Thinking About the Morality of Less Biased Conscious Reasoning

Ethics: rules provided by an external source, e.g., written codes of conduct in workplaces, or professions, or principles or rules in religions

Free will: (i) the power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate or uncontrolled biological imperative; (ii) the ability to act at one's own discretion; (iii) actions or behaviors that are not pre-determined by genetic, environmental or automatic unconscious responses to stimuli or information

Morals: an individual’s own beliefs regarding good and bad or right and wrong; morality is subjective; people do not always act in ways that accord with their morals

Virtue: (i) a characteristic of our true, natural self; (ii) sometimes, the quality of being morally good; (iii) properties of people who habitually act rightly and they may or may not be following a moral or ethical rule; some believe that virtues are subjective, while others believe that virtues are universal, and thus arguably more objective than subjective

Acknowledgment: This discussion was inspired by an excellent discussion that PD posted on his Books & Ideas blog,  Is Reflective Reason A Virtue?

Free will

Most experts believe humans have no free will based on a lot of empirical data that shows our behavior is dictated by the unconscious mind deciding what to do before we are consciously aware of the decision. Others believe we have at least some free will. It operates as a conscious decision to accept or reject automatic unconscious responses and resulting pre-determined behaviors. One researcher commented: “An unfree will may not be so hard to swallow if we have at least a free unwill.” In other words, human free will amounts to (1) conscious partial or complete veto power over what our unconscious mind wants to believe and/or do, and (2) conscious acceptance of what our unconscious mind wants to believe and do.

For this discussion to make sense, one has to assume that humans have some free will at least when when matters of ethics, morals or virtues are implicated. If we have no free will, as PD points out, then all virtuous behaviors , e.g., conscious reasoning, honesty, fairness or bravery in defense of others, are automatic. In that case, such behaviors cannot be said to be good or bad, or praiseworthy or blameworthy. Absent free will, human behavior just is what it is, leaving the conscious mind with no role in any of it. Speaking of good or bad in that scenario doesn't make much sense. One might like or dislike a certain uncontrolled behavior, but one cannot rationally assign goodness or badness to it.

Less biased conscious reasoning (LBCR)

LBCR is the second core moral value (virtue?) of the pragmatic rationality anti-ideology ideology. From what I understand, it refers to about the same thing that PD and philosopher Nick Byrd calls reflective reason. When one engages in LBCR, e.g., to consider an argument, a hypothesis or a proposed political policy, one is consciously reasoning in a more rational way than when one allows unconscious thinking to control. The unconscious mind is intuitive, emotional, moral, biased and usually tinged with some degree of intolerance, judgmentalism and tribalism.

That is the solution that evolution came up with as a means for the human brain-mind to deal with the world in the Pleistocene epoch, about 2.5 million to 11,700 years ago. That worked to keep humans alive and survive in those times. In modern times, it arguably presents an existential threat to modern civilization and possibly even the humans species itself. Although human minds are probably about the same as those in the Pleistocene, modern threats aren't the same. Most humans alive today do not worry about being attacked by lions or irate hippos.

Can LBCR be considered to be a moral or a virtue? Yes, if one accepts the following logic or reasoning. No, if one doesn’t.

1.The point of elevating it to the status of a moral value is that LBCR can counteract bad decisions the unconscious mind makes based on how modern science understands what is going on when we deal with politics. The unconscious mind is susceptible to emotional manipulation, irrational appeals to personal morals, logical fallacies, biases and a host of other reality and reason[1] distorting human traits.

2. Personal experience indicates that most people (~99%) believe they (1) base their politics on facts, valid truths, and LBCR, and (2) the political opposition does not. Evidence from empirical research shows that, for the most part, that is not true. But the near-universal belief that one should be fact-based and rational about politics is evidence that LBCR is better than the flawed thinking the opposition allegedly relies on.

3. If a widespread belief in a nation or society that X is better than not X, then that could constitute at least one source of authority for considering LBCR to be a moral value.


Questions: Is it reasonable to believe that LBCR is a good moral value? Or, is it something else, e.g., a ‘desirable trait’?


Footnote:
1. Applying logic and reasoning to an issue are quite different modes of operation. The human did not evolve to use logic or be strictly rational in most situations. It evolved to reason about things and apply a soft or fuzzy rationality, usually based mostly (~99% ?) on what the unconscious mind thinks, believes and decides. The unconscious mind gets things right most of the time and there's no problem. It still works great for most things. But when dealing with politics with all of its complexity, opacity, deceit, appeal to logic fallacies, manipulation, misinformation and disinformation, the unconscious mind is mostly out of its depth. We did not evolve minds that can deal rationally with the underlying complexity and subjectivity of things in politics, including objective facts.

Nuclear submarine and tugboat

Scam PACS

Scam PACS are non-profit charities that harvest donations in the name of various worthy causes such as cancer patients and the family of fallen police officers. In fact, most of the money (~90%) goes to companies that operate under laws that govern political action committees or PACs. A Reuters investigation reports:

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – From unmarked strip-mall offices in small-town Alabama, the calls go out across the United States, meant to talk people into giving money for heart-tugging causes like helping breast cancer patients or the widows of fallen police officers. 

Even as they charmed millions from credulous donors, a dozen former callers for two major fundraisers told Reuters that they knew their companies would be keeping the vast majority of it. And the groups they were raising money for weren’t charities at all, but political action committees, which normally are set up to gather funds for candidates or political causes.

“The motto was, ‘Leave your morals at the door,’” said Alexander Lefler, 21, who worked for nearly a year at a call center southeast of Birmingham, Alabama, describing what he saw as high-pressure and deceptive tactics. “We kind of all understood what we were doing was wrong, but I needed a place to live.”

These so-called “scam PACs” and their fundraisers exploit the gray zone between U.S. election finance and state charity fundraising laws, regulators told Reuters. They often are set up as super PACs, groups which in recent years have been empowered by the courts to raise and spend money in unlimited amounts, with little regulation.
But “scam PACs” are not like other political action committees. Rather, they and their fundraisers present the PACs as charities, suggesting they support veterans, firefighters or victims of deadly diseases, for instance. 

In fact, “scam PAC” operators and fundraisers are often old hands of the charity world, with a history of run-ins with regulators, state and federal records show. Some fundraisers work in both worlds, raising money for charities and PACs.

Reuters points out that when an organization operates as a political action committee, it is not subject to the laws governing charity fundraising. Normal charities generally must register with states, disclose their key employees and account for how the money is spent by providing information on how money is spent. That is not true for scam PACs, which are shielded from laws governing charity fundraising.

Aggressive scam PAC telemarketers face lower risk of scrutiny or sanction when engage in PAC fundraising. In essence, it is easy to wrap and hide a political PAC in a real charity.

Reuters that some fundraising companies and PACs constituted a “money-making force, with some ranking near the top fundraisers in the period stretching from January 2017 through mid-2019.” Scam PACs raise $83.1 million during the 2 ½ year period that Reuters analyzed. About 82% of that went to eight fundraising companies. Less than 10%, usually winds up going to any actual political candidate, so these organizations are essentially legal fraud operations. As usual, laws do not require transparency, so the scammers do not have to be honest about what people are donating their money to.

File this one under: Legalized sleaze, protected by law

Addendum: One can go online to see if a charity is legit and how much of a donation actually goes to the cause.

Charity Watch is one site for info in charities: https://www.charitywatch.org/

Charity Navigator is another: https://www.charitynavigator.org/  

Coronavirus: Political Issue or Public Health Issue?

From almost the beginning of the coronavirus invasion in the US, our president in name only (PINO**) has treated it like a political issue, not a public health issue. Some others are beginning to see the same thing. The Washington Post writes:

Analysis: Trump and Bolsonaro see coronavirus more as a political hassle than a public threat

The Western hemisphere’s two leading nationalists sat for an ill-fated dinner this month in Florida. Days later, it emerged that a number of those present at the meeting of President Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro in the former’s Mar-a-Lago resort had tested positive for the novel coronavirus strain that’s ravaging the globe.

Scrutiny immediately fell on the health of Trump and Bolsonaro. In a dizzying chain of events, Bolsonaro’s son appeared to confirm his father had tested positive before denying it. The spokespeople of both presidents insist that neither has contracted the virus despite their repeated proximity to those carrying it. Both have remained in public view: Trump appeared on packed stages with his lieutenants while Bolsonaro joined large rallies and shook hands with supporters.

Their seeming nonchalance in the face of a global pandemic is part of a shared political disposition. Both Trump and Bolsonaro are frustrated with the measures being pursued within their countries to reckon with the spread of the virus. They are fearful of such policies’ impacts on both the economy and their political futures. As the crisis unfurls, the two leaders have taken a backseat to more proactive state governors and mayors. All the while, they have fanned the flames of self-aggrandizing culture wars in the shadow of the pandemic.

