The NYT recently posted an opinion piece by Chrispin Sartwell, a philosopy professor at Dickson College about whether humanity is becoming more moral. Here's a link:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/can-we-improve/?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

Sartwell's contention was that individuals could become more moral but that humanity overall was not more moral than 5,000 years ago. Others, specificially Steven Pinker, have maintained that people are becoming more moral, which is why violence has declined:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1491518243

Sartwell further maintains that any attempt to engineer people to become more moral, either through genetic engineering or though some technological means such as the Singularity proposed by Ray Kurzwell, will inevitably fail (and could in fact have catastrophic consequences) because the people doing the engineering are coming at it from a position of compromised morality (overall) and therefore would invariably be tempted to sneak in some self advantage.

What do people think?

One consideration would be: Who's (which culture's) definition of 'morality' is being used?

In some, eye-for-an-eye... is considered virtuous. In others, high standards apply within family, clan, but no standards in dealing with foreigners. In one rather extreme case, it's said the commander who ordered the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was constrained in this area: it would have been dishonorable for him NOT to have taken advantange of the Americans' vulnerability.

I once taught an class on medical ethics in an acupuncture college, to a class of immigrant Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, .. (no native-born Americans in the class). The notion of  'ethics' (in the terms of the California law that mandated the class) seemed something strange to most of the students.  (Grading that class was rather a challenge.)

Hi Chris!

This often comes up, in one form or another.  

For example
What is good for me, may not be good for you.  What is good for you may not be good for me.

Or, what is good for one culture is not considered good for another culture.

What I think is the solution? The litmus test?

To ask not what is good for you or me, or what is good for one culture or another.

But rather ask, what is good for us?  What is wholesome for us both?  What is wholesome to all cultures?  What is wholesome for all beings, all entities?

What is of benefit for all?

I also contemplate upon the ole conventional versus the universal thinking or view. When I really examine it, the universal wins every time.  


Psi

Hi Chris,

I think Sartwell's point about becoming more moral is exactly what Psi mentioned. At a certain level, people just treat members of their tribe in ways that are considerate and moral, extending them compassion and generosity. At a higher level, people in the same country or maybe of the same racial or ethnic group are given this treatment. At a yet higher level, people of the same religion (regardless of national origin or race) are. Ultimately, at the highest level, the same kind of compassionate, friendly treatment is extended to everybody.

One counter arguement to Pinker's thesis is that maybe what has happened is that as societies become more prosperous, people feel they can afford to be more generous, and that people don't therefore feel they need to use violence to get what they need. This of course doesn't rule out trickery and outright theft. So a certain kind of amorality, killing someone to get what you need, becomes less likely, and the rise of police and military to protect property make it ultimately less successful.

With respect to meditation practice, I believe that it does not contribute toward negating Sartwell's point either. Meditation operates on the individual. My experience has been that meditation does lead to an improvement in morality, defined as a more open manifestation of the brahma viharas, if of course they are cultivated, in the individual. So I don't agree with Daniel's point in MCTB that morality and concentration/wisdom are disconnected. To the extent that lots of individuals in a society practice meditation, I think it could lead to an improvement in morality. But of course, that requires lots of people to practice and specifically to cultivate friendliness and compassion. It seems rather unlikely to me a sufficient number of people would be willing to put in the effort and time to practice to make any difference in the general population.

Thoughts?