Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA02350 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 12 May 2000 22:54:52 +0100 Message-ID: <391C3804.B4418043@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:57:40 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: New subject: I need help on memes, morality, and abortion. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Since there is one suggestion that we find a new subject on the list, I
wonder if I could introduce the subject of morality. After all, memes
are just about anything that might reside in the brain, so morality is
certainly appropriate since it doesn't reside anyplace else in my body,
least of all my genitals, right?
I am giving some lectures soon and I am trying to clarify some issues
about the nature of morality that has come up in previous lectures, so
I'm hoping that some of you might like to give me some feedback on how
to present the subject.
Here's the basic theme. Morality is a structure of laws that make
cooperation within a particular type of society possible. In other
words, the morality of hunter/gatherers differs from our own because
they need different types of cooperation. From this follows that what
produces changing moral structures is the technology/economy that
changes which forces social changes.
The class pretty much accepts this now because it's very easy to
demonstrate this principle historically because the technology/economy
changes *always* precede the changes in morality.
But here's the problem: when I get up to the present and talk about
current moral dilemmas, they insist that current morality exists by
itself and motivates behavior. For example they insist that Catholic
religion qua religion motivates the abortion issue or Northern Ireland.
BTW, I have some pretty solid evidence that the abortion wars are being
moved by 1 major factor, the amount of face time each side wants to
invest in children. Face time is expressed by two factors a) family
size, and/or b)face time (assuming in a that greater family sizes lead
to more face time). Put face time on a contiuum, and the more face time
is associated with more agreement with anti-abortion sentiment. Choice
of one side or another in the contiuum results in a very different set
of economic options, and it is the resulting economic interests that
clash. (overtime, apartment rental, reciprocal arrangements on baby
sitting, time devoted to work and career, economic means which in turn
decides neighborhoods one can live in AND education for the kids, taxes,
etc. etc. - it's very pervasive). The anti-abortion side has the
quixotic hope that they can force family size up AND people's positive
feelings towards their children. (If you want to disagree on this list,
please try to express it in a different posting than the main subject I
am presenting.)
The class agrees that indeed, face time is a crucial point where
interests clash, but they refuse to connect it with the abortion issue.
They insist it is a purely moral issue.
In part, this resistance is because it is the part of the issue that is
immediately accessible to our consciousness, so it just rises to the
surface with all the intense feelings that come with the issue.
But that is also the problem. Except in formal business transactions, we
all tend to hide from ourselves and others the material motivatoins of
our behavior. I believe it's almost a natural reflex -- I spent a few
years to train it out enough to see past it. So I want to at least be
able to describe the mechanism by which we prefer to use moral
arguments. Here's my ideas on that:
The main goal of social interaction is to create alliances (because of
our necessarily social nature), so we look for things we can agree
strongly on. It has been shown that if a group discusses a controversial
issue, the tendency is drift towards the middle of the group opinion.
It's more complex than that - and I wish I could find the research again
- but that's the general gloss.
It makes sense. If you are in a group and discussing something, you
don't want to be too far out because you could get ostrasized. Instead,
you try to find points of agreement.
Here, I think, is the nub of the problem. Bring up the economic
motivations, and they are quite apt to bring up a lot of differences.
Further, once you bring them up, it can unravel pretty quickly. For
example, have you ever tried to discuss with a roomate of a few years
that you think you have done more for them then them for you in favors?
These are favors that no one talks about because it would indeed do
damage to the relationship just by bringing it up. The reason is that
you don't give the favor right back if there's trust - you may expect
something back in the genrealized future. So when you start tallying up,
you will ultimately end up with an imbalance, even though that's
natural. I think you'll find that that is the general principle. But
some of you may know some others that are operating.
So we settle on agreeing on moral principles with the hopes that strong
agreement will motivate the people involved to be fair.
It's so strong that it's projected into everything. I first noticed it
when Bush was hesitating about going to war in the Gulf. He first tried
to push it on the basis of protecting the oil supply, but not for long.
That was considered "cynical," which, when you think about it, is pretty
weird. After all, Americans do love their cars. But then again, it's not
weird if you see it as a reflexive reaction that gets played over and
over again in people's social life. In fact, what decided everyone was
when someone from the Kuwait embassy got the story spread that Sadam's
army was killing lots of babies in a local hospital so they could take
the incubators. That did it! It was a moral issue that finally propelled
nearly everyone in favor of the war.
But I notice that it happens all the time, and, I think, for the reason
mentioned above.
So -- what do all you memologists think of the morality memes?
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 22:55:21 BST