EA FORUM POSTS
Simply a question, even if it is only accepted as a reductio ad absurdum. There is an error in the mere consideration of "altruism" as a quantitative contribution of goods (which is the error of all "consequentialism"). The effective work for altruism must be that which has to do with developing alternative psychosocial strategies. Cultural changes do not have to occur massively, like political changes. Cultural evolution does not work like that. Alternative cultural systems based on prosocial values must be built. What traditional religions did in the past in the process of cultural evolution must be put into practice today by making use of alternative cultural resources. If astrology and alchemy evolved into astronomy and chemistry, religion can evolve as well.
Let us explain it by first putting the consequences, so that we can deduce the causes from them... Unequivocal altruism, and therefore the most effective.
https://unequivocal21.blogspot.com/
Civilization is the control of aggression. Altruism is a consequence of it, but altruism is also an unequivocal manifestation of it.
Effective altruism is a social movement that seems to have unique characteristics, which does not replace any previously existing one. By focusing on the rational development of public altruistic behavior, it affects one of the basic elements of prosocial human behavior.
There are many conceptions of the civilizing process, but the most lucid and most concise in its communicative expression follows the simple idea of old Freud: control of instinct. And more properly, of the aggressive instinct, necessary in all social mammals... absolutely useless and counterproductive in Homo sapiens.
The end of the historical period demands the end of political changes and that social changes occur from now on by non-political means. To do this, it is necessary to put in place mechanisms to improve prosocial behavior that allow the internalization of patterns of non-aggressive, altruistic behavior that generate human relationships of complete trust. At the beginning, given their demands, these mechanisms will probably take a similar form, to a certain extent, to Christian communitarianism - a morally influential minority - based on principles of charity, mutual love and non-violence... only based now on a rational examination of human reality informed by the social sciences.
It is doing with religion what was already done at the time with astrology - which gave rise to astronomy - and with alchemy - which gave rise to chemistry. Even what was done with the "natural philosophy" of an Aristotle, which gave rise to Newtonian science.
There are no precedents for a social change movement of this type. Nor was there any for Effective Altruism until a few years ago.
As in all social change movements, the basic principle for its implementation is in the motivational sphere of the individuals who integrate it.
1-Motivation to live in a human (subcultural) environment of zero aggression.
2-Effective altruism
3-Making the world a better place etc (prosocial humanist ideology)
Changing paradigms is very difficult, all new ideas face a lot of resistance (prejudice), but this is the right forum where there is at least a chance that a new idea, which can be very beneficial, is discussed and understood.
The progress of civilisation implies, above all, the control of aggressive behaviour. Economic precariousness, punitive justice, irrational beliefs and ignorance are also direct consequences of (natural) aggressive behaviour, since they could not occur without a direct repression of the (natural) desires of benevolence, altruism, cooperation and empathy.
Civilisation gradually establishes cultural controls on aggression which, in its most evolved form, imply an internalised prosocial morality.
At the present historical moment, we are threatened by the failure of the three main mechanisms of social change on which the civilising process has been based: political change, educational change, and technological change.
Political change seems to have reached its limit with the social market economy within the framework of the ideology of the Enlightenment. Let us say the "social democracy" of the EU. And it does not seem to be expanding.
Educational change was expected to have had a very positive influence by this time - 2025 - with almost eradication of illiteracy, a huge increase in higher education, a large consumption of books and other cultural products, and the incorporation of women into all productive sectors. But we find clear signs of ideological regression in the opposite direction to the Enlightenment.
Technological change has progressively increased world wealth... without having eradicated extreme poverty... and putting the environment at risk.
The EA community should reflect on the need to explore new mechanisms of social change. The expansion of altruism in a quantitative sense is an unequivocal good, but does it take into account the cultural origin of all social changes? And if the EA community itself is part of a cultural change, what could be its long-term consequences? Can we expect a large-scale expansion of effective altruism initiatives without a prior profound change in moral behavior patterns, comparable to those that have already occurred in the past?
Historically, the expansion of altruism has been related to changes in the symbolic expressions of our interpersonal relationships. Concepts such as "charity", "soul", "mercy", "dignity", "freedom", "compassion", "pity" ... have determined different conceptions of virtue and consequent changes in human social behavior.
The popular idea of "Christian virtues" is basically a pattern of prosocial behavior based on the internalization of extreme values of empathy, compassion, altruism and benevolence ... equivalent to the tightest control of aggression. Nobody knows what its limit is. Nobody has ever tried to find out. For a minority of strongly motivated individuals it could be a realistic goal. Let us think not only of the monastic experiences of the past but of more prosaic examples such as "Alcoholics Anonymous" (an association of individuals motivated to change behavior) . The social sciences can provide us today with a wide variety of resources for a rational and exhaustive improvement of human behavior in a prosocial sense.
An experience of life without aggression - and aggression, like "sin", is everywhere in our contemporary lifestyle- could be attractive to a minority of individuals who could thus promote moral evolution in the mainstream world - this is how moral cultural advances have always been historically. None of this would be incompatible with quantitative altruistic contributions... quite the contrary. And the cost-benefit ratio could be the most profitable.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FotvcbDexjYY4gAgY/possible-importance-of-effective-altruism-in-the-civilizing
There are many definitions of economic systems. There is subsistence economy, communal economy, capitalist economy, etc.
For those interested in altruism, it should be noted that altruism itself, as a productive human activity, can be considered a potential large-scale economic system.
Obviously, in capitalism, altruism has little value, even if one considers one's fellow man as a potential producer-consumer of goods in an ever-expanding market. But in socialism, which claims that all economic activity serves the common good, we find ourselves in the field of dilemmas typical of game theory. If we all contribute to the common good out of our own self-interest... we will all try to obtain the greatest good from the system, contributing as little as possible. Therefore, socialism does not really serve the common good. Not, at least, with human beings.
The only economic system that would seem to really tend towards the common good would be one based on human altruism. In this sense, the theory of reciprocal altruism in ethology is of special interest, because animals, unlike human beings, do not act on the basis of reflexive behavior, but rather instinctive behavior. If the system of reciprocal altruism works sometimes in animals, it is not because they consider the convenience of this, but because their instinctive behavior patterns are the result of evolution.
For this reason, evolutionary psychologists do not consider human altruistic behavior based on reciprocity, but rather as an internalized behavior most likely based on culture, not on the basis of biological evolution, as in the case of animals. The typical example is that of the customer who gives a good tip in a restaurant to which he knows he will never return (which excludes reciprocity).
The apparent conclusion of all this is that if we really want an economy for the common good, we need to explore the field of human motivations for real altruistic behavior and the field of emotional - not material - gratifications for real altruistic behavior in our society, and this can only happen based on cultural changes
Today there are many individuals who act altruistically but they do so for different motivations. Obviously, no one acts against their own interests (not even altruistic people) but not all of us are interested in the same gratifications for our behavior. Many act altruistically for prestige reasons and others for religious beliefs. Both motivations are unstable and unpromising.
The most logical thing is to be interested in those people who act altruistically "to feel good about themselves" ... as is the case of the generous customer in the restaurant who will never return (of course, this altruistic act is just a relevant anecdote, but it does not express a systematic pattern of internalized altruistic behavior).
The famous study by Samuel and Pearl Oliner on "altruistic personality" seems to conclude that this type of behavior originates in the family environment, which has a much more acute impact on the formation of effective moral behavior than conventional institutionalized education.
Not all of us can be born into family environments that contribute to forming us emotionally as altruists. And, furthermore, the Oliner study focuses on a situation of extreme social emergency (the Shoah).
If we are motivated to act for a better world, and we know that the best way to do so is to expand an altruistic economic system, the logical conclusion is that the key element in this social change has to be exploring the possibilities of promoting genuine altruistic behavior as a cultural pattern. Altruistic behavior should work on a large scale based on what we already know that can be intentionally modified in the cultural environment. Our emotional reactions of moral nature and our rational capacity to accurately and unprejudicedly evaluate the social environment are all shaped by cultural patterns of behavior. And we can act and participate consciously in cultural evolution by many means.
What has never been carried out is an unprejudiced discussion of cultural change strategies in the sense of moral improvement. We do have educational resources for children and youth, plus the already known mechanisms for the diffusion of moral values within conventional culture. But the unspectacular results of all this have been visible for many years now.
Other types of mechanisms for changing behavior that are already known and very effective, and which have only been used so far by religious movements or violent organizations, have never been practiced for moral improvement - altruistic behavior capable of generating an effective altruistic economic system.
Let us recall the already known effect of religious conversions of "hardened criminals" within prisons, which leads to changes from antisocial to prosocial behavior, and of course, in the opposite direction (from prosocial to antisocial) and unfortunately with much greater ease, the effect of moral brutalization that is carried out in violent organizations such as criminal gangs and even certain military units (in the "Full Metal Jacket" style). These kinds of mechanisms were obviously already explored before the emergence of the academic discipline of psychology, but they have never been systematically used for the development of altruistic behavior in a genuine sense. History shows us some interesting cases regarding the deliberate change from antisocial to prosocial behavior, such as the "spiritual exercises" of the Jesuits... which in turn were inspired by Kempis's "Imitation of Christ". Religious behavior does not necessarily aim at altruistic behavior, but some religions deliberately emphasize aggression control strategies and practices of altruism and empathy. So far, no non-religious ideological movement has focused on this issue.
It makes no sense to be altruistic and at the same time dependent on prejudices and conventions.
Tolstoy was not a philosopher per se, but his moral preaching, social criticism and vision of human reality had a great influence on men and women of his time (for example, this was the case with Ludwig Wittgenstein, Romain Rolland and, of course, Gandhi), and, most likely, represented a lost opportunity for what could have been a much more relevant change.
Between 1880 and 1910, when he was the most famous living writer in the world, the elderly Russian aristocrat preached what was then already called "Christian anarchism" and which he called merely "Christianity". It was something very similar to what the French scholar, atheist and ex-priest Ernest Renan had already formulated: Christianity as "pure religion". That is, a psychological formulation of a lifestyle based on benevolence: altruistic, anti-aggressive, empathetic and affective behavior based on a rational, emotionally internalized conception of the world.
Something contrary to human nature? Not for believers, of course (a "believer" can actually believe anything). Nor for social observers of the time, because there was already evidence that human aggressiveness varies greatly from one culture to another, from one human environment to another (and nobody knows the limit of it). Socialism already existed, whose "Rousseaunian" ideological basis considered that once oppressive social institutions were liquidated (private property, social classes, patriarchy, religion... family?, nationalism?) the human being would return to natural harmony.
Christianity posed the human problem as a struggle between sin and virtue. Like the Buddhists, Stoics and Platonists, it is believed that certain cultural practices could lead to human perfection. Of course, in Tolstoy's time - as today - no Christian congregation preached moral perfection in a practical way: both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church limited themselves to providing a certain "spiritual consolation" through citizen integration into rituals and supernatural promises. Tolstoy undertook research into religion and moral perfectionism which led him to become interested in early Christianity, certain traditional pacifist Christian sects (such as the now famous Amish, but also the Hutterites and the Dukhobori) and the pacifist and liberal American evangelism derived from Quakerism.
Although he never publicly renounced the supernatural, his interest was focused on moral perfectionism from the point of view of pacifism and charity. He accepted atheists and never considered the Gospel to be the word of God or to be followed to the letter (the Quakers did not do this either).
Tolstoyan philosophy was based above all on mastering the passions, loving one's fellow man, non-resistance to evil (or "non-violence" according to his disciple Gandhi) and creating an egalitarian social order without any oppressive institution (without State or government, therefore). As he loved nature and distrusted technology, his ideal would have been a rural humanity of simple life, without poverty or wealth.
Looking at Tolstoyism with a certain perspective, we find a confusing heteronomy with mandates of pacifism, vegetarianism, chastity and detachment from material things. Upon Tolstoy's death in 1910, the movement quickly disappeared, swallowed up by the war madness of 1914 and the Russian revolution of 1917. Tolstoy's main collaborator in his movement, Vladimir Tcherkov, ended his life comfortably within the Soviet system. Gandhi was a step backwards: he was a politician (Tolstoy was anti-political), he was a nationalist (Tolstoy was anti-nationalist) and he was a deep believer in the traditions of the supernatural (Tolstoy was, at best, a "deist"). And, in any case, Gandhi also failed to create a harmonious, non-authoritarian social alternative based on his beliefs in pacifism and charity.
