to identify risks and seize opportunities trust must decline, and so must norms degrade to meet the trust limit possible in the polity.
SEE: How Demonstrated intelligence declines
https://
x.com/curtdoolittle/
status/2038695778198446280
…
Cheers
CD
Originally posted on X:
