The Better Angels of Our Nature (Morality)

[Veritas Aequitas]

But we tend to overestimate the prevalence of war and violence based on a combination of what the news gives us and what the human mind latches onto.

It’s only when you see the data and plot the number of deaths from war, from homicide, the amount of racism, and the amount of domestic violence, over time, that you can see whether violence really has increased or not.

I argue in The Better Angels of Our Nature that when you look at those data, it is often surprising how many of them have decreased, despite the impressions we get from the media.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/160/Steven_Pinker

I have quoted "The Better Angels of Our Nature" many times.

If what Pinker stated,
"the number of deaths from war, from homicide, the amount of racism, and the amount of domestic violence, over time" is true
then what is the cause of this positive decrease in evil acts?

There must be something that is universal in 'substance' where its manifesting forms are changing and unfolding for the better over time within humanity.
This substance [not Aristotle but FSRK-ed] is the universal moral function that is adapted within all humans.
This is the objective moral function and thus morality is objective.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

1) it is unclear to experts and researchers that Pinker is correct
2) isolating causes is not easy. One could easily argue that there is less scarcity of food and other similar needs, in most places and this reduces the violence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1) it is unclear to experts and researchers that Pinker is correct
2) isolating causes is not easy. One could easily argue that there is less scarcity of food and other similar needs, in most places and this reduces the violence.

I admit my agreement with Pinker is a VERY intuitive and abductive hypothesis.
For one's hypothesis to be more credible, one need detailed analysis of the data plus the significant elements and criteria that should carry higher weightages.

I believe the critical elements in comparing the trend from 10,000 to 1000 to 500 to 100 to 50 years to the present is the continuous improvements we have learned from past mistakes the attempt of corrective actions to prevent future occurrences of evil acts.
This will support the estimated stats we have on hand and not forgetting per capita ratio basis.
So while the impact of violence is greatly amplified by the bias media's 'bad news is good news' the ratio of evil per capita should be reduced by the continual improvements of laws in all nations [which is non-existing and prevailing 1000 years ago].

Intuitively, with more data and critical analysis, I believe, there is an effective reduction in the trend of evil acts since 10,000 years ago to the present.

Intuitively, I believe the continuous improvement is driven by the slowly unfolding of a universal moral function within humanity which infer morality is objective.

So far, yours is a pure speculation.
You need to provide something reasonable [not precise] as a possible counter the OP.

[Iwannaplato]

1) it is unclear to experts and researchers that Pinker is correct
2) isolating causes is not easy. One could easily argue that there is less scarcity of food and other similar needs, in most places and this reduces the violence.

I admit my agreement with Pinker is a VERY intuitive and abductive hypothesis.
For one's hypothesis to be more credible, one need detailed analysis of the data plus the significant elements and criteria that should carry higher weightages.

I believe the critical elements in comparing the trend from 10,000 to 1000 to 500 to 100 to 50 years to the present is the continuous improvements we have learned from past mistakes the attempt of corrective actions to prevent future occurrences of evil acts.
This will support the estimated stats we have on hand and not forgetting per capita ratio basis.
So while the impact of violence is greatly amplified by the bias media's 'bad news is good news' the ratio of evil per capita should be reduced by the continual improvements of laws in all nations [which is non-existing and prevailing 1000 years ago].

Intuitively, with more data and critical analysis, I believe, there is an effective reduction in the trend of evil acts since 10,000 years ago to the present.

Intuitively, I believe the continuous improvement is driven by the slowly unfolding of a universal moral function within humanity which infer morality is objective.

So far, yours is a pure speculation.
You need to provide something reasonable [not precise] as a possible counter the OP.

1) I appreciate you saying that you are using intuition. Fair enough. As long as this is clear, I think it's useful to explore in this way.
2) Sure, I was countering a speculative reduction of causes, by Pinker, with a speculative reduction of causes to another hypothesis. But here's a quick intuitive look to counter your intuitive look:

I think it is more likely that technological advances have....
1 led to a reduction in many types of scarcity, such as food, water, and energy, has reduced the competition and tension over these vital resources, which can often trigger or escalate violence.
2 improved communication, coordination, and early warning systems for preventing and resolving conflicts and violence. There are more bridges between cultures due to technology leading to more ways to interconnect with others. Nation states have intermingled economies, cultures, individuals in marriage and business relations, etc. We have more ways to understand other cultures through translators and media that can reduce misunderstandings and at least give the opportunity to resolve differences via language rather than violence.
3 improved access to education, health care, and economic opportunities, which can reduce the root causes of violence such as poverty, inequality, and marginalization.
4 led to a reduction in many types of scarcity has also increased the interdependence and cooperation among different groups and regions, which can foster a culture of peace and dialogue.
5 given the rich and powerful other means to create luxury. Where nobles and chieftains could only amass more wealth with war and other violence in periods in the past, now they can use manufacturing, investment, accumulation of devices and created luxuries to do this. That urge to be special and dominant can now be managed by less violent means.

And while we're looking at reductions in violence due to technological advances in those ways, there's also the reduction of violence via distraction and entertainment. Individuals can enjoy violence and be distracted from their problems via the ever increasing distraction industry. They can watch violence in films and in computer games get their aggression out on unreal bodies. They have access to dozens of media forms and shopping and virtual and real in the world entertainment/leisure actitivies in ways that the Roman leaders could only have dreamt of distracting the masses from inequities and other problems.

So, not just bread, but also has technology given us more circuses.

I am sure there are other ways reduction of scarcity and technological advances reduce violence without really changing our moral nature. We have more and are distracted more.

When pressed by scarcity, people would likely and are likely to return to more violence.
When cut off from their distracting mobiles and computers and creature comforts and 24/7 musical and other distraction,
I would intuit that suddenly we would have more violence.

Everyone is on 'drugs'.

And if you look at the parts of society and countries where there is more scarcity and less distraction
there is more violence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1) it is unclear to experts and researchers that Pinker is correct
2) isolating causes is not easy. One could easily argue that there is less scarcity of food and other similar needs, in most places and this reduces the violence.

I admit my agreement with Pinker is a VERY intuitive and abductive hypothesis.
For one's hypothesis to be more credible, one need detailed analysis of the data plus the significant elements and criteria that should carry higher weightages.

I believe the critical elements in comparing the trend from 10,000 to 1000 to 500 to 100 to 50 years to the present is the continuous improvements we have learned from past mistakes the attempt of corrective actions to prevent future occurrences of evil acts.
This will support the estimated stats we have on hand and not forgetting per capita ratio basis.
So while the impact of violence is greatly amplified by the bias media's 'bad news is good news' the ratio of evil per capita should be reduced by the continual improvements of laws in all nations [which is non-existing and prevailing 1000 years ago].

Intuitively, with more data and critical analysis, I believe, there is an effective reduction in the trend of evil acts since 10,000 years ago to the present.

Intuitively, I believe the continuous improvement is driven by the slowly unfolding of a universal moral function within humanity which infer morality is objective.

So far, yours is a pure speculation.
You need to provide something reasonable [not precise] as a possible counter the OP.

1) I appreciate you saying that you are using intuition. Fair enough. As long as this is clear, I think it's useful to explore in this way.
2) Sure, I was countering a speculative reduction of causes, by Pinker, with a speculative reduction of causes to another hypothesis. But here's a quick intuitive look to counter your intuitive look:

I think it is more likely that technological advances have....
1 led to a reduction in many types of scarcity, such as food, water, and energy, has reduced the competition and tension over these vital resources, which can often trigger or escalate violence.
2 improved communication, coordination, and early warning systems for preventing and resolving conflicts and violence. There are more bridges between cultures due to technology leading to more ways to interconnect with others. Nation states have intermingled economies, cultures, individuals in marriage and business relations, etc. We have more ways to understand other cultures through translators and media that can reduce misunderstandings and at least give the opportunity to resolve differences via language rather than violence.
3 improved access to education, health care, and economic opportunities, which can reduce the root causes of violence such as poverty, inequality, and marginalization.
4 led to a reduction in many types of scarcity has also increased the interdependence and cooperation among different groups and regions, which can foster a culture of peace and dialogue.
5 given the rich and powerful other means to create luxury. Where nobles and chieftains could only amass more wealth with war and other violence in periods in the past, now they can use manufacturing, investment, accumulation of devices and created luxuries to do this. That urge to be special and dominant can now be managed by less violent means.

And while we're looking at reductions in violence due to technological advances in those ways, there's also the reduction of violence via distraction and entertainment. Individuals can enjoy violence and be distracted from their problems via the ever increasing distraction industry. They can watch violence in films and in computer games get their aggression out on unreal bodies. They have access to dozens of media forms and shopping and virtual and real in the world entertainment/leisure actitivies in ways that the Roman leaders could only have dreamt of distracting the masses from inequities and other problems.

So, not just bread, but also has technology given us more circuses.

I am sure there are other ways reduction of scarcity and technological advances reduce violence without really changing our moral nature. We have more and are distracted more.

When pressed by scarcity, people would likely and are likely to return to more violence.
When cut off from their distracting mobiles and computers and creature comforts and 24/7 musical and other distraction,
I would intuit that suddenly we would have more violence.

Everyone is on 'drugs'.

And if you look at the parts of society and countries where there is more scarcity and less distraction
there is more violence.

We can also view [intuit] it this way which is more likely;

Violence is an evil act which contra morality.
Therefore less violence = increase in moral competence.
Your above basic features of 1-5 in a way released the suppressions that enable the moral function to unfold within humanity.

Note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Your 1-5 relate to basic and lower needs.
The moral needs are higher on the pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs [likely to be near the top], i.e. the realization of higher potential of being a higher moral person.

"Everyone is on 'drugs'."
Everyone?? even then that do not necessary lead to greater violence if they are using DMT and other spiritual hallucinogens.
Again what is the per capital ratio of violence due to drugs in the world?
Note Pinker was talking from stats and you have no stats but mere guesswork.

Intuitively, note these specifically reductions since the last 1000 yearst to the present; this emerge from an increase and unfolding of the moral competency within humanity [in the brain];
1. Decrease in violence against women by husband & man and children by parents.
2. Decrease in chattel slavery
3. Less tribal wars ending with many deaths
4. Lesser incest
5. Lesser infanticide
6. etc. intuited.

You cannot deny the above, even intuitively?
All the above decrease in evil act are related to morality, thus there is an increase in moral competence specific to the evil acts listed.
In terms of morality, we cannot generalize for the individual [e.g. X is a moral person], but must always qualify morality in terms of individual acts or a set of evil acts, not ALL evil acts.

[Iwannaplato]

We can also view [intuit] it this way which is more likely;

Yes, one can intuit.

Violence is an evil act which contra morality.

It depends on the situations and this is true throughout history in nearly every morality except the more radical pacifism. There is not single morality.

Therefore less violence = increase in moral competence.
Your above basic features of 1-5 in a way released the suppressions that enable the moral function to unfold within humanity.

Or they eliminated the causes. I intuit that is more likely.

Note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Your 1-5 relate to basic and lower needs.
The moral needs are higher on the pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs [likely to be near the top], i.e. the realization of higher potential of being a higher moral person.

and those lower needs lead to violence and conflict. They also lead to the powerful having fewer outlets, in the past, to acquire more, increase their luxury and wealth. Maslow does not offer a counterargument. Nothing shows that moral talk, moral thinking, moral education has led to reductions in homicide, say - if this is even true - but rather just the kinds of changes I mentioned. Maslow himself thought that much violence came from unmet needs. REduction of scarcity, which is directly supported by Maslow's ideas.

"Everyone is on 'drugs'."
Everyone?? even then that do not necessary lead to greater violence if they are using DMT and other spiritual hallucinogens.

My point was that they are sedated by the distractions. Telling me that some drugs leads to less violence only adds to my point. We have entertainment and distraction - circuses - we have more bread than those times when we were more violent - if Pinker is even right about this.

Again what is the per capital ratio of violence due to drugs in the world?
Note Pinker was talking from stats and you have no stats but mere guesswork.

You misunderstood the point. And further Pinker's statistics don't point directly at causes, they point to changes over time and are controversial.

Intuitively, note these specifically reductions since the last 1000 yearst to the present; this emerge from an increase and unfolding of the moral competency within humanity [in the brain];
1. Decrease in violence against women by husband & man and children by parents.
2. Decrease in chattel slavery
3. Less tribal wars ending with many deaths
4. Lesser incest
5. Lesser infanticide
6. etc. intuited.

I'm aware of Pinker's argument. My argument does not depend on him being wrong about consequences, I am arguing against the causes. I can't imagine how much clearer this could have been put. No mention of where in the world we have greater violence and how that correlates to scarcity, lack of access to distraction and entertainment by comparison to other parts of the world where there is less violence.

You cannot deny the above, even intuitively?

None of

All the above decrease in evil act are related to morality, thus there is an increase in moral competence specific to the evil acts listed.
In terms of morality, we cannot generalize for the individual [e.g. X is a moral person], but must always qualify morality in terms of individual acts or a set of evil acts, not ALL evil acts.

Nothing in the above supports in any way that changes in morality have led to lowered violence. Some points you make support my sense of the causes. Others miss the point - like your rementioning Pinker's position on the reduction of morality.

I have to say that I am skeptical you've even read Pinker's book. I have. Even Pinker's sense of the CAUSES of the change he is asserting include some of the precise points I made. You've taken his idea that there has been a reduction in violence and intuited that some earlier suppressed moral thingie is coming through. That's you´'re hypothesis not his. He presents a much more complex set of causes, a number of them like mine. And he doesn't anywhere contradict the others I've written that don't directly overlap with his.

You're position is speculative. Which is fine. Mine is speculative and Pinker's as far as causes, is also speculative. As far as reduction in violence he makes a very good case and has a lot of statistics. While there is controversy around that, I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that there is a reduction in violence and you will note that most of my post was about the CAUSES of that reduction.

You did respond directly to one point I made - my polemical drug statement - but you took it precisely the wrong way. I could have been clearer I suppose. But it was part of my argument that we are sedated and distracted and entertained more now. It's not speculative that this is true. It is speculative that this has led to a reduction in violence. I get some support from where the world violence is worse now: and those are places with scarcity and less entertainment/distractions. And also places where there is less stability of state. One of Pinker's arguments about CAUSES was the rise of the state, which is a consolidation of power in one place. This reduces violence in part because the state grants only itself the regular right to be violent.

Don't conflate my disagreement with you with a disagreement with Pinker. He has a much more nuanced position and agrees with me about a number of the CAUSES. In general you did not respond to the points I made.

I'll wait and see if others weigh in on the issue. I'm not encouraged by this response which fits too many of my complaints about how you respond in general.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We can also view [intuit] it this way which is more likely;

Yes, one can intuit.

Violence is an evil act which contra morality.

It depends on the situations and this is true throughout history in nearly every morality except the more radical pacifism. There is not single morality.

Therefore less violence = increase in moral competence.
Your above basic features of 1-5 in a way released the suppressions that enable the moral function to unfold within humanity.

Or they eliminated the causes. I intuit that is more likely.

Note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Your 1-5 relate to basic and lower needs.
The moral needs are higher on the pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs [likely to be near the top], i.e. the realization of higher potential of being a higher moral person.

and those lower needs lead to violence and conflict. They also lead to the powerful having fewer outlets, in the past, to acquire more, increase their luxury and wealth. Maslow does not offer a counterargument. Nothing shows that moral talk, moral thinking, moral education has led to reductions in homicide, say - if this is even true - but rather just the kinds of changes I mentioned. Maslow himself thought that much violence came from unmet needs. REduction of scarcity, which is directly supported by Maslow's ideas.

"Everyone is on 'drugs'."
Everyone?? even then that do not necessary lead to greater violence if they are using DMT and other spiritual hallucinogens.

My point was that they are sedated by the distractions. Telling me that some drugs leads to less violence only adds to my point. We have entertainment and distraction - circuses - we have more bread than those times when we were more violent - if Pinker is even right about this.

Again what is the per capital ratio of violence due to drugs in the world?
Note Pinker was talking from stats and you have no stats but mere guesswork.

You misunderstood the point. And further Pinker's statistics don't point directly at causes, they point to changes over time and are controversial.

Intuitively, note these specifically reductions since the last 1000 yearst to the present; this emerge from an increase and unfolding of the moral competency within humanity [in the brain];
1. Decrease in violence against women by husband & man and children by parents.
2. Decrease in chattel slavery
3. Less tribal wars ending with many deaths
4. Lesser incest
5. Lesser infanticide
6. etc. intuited.

I'm aware of Pinker's argument. My argument does not depend on him being wrong about consequences, I am arguing against the causes. I can't imagine how much clearer this could have been put. No mention of where in the world we have greater violence and how that correlates to scarcity, lack of access to distraction and entertainment by comparison to other parts of the world where there is less violence.

You cannot deny the above, even intuitively?

None of

All the above decrease in evil act are related to morality, thus there is an increase in moral competence specific to the evil acts listed.
In terms of morality, we cannot generalize for the individual [e.g. X is a moral person], but must always qualify morality in terms of individual acts or a set of evil acts, not ALL evil acts.

Nothing in the above supports in any way that changes in morality have led to lowered violence. Some points you make support my sense of the causes. Others miss the point - like your rementioning Pinker's position on the reduction of morality.

I have to say that I am skeptical you've even read Pinker's book. I have. Even Pinker's sense of the CAUSES of the change he is asserting include some of the precise points I made. You've taken his idea that there has been a reduction in violence and intuited that some earlier suppressed moral thingie is coming through. That's you´'re hypothesis not his. He presents a much more complex set of causes, a number of them like mine. And he doesn't anywhere contradict the others I've written that don't directly overlap with his.

You're position is speculative. Which is fine. Mine is speculative and Pinker's as far as causes, is also speculative. As far as reduction in violence he makes a very good case and has a lot of statistics. While there is controversy around that, I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument that there is a reduction in violence and you will note that most of my post was about the CAUSES of that reduction.

You did respond directly to one point I made - my polemical drug statement - but you took it precisely the wrong way. I could have been clearer I suppose. But it was part of my argument that we are sedated and distracted and entertained more now. It's not speculative that this is true. It is speculative that this has led to a reduction in violence. I get some support from where the world violence is worse now: and those are places with scarcity and less entertainment/distractions. And also places where there is less stability of state. One of Pinker's arguments about CAUSES was the rise of the state, which is a consolidation of power in one place. This reduces violence in part because the state grants only itself the regular right to be violent.

Don't conflate my disagreement with you with a disagreement with Pinker. He has a much more nuanced position and agrees with me about a number of the CAUSES. In general you did not respond to the points I made.

I'll wait and see if others weigh in on the issue. I'm not encouraged by this response which fits too many of my complaints about how you respond in general.

I have read Pinker's book.
I did not assert Pinker claimed his book is solely about morality.

Too many kinds of violence, I hope to convince you, have moved in the same direction for it all to be a coincidence, and that calls for an explanation.
It is natural to recount the history of violence as a moral saga—a heroic struggle of justice against evil—but that is not my starting point.
My approach is scientific in the broad sense of seeking explanations for why things happen.
We may discover that a particular advance in peacefulness was brought about by moral entrepreneurs and their movements.
But we may also discover that the explanation is more prosaic, like a change in technology, governance, commerce, or knowledge.
Preface

Seems that Pinker is giving morality some decent weightage as the cause among others.
A search indicate 'moral' related term is mentioned 583 times, thus quite significant.

In the OP I [on my own] intuited morality is the critical and fundamental root cause for the reduction of violence and the related evil.
I have provided my argument why my hypothesis is more likely to be a very critical cause, perhaps a pareto 80/20.

[Impenitent]

we have the better tools

someone will use them sooner or later and all is naught

eat, drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

we have the better tools
-Imp

Exactly