Could it have been different?
The failure of Tolstoyism was due to the practical failure of Tolstoyism as a way of life. Although it inspired prosocial patterns of conduct such as charity (in accordance with the mandate of love and the detachment from material goods), pacifism, vegetarianism and life in nature, it could not generate a viable social model. And we have the testimony that the "Tolstoyan communities" had the same failure as other attempts at "utopian socialism" of the time. And it is surprising that Tolstoyism, despite its emphasis on evangelical behavioral values such as love and humility, did not manage to create a style of prosocial coexistence, a model of behavioral virtue in accordance with such well-known markers.
It could not then be the "pure religion" of which Ernest Renan wrote.
While we do not know much about how Tolstoyan communities were run, we do know that the movement's propaganda texts emphasized not so much heteronomous ethical mandates (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) but rather the psychological aptitude of benevolence. This is in keeping with the Gospel and the use of spiritual qualities that under names like "Grace," "Holy Spirit," or "Charity" seem to refer to internalized emotional patterns.
We will probably never know whether those who had the ability to influence what was already a very popular ideological movement at the time debated such issues. Everything revolved around the enormous fame of the Russian writer and he never seemed especially interested in leading a social movement but rather in inspiring ethical values in which he believed.
At least it was shown that rational ideals based on altruistic, benevolent, and pacifist principles could spread quickly and that many people were willing to commit themselves to such ideals. They lacked a coherent ideology and never considered drawing on the resources of the social sciences. Psychology and anthropology were just emerging at the time, although they did have the experience of religious movements which, for better or worse, did not always fail in their community initiatives, as did the utopian socialists.
Sociial psychologist Serge Moscovici wrote about the influence of minorities. Although it may seem like an obvious issue, until then social psychologists had only paid attention to the influence of majorities: there we have the Asch experiment, and its terrible sequel, the even more famous Milgram experiment. However, ideas could not change, cultures could not evolve if minorities did not have the capacity to influence majorities over time.
For all those interested in expanding altruistic behavior, it is most convenient to reflect on how to achieve cultural changes in the sense of moral improvement. The influence of minorities occurs in all fields: in politics, religion, science, economy, technology and customs.
It may seem to us that the discoveries of Moscovici and other social psychologists do not bring much new information to what common sense tells us about how people and attitudes change (in the case of those interested in altruism, the main topic is moral evolution) but some points deserve reflection.
The source of a minority's influence is its behavioral style. The concept refers to the organization of responses according to a particular pattern that has a recognizable meaning. The minority must be, in a word, consistent; it must be coherent, self-assured.
Minority members are expected to have more in common with each other than majority members, and so are expected to spend more time together. The more time they spend together, the more likely they are to influence each other and become more uniform in opinion. Influential minorities create community.
Influential minorities compromise and negotiate with the majority.
One observation that these psychologists do not make is the relationship that there might be between monastic structures and moral evolution. Monasticism emerged with Buddhism, some 2,500 years ago (Axial Age). The idea is that a theoretical moral change becomes so demanding from a psychological point of view that the only way to bring it forward is to select highly motivated individuals and subject them to behavioral improvement training (in the moral sense) in a controlled environment. It is likely that, as in so many things, the military training system was imitated.
In this way, a "holiness of conduct" can be achieved within a cohesive minority. The expectation is that this minority will influence mainstream society, improving it morally.
The monastic structure in the West is known above all for the Christian monastic phenomenon that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, which developed very detailed strategies for behavioural improvement (St. Benedict's rule, Imitatio Christi...). It is interesting to note that the public authorities promoted monasticism as a strategy to appease social violence. Here we have a clear example of negotiation, even of symbiosis, between the conventional and the disruptive. The phenomenon is recurrent: it seems that the Chinese promoted Buddhist preaching in Mongolia to control the aggressiveness of the nomads and Napoleon is said to have commented that "a priest saves me ten gendarmes." A more modern case is the tolerance by democratic states of conscientious objection to military service: a conscientious objector is, from a civic point of view, no better than a tax evader, in refusing to fulfil his obligation for the common good.