The PINO wants to relax social distancing and other anti-virus measures in a couple of weeks to get the economy (and his re-election) revved back up. It's hard to know if that is premature. The experts seem to say it is. But as we all know, our great PINO knows more than all the scientists, generals, negotiators and everyone else put together. Things are getting interesting.

 

** President in name only because he is an illegitimate president elected by the electoral college with illegal interference from Russia.

Chapter Review: (Im)Morality in Political Discourse

Context

(Im)Morality in Political Discourse: The Effects of Moral Psychology in Politics is the sixth chapter in the 2017 book, Moral Psychology: A Multidisciplinary Guide, edited by Benjamin Voyer and Tor Tarantola. The book is directed to an academic and research audience in an attempt to nudge disparate streams of research into moral psychology into some form of convergence of knowledge (consilience). Researchers in neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, sociology, political science, analytic philosophy, moral philosophy, anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology and other disciplines have developed enough knowledge in disparate areas of research that unwanted siloing and isolation of streams of research and knowledge has begun.

This book attempts to fight against that trend. The point is to fertilize disparate minds with data and logic from related areas of research, accelerate the pace of research and introduce graduate students to the depth and breadth of research as of early to mid 2017.

Chapter six was written by Nicholas Nicoletti and William Delahanty. It is the longest chapter in the book and intellectually rather complex, at least for me.

Chapter 1 (reviewed here) deals with fundamental problems in moral psychology, mostly the difficulty the human mind has in trying to understand itself. Moral psychology is not a problem the human mind evolved to solve. It is a problem the human mind may not be able to solve with a high degree of precision. Chapter 2 (reviewed here) deals with  moral psychology from an evolutionary biology point of view. Again, the human mind is a central issue, which the author makes painfully clear: “While the human mind is not usually considered an impediment to scientific progress, it may present particular barriers to accurate models of the nature of morality and moral psychology. This is not the first research question that has been hampered by the fact that science is done by humans.”

Chapter review

Nicoletti and Delahanty (N&D) conclude chapter six with these sobering comments:

“To conclude, we argue that compromise is possible under certain conditions such as those mentioned above. However, the primary obstacle to overcome is the perverse incentive that elites have to frame issues in order to mobilize maximum support. Moral framing is a very effective way to gain support and mobilize voters. Moreover, while elites moralize issues to get elected, they also have policy preferences in line with their own moral preferences. This makes political discourse exceedingly more difficult, while simultaneously increasing political participation. The juxtaposition of destructive democratic discourse with an active politically engaged public underscores the promises and pitfalls associated with moral conviction in democratic politics.”

N&D are saying that compromise has been significantly undermined by weaponizing morality in politics. Injecting morality into political discourse politically engages many people but it also tends to make them less open understanding or tolerating differences of opinion. N&D argue that political discourse infused with morality constitutes ‘destructive democratic discourse’. That is a serious allegation.

N&D discuss the moral frameworks (1) that psychologist Johnathan Haidt proposed, the Moral Foundations Theory (discussed here), and (2) that cognitive linguist George Lakoff  (discussed here) and others proposed, something that N&D call the Equal Opportunity Motivator Hypothesis. Current research indicates that, despite explicit claims to the moral high ground by conservatives, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, both liberals and conservatives have significantly moralized their politics. N&D comment:

“both sides of the aisle show high levels of moral conviction .... This suggests that there is not a conservative advantage in the realm of moral reasoning and politics. .... We suggest that moral conviction is a double-edged blade; it has the desirable tendency to increase political action but also to limit the ability of opposing sides to deliberate, compromise and build social capital in a democratic system. .... Those respondents who felt that an issue was connected to their moral conviction preferred more social distance from someone with a dissimilar attitude. .... Ryan’s (2014) study provides more evidence that when moral conviction makes its way into political discourse, democracy may be threatened.”

N&D point out that some evidence indicates that a person’s moral foundations are partly genetic. That accords with speculation by other researchers like John Hibbing who study how biology may influence political attitudes. Hibbing estimates that our personal politics is about 35% nature (genes) and 65% nurture (family, language, identity, social norms, etc).

Making connections

Trying to connect knowledge in different disciplines is likely to be necessary if moral psychology is to progress past its current early, fragmented stage. For example, a discussion here based on a recent Scientific American article focused on how human sentience appears to include an unconscious social distancing-mapping function. Social distance between people mapped to two dimensions, relative power and affiliation, e.g., family member vs complete stranger vs your boss. It may be the case (my speculation only) that social distancing also contains a basis in morality as well as the proposed basis in power and affiliation. If so, that might make social distancing a 3-dimensional function.

Personal analysis: What’s wrong with morality & what’s right with pragmatic rationalism

N&D point to a large body of research that shows when a political issue engages people's moral values, they are (i) less inclined to compromise and trust people they disagree with, and (ii) more inclined to accept extreme means to attain a moral end, i.e., moral political ends justify draconian means. Both of those attitudes are extremely dangerous for democracy, the rule of law and civil society. From what I can tell, moral concepts[1] are both flexible and essentially contested, making disagreements unresolvable without compromise. Social context changes moral beliefs. The rise of the president led to a major moral change among Evangelical Christians. Before Trump, they were more concerned with the morals and character of a president than any other group. After Trump, they were the least concerned group.

What I glean from N&D is that the rise of morality and the rise of attitude-constraining ideology are serious threats to democracy and civil society. The four core moral values that underpin pragmatic rationalism[2] were intended to counteract the anti-democratic nature all existing sets of moral and ideological beliefs. I posited pragmatic rationalism as anti-biasing and anti-ideology. I criticized political ideology too. Morals and political ideology tend to cause, among other unwanted things, reality-distorting bias and reduced willingness to compromise.

From what I can tell, the moral and political situation that N&D describe, and worry about as rising destructive democratic discourse, is exactly what pragmatic rationalism is an attempt to counteract. As evidence continues to flow in, pragmatic rationalism makes more and more sense.


Footnote:
1. N&D define values as the basis of morals in politics like this and the implication of the rise of ideology: “Political values may be structured by values, and these values exist within greater systems and form the underlying foundation for broader ideologies. Rokeach (1973) defined a value as ‘an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or a conversemode of conduct or end-state of existence.’ .... morality and moral conviction may be an outgrowth of individual value systems, with some of them forming along ideological lines. .... Recent research has demonstrated that attitude structure along ideological lines may be strengthening. .... Defined succinctly, a political ideology is a comprehensive political orientation that allows individuals to assess political phenomena by reference to assumptions about the proper role of government in society and the economy.”

2. The four core moral values are:
(i) fidelity to trying seeing fact and truth with less bias,
(ii) fidelity to applying less biased conscious reason to the facts and truths,
(iii) service to the public interest (defined as a transparent competition of ideas among competing interests) based on the facts, truths and reason, and
(iv) willingness to reasonably compromise according to political, economic and environmental circumstances point to.

Trump Brand Bigotry on the Rise

The New York Times writes:

“As bigots blame them for the coronavirus and President Trump labels it the “Chinese virus,” many Chinese-Americans say they are terrified of what could come next.

WASHINGTON — Yuanyuan Zhu was walking to her gym in San Francisco on March 9, thinking the workout could be her last for a while, when she noticed that a man was shouting at her. He was yelling an expletive about China. Then a bus passed, she recalled, and he screamed after it, “Run them over.” 

She tried to keep her distance, but when the light changed, she was stuck waiting with him at the crosswalk. She could feel him staring at her. And then, suddenly, she felt it: his saliva hitting her face and her favorite sweater. 

In shock, Ms. Zhu, who is 26 and moved to the United States from China five years ago, hurried the rest of the way to the gym. She found a corner where no one could see her, and she cried quietly.  

As the coronavirus upends American life, Chinese-Americans face a double threat. Not only are they grappling like everyone else with how to avoid the virus itself, they are also contending with growing racism in the form of verbal and physical attacks. Other Asian-Americans — with families from Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Myanmar and other places — are facing threats, too, lumped together with Chinese-Americans by a bigotry that does not know the difference.”

Yesterday, the president expressed concern for Asian Americans and asked for civility. Given how effectively the president has instilled a new and virulent social tolerance of bigotry and racial hate, his plea arguably is too little, too late. And given his rhetoric starting in 2015 or 2016 when he became politically active, it seems insincere. The president is a bigot who rose to power in part by fomenting hate, distrust, racism and intolerance. Some innocent people are going to reap what he sowed.

One can only wonder what is going on the the minds of people who publicly act on their hate and racism. Apparently, their parents did a very bad job of raising them.

WHY SO SERIOUS?