I recently read Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Tribes-Emotion-Reason-Between/dp/0143126059). It is a great book. I recommend it to people seeking to understand how our societies my find ways to resolve moral differences.
On page 284 I got the impression that the author is rationalizing the fact that humans are not "happiness pumps" by saying we just need to recognize that we are human; but isn't the point of the book to argue that we can exceed our built-in biases and do better? I think we can dig deeper into explaining why we are not, and probably won't be, "happiness pumps". I think it is because we are biased to believe that the amount of unhappiness we will cause to ourselves by being a happiness pump will exceed the happiness that our charity provides to others. It is natural that we have this bias and also that we can't overcome it, because if we could, we would cause our own extinction. Those that adopt the happiness pump philosophy are unlikely to have more offspring (assuming the offspring have the same attitude), than the others we have helped who happen to lack that "happiness pump" attitude.
If I give all, then I become dependent on others after doing so. Perhaps I have special talent at making a profit, thus for the good of all, I should help society increase net resources by increasing my profit; something I can only do if I have excess profit/resources to risk. I know that sounds a lot like a rationalization, and it could be for some; but for others, they may genuinely have talents that others lack, but those talents require more resources.
I can make a 50% return in the stock market ever year. If I let my money compound over the years instead of giving it away each year, in ten years I will have an enormous amount of money to give away.
No comments:
Post a Comment