If the aim of social action is not, unlike political or religious phenomena, to convert the masses, but to gradually influence a moral evolution in the direction of altruism, it is clear that the first step is to create a coherent minority, capable of developing a style of behaviour, even as a subculture, which contains in a practical and unequivocal way the values of social progress proper to altruism.
Altruism can be conceived as a mere transfer of goods and services that occurs due to an arbitrary motivation or as an economic manifestation of internalized moral principles. In the second case, altruism could only exist as a style of behaviour based on a complete conception of human relations.
A style of behavior that necessarily gives rise to effective altruistic economic activity would be based on psychological principles of benevolence, empathy, compassion, and charity, all of which can take shape as cohesive moral principles. This style of behavior, being associated with moral emotions of empathy and benevolence, may have the advantage of providing emotional rewards to its members, typical of human relationships of extreme trust - along the lines of those we traditionally associate with the nuclear family and conjugal love - which would reinforce motivation.
Such an approach would be in the same situation of high moral demand that led to the creation of the first monastic structures. And it could equally function as an influential minority for conventional society. But now it would be a question not of religious traditions, but of social strategies compatible with enlightened humanism informed by science.
According to social psychologist Daniel Batson, psychological altruism refers to a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing the well-being of others.
Not all altruistic behaviors have the same psychological motivation (one can act altruistically out of mere social convention at a given moment), but psychologically motivated altruism is undoubtedly the most promising when it comes to quantitatively increasing altruistic acts.
To promote altruistic acts, the best strategy is, logically, to promote psychologically motivated altruism. Batson, in particular, links altruistic motivation to the development of empathy. But empathy, as a basic response to human behavior, has its limitations (as aptly pointed out in a famous book). These limitations disappear almost entirely when we conceive of "principled empathy." In this case, symbolic mechanisms with strong emotional power are used to establish rational criteria for empathy and altruism.
A principled altruistic psychology, unlike altruism based merely on empathy, requires a certain level of cognitive development. In theory, not all altruistic principles are compatible with empathy-based altruism. Consider the Marxists who believed that, to achieve universal justice, the end justified the means (and some speculations about anti-human animalism too). But altruistic psychology (or "principled empathic altruism") can address these issues if it conceives of human development as inseparable from cultural development. An altruistic culture based on empathy, while never without ethical dilemmas, cannot fall prey to utilitarian fallacies.
The goal must be to develop an altruistic culture by using—through trial and error—valid strategies for developing an altruistic personality (altruistic psychology) and controlling human innate agression.
Jeremy Rifkin points out that an outstanding experience in developing empathic connection between individuals as successful as "Alcoholics Anonymous" did not arise from psychological science, but from the individual motivation to focus cooperation for the common good from the point of view of the development of empathy.
Also, starting from the conception of the development of a "dramaturgical consciousness" in human psychology (after humanity has passed through stages of "mythological consciousness," "theological consciousness," "ideological consciousness," and "psychological consciousness"), Jeremy Rifkin considers the possibilities of applying the "deep acting" proposed by Stanislavsky in his method for actors to the altruistic development of personality. To this we can add the possibilities of the "psychological priming" for the development of altruistic empathy, cognitive behavioral therapy strategies (coaching tricks too), the cultivation of the arts (especially literature), and the long tradition of psychological strategies characteristic of compassionate religions. If the objective of the social behavior to be achieved is always clear (non-aggressive social behavior, with the highest possible level of empathy, benevolence and altruism), a trial and error process would select the most productive strategies and discard those that are less so.
We have evidence that today there are already societies that are more altruistic than others, and therefore it seems sensible to explore the limits of the social development of altruism, for which we find a large number of potentially effective instruments.
An interesting post was recently written about the personal commitment to Effective Altruism and the necessary prevention of burnout when making financial sacrifices. It is therefore necessary to calculate what level of spending we should reserve for ourselves in order to aspire to a legitimate level of "happiness."
But the issue deserves to be approached from a broader perspective. To what extent can we make "happiness" compatible with "altruism"?
The mere act of donating increases happiness to some extent... but if this were sufficient, no one would give up abundant and readily available happiness. The reality is that donating, although it somewhat increases happiness in general terms, does not usually compensate for the economic loss it entails.
If we are good utilitarians, we will have to keep in mind that broadening the motivation for altruistic action should be a primary concern. The more people engage in altruism, the more effective it will be. Very few seem to care about something so obvious. The ideas contributed to this Forum usually concern how to get the most out of the altruistic action of the motivated agents out there. No one considers doing anything to increase it.
What if altruistic action could be a cause of more happiness, not just a possible cause of less happiness (burnout)?
Of the many ways a person can be happy, isn't there one that involves practicing altruism? Note that although Jens Anslaug (the author of the post I mentioned above) considers altruistic action to be his primary interest (deontology?)... there may also be people—many, perhaps—who choose other interests... within which altruism would be a necessary consequence... though not the direct goal.
I'm sure Jens Anslaug doesn't need my praise at all, but his altruistic motivation, as he articulates it, strikes me as an exceptional benevolence that I wish would expand beyond the ten thousand GWWCPledge. But what if that expansion doesn't occur? What if EA is another failed social improvement initiative like so many that have already occurred in history? In almost twenty years, growth hasn't been spectacular.
EA MUST explore other options to broaden the motivational basis for altruistic agents. I can't think of anything more utilitarian than this today.
My proposal is to open a space to discuss the possibilities of developing an Effective Altruism movement that is more effective than EA today and that focuses more on the motivational basis of altruistic behavior. That the practice of altruism be part of a life plan that increases—and not threatens—the happiness of the altruistic agent.
Logically, we have the starting point of the religious movements of the so-called "compassionate religions." By participating in compassionate religious movements, millions of people (well over ten thousand) have carried out altruistic actions of great value and, above all, have achieved high levels of "happiness" (which increases motivation).
EVOLUTION IS COPY PLUS MODIFICATION
Why does religion bring happiness?
Religious people are happier, on average, than nonreligious people. This effect arises from the social ties that come with participation in a religious community, as well as from feeling connected to something beyond the self. P. 88 “The Happiness Hypotesis” Jonathan Haidt
Even when social scientists can’t accept supernatural beliefs, they recognize that religion is a profoundly influential human phenomenon that has been evolving effective self-control mechanisms for thousands of years. (…) Does a belief in a higher power really give you more control over yourself? Or is something else going on—something that even nonbelievers could believe in? (“Willpower”, Baumeister and Tierney, chapter 8)
In fact, we have the paradox that the most intellectually developed nations are those that provide the greatest happiness to their citizens. Intellectual development inevitably leads to Enlightenment thinking and consequent atheism. However, it turns out that the happiest people living in those nations are precisely those who believe in the supernatural. They are not happy because they believe in supernatural beings... but because they have religion. If we atheists also had "religion"... and it were of the "compassionate" kind... then the motivational basis for altruism would grow enormously. Could there be anything more utilitarian than that?
Almost two hundred years ago, the former atheist priest Ernest Renan speculated about the emergence of a "pure religion" (whose origins lay, in his somewhat exaggerated speculation, in early Christianity).
God doesn't exist, but religion does, and historically, so-called "compassionate religions" have demonstrated that they comprise social psychological mechanisms capable of providing individuals with rewarding emotional states, social harmony, improved behavior in the sense of benevolence... and a predisposition toward altruistic action.
These mechanisms of harmony and benevolence can exist outside of belief in the supernatural.
With the exception of organized religion, Alcoholics Anonymous probably represents the largest program ever conducted to improve self-control (…) Yet social scientists still aren’t exactly sure what AA accomplishes. (“Willpower”, Baumeister and Tierney, chapter 8)
What the creators of AA achieved can be achieved again. They were not academic psychologists, but highly motivated individuals who developed their model of "behavior improvement" through a process of trial and error... without ever losing sight of the goal.
For EA, the goal to be achieved is... the largest possible number of altruistic agents in the world.
To achieve the largest possible number of people motivated to become altruistic agents, altruistic action must be associated with the greatest possible happiness.
Perhaps many people who participate in EA have already been motivated by "social ties" and not just by the utilitarian ideal. We should be wary of those who, when making ideological choices that greatly compromise their lifestyle, claim that they are not doing so for "personal reasons." Ideological choices do have a lot to do with the personal.
But a participatory belief of a "compassionate religious" kind can offer much more than "social ties."
Christian love has focused on two key words:- caritas and agape. Caritas (the origin of our word "charity") is a kind of intense benevolence and good will; agape is a Greek word that refers to a kind of selfless, spiritual love with no sexuality, no clinging to a particular other person. (…)As in Plato, Christian love is love stripped of its essential particularity, its focus on a specific other person. Love is remodeled into a general attitude toward a much larger, even infinite, class of objects. P. 131 “The Happiness Hypotesis” Jonathan Haidt
We know that, like AA, a collaborative effort, through trial and error, can design a subculture of benevolence and altruism that motivates—in their pursuit of happiness—far more people than the GWWC Pledge currently brings together. If this is implemented, in addition to bringing happiness to many individuals of a certain temperament (not everyone is cut out to be a saint), it would also have the potential to influence the whole of conventional society toward moral improvement.
Today, we have all kinds of historical experiences of cultural change and a rich variety of strategies available—apart from those of religious tradition—to attempt to improve behavior, from psychotherapy to coaching to the "Stanislavsky method" of acting.
Perhaps the most difficult thing of all is to break through prejudice and consider the real situation.
Achieving moral excellence is achieving moral autonomy, stages 5 and 6 on Kohlberg's scale.
Greco-Roman Stoicism, greatly influenced by the West's discovery of Buddhism, preached moral excellence and, therefore, autonomy. This meant that those seeking such excellence no longer depended on conventions or legal codifications that, as casuistry, designated good and evil.
The moral man—Stoicism was strongly masculine—assumes the revelation of social virtue in his soul. As a scholar, a magistrate, a politician, and even a soldier, the moral man of Stoicism gratifies himself in his own conscience by choosing good over evil, rejecting any other distraction of the spirit. When he reaches this state, Epictetus considers him "a philosopher" ("we, the philosophers") and takes as his model figures of the past such as Socrates and Diogenes.
It is possible that Chinese Confucianism had a similar conception of virtue.
Christianity, a mass religion, prevailed over Roman Stoicism. There were no more philosophers (it would take more than a thousand years for the West to have such men again, in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment), and in the pursuit of virtue (moral autonomy), a curious duality emerged: unlike the Stoic "philosophers," those who achieve moral excellence (the "saints")... far from being destined to govern society, find themselves outside of it.
It is true that Socrates and Diogenes themselves are portrayed almost as wandering vagabonds (as the sadhu-renouncers)... but they had much to say to rulers about how to pursue the common good. Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Seneca will govern themselves.
Christian virtue is apolitical. And that is why its ideal is that the man or woman who achieves moral excellence preaches not so much good governance but interpersonal moral virtue such as charity or the "state of Grace," in thought, word, and deed. The French writer Ernest Renan (a scholar who was an atheist and former Catholic priest) wrote that Christianity preached "pure religion."
Two thousand years later, after the failure of socialism, there is an opportunity for a moral evolution based, once again, on psychological principles of autonomy.
Christianity's dualism (a sinful secular society and an apolitical community of saints that maintains the flame of moral autonomy) signals today the possibility of merging saintliness and secularity (something impossible two thousand years ago, due to the preeminence of the supernatural).
The equivalent of Stoicism (an elite of philosophers within society itself) has the advantage of being more conventional and acceptable to the intellectual elites for whom it was always intended; with socialism having failed, apolitical altruism is the only option for today's philosopher.
But "secularized" Christianity likely has more options as an alternative than a new Stoicism, because epistemologically altruism cannot be conceived without charity.
We would have a conception of nonpolitical social change based on civic responsibility, equivalent to paying taxes but of higher impact.
And maybe we could also have a conception of nonpolitical social change based on the psychological transformation of interpersonal relationships in the direction of empathy and benevolence.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario