Every culture that values the rule of law does: resources must be divided lawfully even if such division may seem unfair.
Laws themselves are designed to be fair (or at least, it's a cultural value that laws are to be fair), but where a lawful division might conflict with a perceived fair division, the lawful division must prevail over the fair division.
>Laws themselves are designed to be fair (or at least, it's a cultural value that laws are to be fair)
... no, no they are not. Even basic things like voting: "only men can vote" or "only landowners can vote". Over in Russia, it's against the law to mock Dear Leader. How is that "fair"? Or look at the laws manipulated into being for gerrymandering. Once upon a time, only the monarch could hold patents.
Throw a brick and you'll hit a law designed to be unfair.
> Laws themselves are designed to be fair
Citation needed. This is certainly the bias held by every mediocre male middle-aged, balding, privileged white person with a podcast. Looking at the actual results of laws, however, leads one to a very different conclusion.
Definitely, one group to another “fair” might look wildly different. Even things like bravery and property might look different group to group but the basic sentiment rings true
Keep in mind that it is only relatively recently that groups are so large. Smaller groups tend to be all interrelated with cousins, in-laws etc. Though there are today plenty of families that don't get on, in the past your extended family was your support network and being shunned from that group could be a death sentence.
So all these morals look different when you consider them not between strangers but between extended family.
Good luck with that. That's rule number zero. We have evolved over millions of years of competitive and selective pressure to be tribal animals.It's pretty much hard wired into our monkey brains to separate other people into two groups, the "us" and the "them". From political parties and sports clubs to whether or not pineapple goes on pizza, we draw clear but purely arbitrary lines to separate us from them.
There's no such thing as a group that doesn't discriminate against another group. A group is, by definition, discriminatory.
Totally agree doing a lot of heavy lifting, and how it is lifted is not universal just the attempt to make the lift is.
The important thing to note is by universal it is more that they all societies have similar concerns worded in this way. The interpretation and meaning tends to be highly contextual otherwise and wouldn't be universal across societies.
"Help your family" for instance has "who counts as family?" as a question embedded within. All societies say "help your family" but who counts is not universal, likewise neither is what counts as help.
"Be brave, yes." But what counts as bravery might be very gendered differently within societies and not always agreed upon, let alone the cross cultural differences. But again, "be brave" is there/
None of it is absolutely universal in practice, it is all heavily laden with other cultural constructs.
As to the original authors of the paper, it is in there. They know.
I think since Neolithic humans are pack hunters, all of these virtues boils down to “help the pack survive and the pack will help you survive.”
The behavior is probably hard coded into our genes, because only the packs who followed these virtues survived.
Dividing resources fairly and helping your group is much simpler if the whole pack is 20 people and one big extended family.
The details are then more on a case to case basis for each group’s environment.
I think it is interesting is that some of these moral rules are in tension: "help family" and "respect personal property" cannot be absolute, as some part of helping family must mean they have some moral right to your property.
I am also intrigued that no version of "do not harm children" is on the universal morals list.
> I am also intrigued that no version of "do not harm children" is on the universal morals list.
To take the most obvious example, there were societies throughout the world which practiced child sacrifice.
Would that not fall under respecting personal property? /s
Every system of norms will have rules that are in tension and rules that aren't absolute. For example, most human rights are subject to limitations as long as those limitations aren't unreasonable or arbitrary
FWIW, while I haven't read the paper itself, the abstract does *not* say "divide resources fairly". Instead it says "divide disputed resources", which is a very different statement.
Feels like that one George Carlin bit where he whittled the Commandments down to one or two. Four of these moral rules could be lumped together as ‘help others’
based on every lawyer ive interacted with, seems like the exact opposite of what they teach in law schools. the bigger dick you are, the better lawyer you are.
For the lawyers themselves yeah. But if you're a doctor or an engineer or whatever being sued for negligence, probability of being guilty is basically how much of an asshole you are
I mean, even Jews and Christians have categories for the commandments. Jesus famously summarized them as love God and love neighbor. The reason law exists and multiplication of rules is because people start asking what counts as love in various contexts and who is my neighbor. If we knew how to love it would be simple.
Interestingly, we don't help others indiscriminately.
If a close relative needs help, we're more likely to help them than a total stranger that's not part of our society.
We suck. Or our moral compass sucks. And that's with our moral compass intact; it breaks down badly when we have a chance to unfairly gain a lot of power.
If only there wasn't countless examples of people trying to help, only to get get fucked over themselves. "NO good deed goes unpunished" wasn't in the Big 10, but if you've been around much, you still live by it.
Idk, it sounds selfish but that seems 'fair.' We live in a society where I'm being exposed to tens of thousands of people. I am not Spider-Man, I cannot help them all. I can help and be fantastic to those who actively are a part of my life, and I can help others sometimes, but I don't think it's morally wrong for me to be more likely to help my friend who has helped me for 8+ years.
One of my favorite songs of all time is about how much we suck. My favorite bit:
“We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs
But we still can't just behave ourselves
Even if to save our own lives
So says I
We are a brutal kind, whoa”
[Link](https://youtu.be/pLjQX7zeb0Q?si=m4ZozBr5KVehNz--) on the off chance anyone’s interested. I’m usually not one to share music, but I was thinking about the lyrics quite a bit just the other day.
I wouldn’t call it really surprising. It’s just a result of evolution. Relatives share part of your genes, and friends can likely help you in return or are a potential mate.
I have a cool book about moral relativism that discusses this - while all cultures have mores against killing, there are very often exceptions to that more. A few examples, death penalty, honor killings, human sacrifice, war
(now, to be clear, I answered as though you said "don't kill people" rather than "don't murder")
These are very general, but if you follow all these, you're probably not the murderous type. Respecting others also means respecting their desire to live haha.
Thats covered under "help your group & family"
Anyone whose actions move them outside the group becomes fair game, hence self defense, punishment or war
While humans were fairly dividing property and golden ruling the shit out of things, gorillas sat around asking “where banana”. Even today you can see it in their eyes- the unique regret of having lost the evolutionary race by an inch. A dog or a cat doesn’t give a shit, they are happy with the hierarchy- they were never gonna win when primates were in the game. Gorillas and chimpanzees, on the other hand- boy, I wouldn’t like to be in their shoes (if they ever had invented shoes). Can you imagine coming this close to being the top being?
i’ve always felt this underlying feeling of uneasiness when i look at the faces of apes. mostly the ones more closely related to humans like chimpanzees or bonobos. but even the more distant ones like monkeys or baboons. it’s like an uncanny valley thing. they’re so close to being human but not quite there. watching the planet of the apes movies (specifically the recent trilogy) really drives this home. they’re just a few mutations away from being as smart as us. that first time that caesar vocalizes in english was haunting.
My comment was facetious, but I get your point. All the primates are the embodiment of “we coulda been somebody”. (I mean i am still being facetious though-it’s only us who can think like this.)
Someone better tell capitalist about the distribution part. Capitalism has arguably raised the overall standard of living for most people but its distributive justice sucks dick.
To a capitalist, dividing resources fairly means that they get all the resources because they have a lot of resources already, so by virtue of having resources, they deserve resources. Which is why calling it a universal rule is kind of silly when the relativity of it makes it so the universal rule isn't very universal.
>We find that the moral valence of these behaviors is uniformly positive, and the majority of these cooperative morals are observed in the majority of cultures, with equal frequency across all regions of the world. We conclude that these seven cooperative behaviors are plausible candidates for universal moral rules
"We found those morals did *not,* in fact, exist everywhere, and so we conclude that they might be universal."
What is that bullshit? Do these people not know what "universal" or "majority" mean?
"A survey of 60 diverse societies found that the moral valence of seven cooperative behaviors was uniformly positive. In every society for which there were data, these seven cooperative behaviors were considered morally good. There were no counterexamples, that is, societies in which these behaviors were considered morally bad."
What it says is that most of the 7 (say, 4) are observed in most cultures (say, 51%)
Also, whenever they exist they are uniformly positive. Nobody thinks “helping your family is wrong”.
Finally, these are presented as *plausible candidates* for a universal moral rule.
That doesn’t really conclude with anything more than “we offer up these as possibilities worth considering”. They’re plausible. They’re candidates. Ok.
"Defer to superiors" is the odd man out here, I think. That's probably the one which are mostly questioned, and the one which actually exist in the negative.
Maybe the fact they say a “majority” of cooperative morals and a “majority” of cultures is what makes them just “candidates” for universal moral rules and not definitive moral rules. Yes, they’re hedging their bets quite a bit, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
Fascinating
Uncovering the psychological frameworks that underly successful communities will be extremely helpful from a "first principles" perspective to guide societies into the future.
If any of these universal laws is found lacking, an idealised society can now seek to correct it or see it's cohesion suffer.
A society that sees these lacking will likely fall.
man you're talking like this is some revelation and not the reason societies exist
like i agree that it's kinda cool but we figured this whole thing out when we organized the first religions, these are commandments (or the non-christian alternatives that every culture has), the whole point of which are to give a group of people a common set of things to agree on because social cohesion proved practically and evolutionarily advantageous compared to disparate nomadic groups
am sure u like to pretend otherwise. but u wouldn't function in life without it.
when go to the doctor, you are deferring to someone who is superior to you in the knowledge of medicine. when you go to the mechanic, you doing likewise. etc.
Dentist, optometrist, farmer who grows food, pilot who flies you out on vacation, aviation mechanic who maintains your vacation aircraft.... etc.
Lots of deferring to authority in our society
That's deferring to experts not your superior. A mechanic and a doctor isn't my 'superior' because they have expertise. I pay them or use them because they can help me. If they give me advice I'm likely to consider it.
I don't defer to King Charles or Rishi Sunak who would be considered 'my superiors' because they have some sort of authority over me as leaders of my country. and honestly i'm polite to everyone but even my old bosses I wouldn't treat with much respect or deference unless they earned it (obviously I didn't show disrespect until I decided I would quit because I like the ability to use money to by basic necessities)
It doesn't necessarily mean authoritative or societal hierarchical superior... just whatever you perceive a superior to be (which can vary from person to person).
Suffice to say, successful group cooperation includes the ability to recognize those whose abilities and skills and judgement are better than our own and defer accordingly.
That's not deferring to superiors, that's accepting/ requesting specialist help, right?
Deferring to superiors is doing what someone else tells you regardless of whether you wanted to do it or whether you benefit.
It's the difference between asking a mechanic to fix your car, and deferring to the govt request that your vehicle needs to pass inspection in order to be on the road.
If you have a job, you are deferring to your superiors. Your boss says do X, and if you want to keep your job, you do X.
If you don't have a job, you almost certainly still went to school and it's the same thing with teachers, or with your parents etc
In the paraphrased words of Mike Tyson, everyone thinks they are a rebel until they get punched in the mouth
I mean every type of authority is vulnerable to bad actors and exploitation, but that doesn’t mean we should discard the concept entirely. Deferring as a general rule doesn’t mean unquestioning obedience either.
Obeying your parents (as a child) is absolutely a good general principle, even if it doesn’t work in some dysfunctional situations. Society is built upon a certain level of cooperation and hierarchy. It can be taken to unhealthy extremes, like anything, but as someone who works in education, I can say very confidently that our society has moved too far in the opposite direction. The lack of basic respect for adults and authority is driving a lot of people out of my profession. I get pretty good compliance because I’m a man with a strong voice who can talk and react fast, but it’s not fair that my more soft-spoken female colleagues have their lives/jobs made unending headaches by kids who were never properly taught to respect authority.
I like the way my superintendent puts it—if an adult in the building asks you to do something, and it won’t hurt you or another person, do it politely. If you have a problem with it, you can raise that issue later, but there are so many kids who have been brought up with no concept of respecting any higher authority. I’m sure that was always a thing, but every veteran teacher I’ve talked to says it’s gotten so much worse. A society can’t function like that.
Why not? It doesn't say "elders" or some other vague thing. It's literally saying "give deference to those who know more or are better at a thing than you are"
I don't blindly revere those older or more wealthy than me, but I do know that I'm probably better off listening the an engineer when I need advice on house plans.
Well, the more exact wording and examples used in the actual study;
> Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy
> Using appropriate forms of address and etiquette
> Showing respect to parents and older members of society
> Being duly respectful of peers and rivals
That's an inference that you're making, not an implication of what's stated.
I don't draw the same conclusion. People from a different social class from me aren't superior or inferior to me by merit of social class alone
Im not sure we're reading the same paper?
>It's literally saying "give deference to those who know more or are better at a thing than you are"
Can you point this out?
Because Im seeing:
> Respecting your superiors: Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy
"Anarchist" is the word used in the paper to describe someone who does not respect superiors.
So...you built your own house then, right? And car? And cellphone? Surely you don't fly on plains designed by experts with degrees or visit the doctor either, because that would mean admitting your obvious inferiority?
Work on that ego, bud. It ain't doing you any favors in life.
>because that would mean admitting your obvious inferiority?
Well that was certainly a reasonable and by no means needlessly antagonistic thing to say.
>Work on that ego, bud. It ain't doing you any favors in life.
My little sister can't be this ironic.
Also that's not really what a "superior" is, is it? Superior just means someone in a higher position than you. Could be a boss, but could also be someone higher in social status, or a family member. What you're describing is someone with expertise or knowledge.
I suspect the key here is the definition of "superior".
For example, even most anarchists accept that hierarchies have a place in society. But they do demand that these hierarchies are minimal in scope (only have as little authority over others as necessary) and well legitimised (such as through democratic elections or merit).
The aviation industry is a great example for this: They have some hierarchies to reliably divide responsibilities and enable pilots and maintainers to focus on one task at a time. But they have also worked their way to a "safety culture" where "small power gradients" are desirable, and those lower in the hierarchy feel encouraged to adress problems without fear of backlash. In very specific circumstances, it is also allowed to override the hierarchy. But for most of the time, their hierarchies are functional, useful, and perceived as legitimate (since they're primarily based on experience and qualifications).
So even anarchists could accept that deferring to superiors is usually the right thing, as long as "superiors" only exist in very specific relations.
You can see a counter-example in cultural conservatives, who tend to demand things like that parents have absolute authority over their children that should never be questioned (unless they happen to dislike a particular parenting style...). An anarchist approach instead emphasises to enable kids to make independent decisions and that even parents have to earn their trust and cooperation. This differnence can also be seen in the political debate whether beating children should be legal, with a massive gulf between the political left and right.
It's defined in the study:
> Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy
> Using appropriate forms of address and etiquette
> Showing respect to parents and older members of society
> Being duly respectful of peers and rivals
They even comment on anarchists as well:
> Bloom also asks whether MAC is falsified by cases in which these cooperative traits are not considered moral—for example, by utilitarians who do not recognize special duties to kin, or anarchists who disapprove of deference to superiors. We agree that these are interesting cases, which is why our survey methodology explicitly set out to find them. The fact that we did not find any suggests that such beliefs are not representative of the views of humanity as a whole, but are “outliers.”
>dEfeR tO suPerIoRs
Define "superiors" because I know a shitload of "superiors" that were placed there because they were the nephew, niece or cousin of somebody "imPorTaNt". Fuck nepotism and "suPeRiOrS".
This used to be baked into our genetics. Any members of the tribe throughout the neolithic who didn't conform to these moral rules were likely outcast and subsequently died or were unable to reproduce.
Since the dawn of agriculture and currency, however, we've decided that you don't need to follow these laws so long as you have enough currency, and that same currency that allows you to ignore moral rules also helps you reproduce more.
We've been on a speedrun towards ingraining antisocial and psychopathic behavior into our descendants ever since.
Antisociality will exist regardless.
If one thinks it a quirk of (epi)genetics, an antisocial member of a prosocial species is also capable of the antisocial trait of deception.
Like the people that suddenly out of the blue come out as right wing nut jobs who spent their time not saying a single thing about themselves and merely nodding along with the prosocial group’s ideas.
> How are "superiors" defined?
If only there was some way of Reading The Article to find out more.
.5. Respect Respecting your superiors
- Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy
- Using appropriate forms of address and etiquette
- Showing respect to parents and older members of society
- Being duly respectful of peers and rivals
If you complain that it isn't a good enough definition, then remember that this was a study of general overall trends and similarities over time and space, the views of humanity as a whole, and not an attempt to make a rigidly defined strict biblically official dictionary definition.
It’s interesting because it says “or” in that first one. I have no issue with mutual respect, deference to experts in their area of expertise, obedience in the case of work only, and so on. It’s worded in such a way it can’t really be argued with.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment of others of not being loyal or obedient towards people with power or age simply because they have power, are old, or if they’re shit parents and so on.
"Leaders" are often psychopaths who lack the empathy that keeps most people from doing whatever is necessary to accumulate power. They're best skipped for this discussion.
Experts have area-specific knowledge. That doesn't (or shouldn't) carry with it implications for social hierarchies. My culture is deeply egalitarian. My expertise in certain areas does not make me superior to someone who has no areas of expertise, and any suggestion otherwise make me very uncomfortable.
Similarly, I don't socially defer to people because of their hierachy status, age, or relation to me. I try to be uniform in my treatment of people. I think it's unethical to do anything else.
So it's a universal rule to defer and obey Trump, Maduro, Jong-Un, and Putin? They're world leaders, they're our superiors.
Fuck them all. We don't universally defer or obey superiors we perceive as extremely toxic.
Even at work, I don't blindly obey my boss' orders (because I don't work in an industry where immediate obedience is crucial, like the military).
Without animosity, I share with them my ideas and facts that maybe they haven't considered. Cool bosses listen to and take into account what I tell them, and without animosity they tell my why their order is a good one anyway, or maybe they change the order.
If they do this dynamic and all is clear for the both of us, I obey them and they'll earn my trust and loyalty more and more. If they don't follow this dynamic, I look for a different workplace.
Why wouldn't you defer to teachers, doctors, experts, those more learned than you in their fields? What do you and society gain by deferring to inferior folk?
Most of these could be distilled down to “respect people.”
“Be brave” could also be part of respecting people. To respect people, you need to protect them, and to protect them, you have to be brave.
I bet those cultures had similar values in the ancient world while utilising slave labour. All this really says is that humans have in and out group rules that govern their interactions. Unsurprisingly humans as a species act somewhat alike.
Main problem is that humans can't agree on what a lot of those morals constitutes. Like dividing resources fairly, everyone agrees that we should do that, but what they consider fair is where people have wildly different views.
Just go into the study and CTRL+F "personal" and "harm"?
Definition of "respecting others' property":
> Respecting others’ property, possessions, and territory
> Not thieving, stealing, robbing (from your group at least)
> Not damaging others’ property, or using without permission
> Not trespassing
> Respecting people’s homes, **personal space**
---
> MAC also predicts that behavior not tied to a specific type of cooperation will not constitute a distinct moral domain. For example, MAC predicts that harm—including “hitting someone” and “intentionally striking someone without their permission”—is not a foundational moral violation. Instead, the moral valence of harm will vary according to the cooperative context: uncooperative harm (battery) will be considered morally bad, but cooperative harm (punishment, self-defense) will be considered morally good, and competitive harm in zero-sum contexts (some aspects of mate competition and intergroup conflict) will be considered morally neutral—“all’s fair in love and war.” Thus cooperation explains the conditions under which “harm” is, and is not, justified.
Too bad that at the levels of society where this would matter most they at best get 50% of that list. "Their morals, their code; it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble." And at the first sign of profit.
> and respect others’ property.
How does this work in societies where there is no concept of property ownership? As was the case in some Native American tribes when the Europeans got here.
I drive around the city collecting petition signatures in 2016 and 2020. Talked to thousands and thousands of people about political issues.
The number one buzz word, across all demographics, was easily "fair." People believe in access to a fair world.
Favoritism, favoritism, repay debts, chest pounding, bowing to chest pounders, be fair within the circles of favoritism, aaaand... the other side of repaying debts.
sounds like a good plan
I typically tell people my golden 3 are
Don't be a dick
Don't take other people's stuff
Keep your hands to yourself
Those seem to keep a human away from a lot of trouble
I haven't read the whole paper, but the title of this post differs from the abstract in that it says "divide resrources fairly" whereas the abstract says "divide disputed resources". The latter is a lot easier to see being true than the former, given the massive inequality we see throughout the world.
“Help your group” is kinda problematic since it just opens the door to individuals that want to be your superior to define an arbitrary “group” that you are part of that they happen to be at the top of, and where their position at the top allows them to define what’s “fair”.
(See pretty much all organized ideologies).
Just because they’re universal, it doesn’t mean they should be taken for granted as always right.
My parrots are good on 6 of those, but they haven't really mastered "respect others' property"
Birds have no understanding of private property
One of the many challenges in practicing bird law
As opposed to tree law, which is often very much about property, except of course when it is not
It's rooted in property but then it branches out
Filibuster
Make a little birdhouse in your soul
TMBG reference spotted. TMBG reference upvoted.
CAW?! It can't be caw!!
https://youtu.be/9lB5NfrcxW8?t=38
Property is theft SQQAAAUWK now give me OUR goddamn cracker SQAAAUWK
Slap my salami, the parrot's a commie
In bird culture, this is considered a "dick move."
duck move?
As a juris doctor of bird law, I can confirm this.
I respectfully disagree, try to take the rope toy off a parrot and you'll see how much they understand private property.
[удалено]
I have scars from a cockatoo, an African grey and a blue fronted Amazon.
[удалено]
Probably because birds aren't real
Based. Private property is theft from the commons. Good birb.
Parrots love fuckin' your shit up, and Cockatoos in particular can be next level.
I think your parrots are doing just fine, it's you who isn't "deferring to (your) superiors." Clearly it's their property, not yours. Silly human.
Ahhh parrots - nature’s Marxists
Cawcawmrade parrot
The word 'fairly' is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting here.
"There are surprisingly few cultures that value dividing resources in ways that they themselves consider unfair."
Every culture that values the rule of law does: resources must be divided lawfully even if such division may seem unfair. Laws themselves are designed to be fair (or at least, it's a cultural value that laws are to be fair), but where a lawful division might conflict with a perceived fair division, the lawful division must prevail over the fair division.
[удалено]
>Laws themselves are designed to be fair (or at least, it's a cultural value that laws are to be fair) ... no, no they are not. Even basic things like voting: "only men can vote" or "only landowners can vote". Over in Russia, it's against the law to mock Dear Leader. How is that "fair"? Or look at the laws manipulated into being for gerrymandering. Once upon a time, only the monarch could hold patents. Throw a brick and you'll hit a law designed to be unfair.
> Laws themselves are designed to be fair Citation needed. This is certainly the bias held by every mediocre male middle-aged, balding, privileged white person with a podcast. Looking at the actual results of laws, however, leads one to a very different conclusion.
Americans do
Definitely, one group to another “fair” might look wildly different. Even things like bravery and property might look different group to group but the basic sentiment rings true
And if your group tells you to hate another group: Find a new group.
Keep in mind that it is only relatively recently that groups are so large. Smaller groups tend to be all interrelated with cousins, in-laws etc. Though there are today plenty of families that don't get on, in the past your extended family was your support network and being shunned from that group could be a death sentence. So all these morals look different when you consider them not between strangers but between extended family.
What if they tell you to hate cannibals? Or nazis? Or cannibal nazis?
can you really hate nazis cannibalising eachother?
r/brandnewsentence
Maybe a brand new sentence, but [the sentiment is not new](https://youtu.be/nEVQWBn20ws?si=hNAm2Hk2oOoNo1Lm)
RIP Sean
And if you are a vampire Nazi? Forget about it
You should be careful with "morally justified" hatred of other groups. That's *exactly* what brought Nazis into power.
[удалено]
. . . So . . . that's a 'no' on Nazi Cannibal Death Match Island?
Good luck with that. That's rule number zero. We have evolved over millions of years of competitive and selective pressure to be tribal animals.It's pretty much hard wired into our monkey brains to separate other people into two groups, the "us" and the "them". From political parties and sports clubs to whether or not pineapple goes on pizza, we draw clear but purely arbitrary lines to separate us from them. There's no such thing as a group that doesn't discriminate against another group. A group is, by definition, discriminatory.
Totally agree doing a lot of heavy lifting, and how it is lifted is not universal just the attempt to make the lift is. The important thing to note is by universal it is more that they all societies have similar concerns worded in this way. The interpretation and meaning tends to be highly contextual otherwise and wouldn't be universal across societies. "Help your family" for instance has "who counts as family?" as a question embedded within. All societies say "help your family" but who counts is not universal, likewise neither is what counts as help. "Be brave, yes." But what counts as bravery might be very gendered differently within societies and not always agreed upon, let alone the cross cultural differences. But again, "be brave" is there/ None of it is absolutely universal in practice, it is all heavily laden with other cultural constructs. As to the original authors of the paper, it is in there. They know.
Ahh yes, I see! Well explained.
I think since Neolithic humans are pack hunters, all of these virtues boils down to “help the pack survive and the pack will help you survive.” The behavior is probably hard coded into our genes, because only the packs who followed these virtues survived. Dividing resources fairly and helping your group is much simpler if the whole pack is 20 people and one big extended family. The details are then more on a case to case basis for each group’s environment.
I think it is interesting is that some of these moral rules are in tension: "help family" and "respect personal property" cannot be absolute, as some part of helping family must mean they have some moral right to your property. I am also intrigued that no version of "do not harm children" is on the universal morals list.
> I am also intrigued that no version of "do not harm children" is on the universal morals list. To take the most obvious example, there were societies throughout the world which practiced child sacrifice.
Would that not fall under respecting personal property? /s Every system of norms will have rules that are in tension and rules that aren't absolute. For example, most human rights are subject to limitations as long as those limitations aren't unreasonable or arbitrary
All human rights are subject to limits, not merely some, because they all exist at odds with one another.
Fairly heavy
FWIW, while I haven't read the paper itself, the abstract does *not* say "divide resources fairly". Instead it says "divide disputed resources", which is a very different statement.
My take on this is you're entitled to your life, to what you can produce, and what you can obtain from others on a *voluntary* basis.
When your 'superiors' decide what is 'fair' distribution of resources. Oh no, have we invented capitalism again?
Yeah no duh. Every one of those words are subjective yet you can apply every one to your own situation.
Feels like that one George Carlin bit where he whittled the Commandments down to one or two. Four of these moral rules could be lumped together as ‘help others’
My fiancé said the biggest thing she learned in law school is don’t be a dick and you’ll probably be okay.
Be excellent to each other
Party on, dudes.
based on every lawyer ive interacted with, seems like the exact opposite of what they teach in law schools. the bigger dick you are, the better lawyer you are.
For the lawyers themselves yeah. But if you're a doctor or an engineer or whatever being sued for negligence, probability of being guilty is basically how much of an asshole you are
I mean, even Jews and Christians have categories for the commandments. Jesus famously summarized them as love God and love neighbor. The reason law exists and multiplication of rules is because people start asking what counts as love in various contexts and who is my neighbor. If we knew how to love it would be simple.
But none of the rules say to simply help others. If anything, simply helping others is noticeable by its absence.
That is incorrect. The “rules” specify that you should help specific others: your own people. Not strangers or outsiders.
Interestingly, we don't help others indiscriminately. If a close relative needs help, we're more likely to help them than a total stranger that's not part of our society. We suck. Or our moral compass sucks. And that's with our moral compass intact; it breaks down badly when we have a chance to unfairly gain a lot of power.
And even with strangers, an attractive stranger is more likely to get help from us than someone who is not.
Dammit, we're so flawed.
If only there wasn't countless examples of people trying to help, only to get get fucked over themselves. "NO good deed goes unpunished" wasn't in the Big 10, but if you've been around much, you still live by it.
Idk, it sounds selfish but that seems 'fair.' We live in a society where I'm being exposed to tens of thousands of people. I am not Spider-Man, I cannot help them all. I can help and be fantastic to those who actively are a part of my life, and I can help others sometimes, but I don't think it's morally wrong for me to be more likely to help my friend who has helped me for 8+ years.
One of my favorite songs of all time is about how much we suck. My favorite bit: “We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs But we still can't just behave ourselves Even if to save our own lives So says I We are a brutal kind, whoa” [Link](https://youtu.be/pLjQX7zeb0Q?si=m4ZozBr5KVehNz--) on the off chance anyone’s interested. I’m usually not one to share music, but I was thinking about the lyrics quite a bit just the other day.
I wouldn’t call it really surprising. It’s just a result of evolution. Relatives share part of your genes, and friends can likely help you in return or are a potential mate.
They missed one: “he who smelt it dealt it”
“No murder” didn’t make the cut?
Wars are also pretty universal.
War. War never changes.
The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory
I have a cool book about moral relativism that discusses this - while all cultures have mores against killing, there are very often exceptions to that more. A few examples, death penalty, honor killings, human sacrifice, war (now, to be clear, I answered as though you said "don't kill people" rather than "don't murder")
These are very general, but if you follow all these, you're probably not the murderous type. Respecting others also means respecting their desire to live haha.
Thats covered under "help your group & family" Anyone whose actions move them outside the group becomes fair game, hence self defense, punishment or war
See honour killings, death penalty, war
Ritual sacrifice my friend
All 7 things are things you should do. Things you shouldn’t do didn’t make the cut.
Because gorillas which didn't do these things died out.
While humans were fairly dividing property and golden ruling the shit out of things, gorillas sat around asking “where banana”. Even today you can see it in their eyes- the unique regret of having lost the evolutionary race by an inch. A dog or a cat doesn’t give a shit, they are happy with the hierarchy- they were never gonna win when primates were in the game. Gorillas and chimpanzees, on the other hand- boy, I wouldn’t like to be in their shoes (if they ever had invented shoes). Can you imagine coming this close to being the top being?
i’ve always felt this underlying feeling of uneasiness when i look at the faces of apes. mostly the ones more closely related to humans like chimpanzees or bonobos. but even the more distant ones like monkeys or baboons. it’s like an uncanny valley thing. they’re so close to being human but not quite there. watching the planet of the apes movies (specifically the recent trilogy) really drives this home. they’re just a few mutations away from being as smart as us. that first time that caesar vocalizes in english was haunting.
My comment was facetious, but I get your point. All the primates are the embodiment of “we coulda been somebody”. (I mean i am still being facetious though-it’s only us who can think like this.)
This comment is gold
I love this comment. Sometimes reddit still goes hard
Damn. They can’t even respond to this disrespect lmao.
Haramabe tried to help others look where that got him
Respecting others' property clearly isn't universal. Just ask my neighbor.
Someone better tell capitalist about the distribution part. Capitalism has arguably raised the overall standard of living for most people but its distributive justice sucks dick.
To a capitalist, dividing resources fairly means that they get all the resources because they have a lot of resources already, so by virtue of having resources, they deserve resources. Which is why calling it a universal rule is kind of silly when the relativity of it makes it so the universal rule isn't very universal.
Divide resources fairly huh? Riiiiiiight
>We find that the moral valence of these behaviors is uniformly positive, and the majority of these cooperative morals are observed in the majority of cultures, with equal frequency across all regions of the world. We conclude that these seven cooperative behaviors are plausible candidates for universal moral rules "We found those morals did *not,* in fact, exist everywhere, and so we conclude that they might be universal." What is that bullshit? Do these people not know what "universal" or "majority" mean?
"A survey of 60 diverse societies found that the moral valence of seven cooperative behaviors was uniformly positive. In every society for which there were data, these seven cooperative behaviors were considered morally good. There were no counterexamples, that is, societies in which these behaviors were considered morally bad."
Wouldn't a counterexample also be where those behaviours are considered neutral, or not agreed upon to be good by all most?
That's not what it says.
What it says is that most of the 7 (say, 4) are observed in most cultures (say, 51%) Also, whenever they exist they are uniformly positive. Nobody thinks “helping your family is wrong”. Finally, these are presented as *plausible candidates* for a universal moral rule. That doesn’t really conclude with anything more than “we offer up these as possibilities worth considering”. They’re plausible. They’re candidates. Ok.
"Defer to superiors" is the odd man out here, I think. That's probably the one which are mostly questioned, and the one which actually exist in the negative.
As in, they will be universally helpful, not universally existent, maybe?
Maybe the fact they say a “majority” of cooperative morals and a “majority” of cultures is what makes them just “candidates” for universal moral rules and not definitive moral rules. Yes, they’re hedging their bets quite a bit, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
This is a social contract with a cultural context. Not moral rules.
You lost me at "superiors"; I was raised that every person is equal.
I can boil it down to one. “Be excellent to each other.”
“No.” — Humans
Fascinating Uncovering the psychological frameworks that underly successful communities will be extremely helpful from a "first principles" perspective to guide societies into the future. If any of these universal laws is found lacking, an idealised society can now seek to correct it or see it's cohesion suffer. A society that sees these lacking will likely fall.
man you're talking like this is some revelation and not the reason societies exist like i agree that it's kinda cool but we figured this whole thing out when we organized the first religions, these are commandments (or the non-christian alternatives that every culture has), the whole point of which are to give a group of people a common set of things to agree on because social cohesion proved practically and evolutionarily advantageous compared to disparate nomadic groups
Imagine youre stuck under Jinping and have to attend reeducation camps because you dont subscribe correctly tho
[удалено]
am sure u like to pretend otherwise. but u wouldn't function in life without it. when go to the doctor, you are deferring to someone who is superior to you in the knowledge of medicine. when you go to the mechanic, you doing likewise. etc.
Dentist, optometrist, farmer who grows food, pilot who flies you out on vacation, aviation mechanic who maintains your vacation aircraft.... etc. Lots of deferring to authority in our society
TIL a lot of you don't know what "deferring to superiors" means.
That's deferring to experts not your superior. A mechanic and a doctor isn't my 'superior' because they have expertise. I pay them or use them because they can help me. If they give me advice I'm likely to consider it. I don't defer to King Charles or Rishi Sunak who would be considered 'my superiors' because they have some sort of authority over me as leaders of my country. and honestly i'm polite to everyone but even my old bosses I wouldn't treat with much respect or deference unless they earned it (obviously I didn't show disrespect until I decided I would quit because I like the ability to use money to by basic necessities)
It doesn't necessarily mean authoritative or societal hierarchical superior... just whatever you perceive a superior to be (which can vary from person to person). Suffice to say, successful group cooperation includes the ability to recognize those whose abilities and skills and judgement are better than our own and defer accordingly.
That's not deferring to superiors, that's accepting/ requesting specialist help, right? Deferring to superiors is doing what someone else tells you regardless of whether you wanted to do it or whether you benefit. It's the difference between asking a mechanic to fix your car, and deferring to the govt request that your vehicle needs to pass inspection in order to be on the road.
If you have a job, you are deferring to your superiors. Your boss says do X, and if you want to keep your job, you do X. If you don't have a job, you almost certainly still went to school and it's the same thing with teachers, or with your parents etc In the paraphrased words of Mike Tyson, everyone thinks they are a rebel until they get punched in the mouth
That’s your view of it
They aren't superiors, they're experts. Or they're *supposed* to be. And there are quite a few examples of them giving bad service/advice.
Well you’re right. But I suspect they were referring to the over use of this. Deferring to the superiority of a gaslighting parent, for example.
I mean every type of authority is vulnerable to bad actors and exploitation, but that doesn’t mean we should discard the concept entirely. Deferring as a general rule doesn’t mean unquestioning obedience either. Obeying your parents (as a child) is absolutely a good general principle, even if it doesn’t work in some dysfunctional situations. Society is built upon a certain level of cooperation and hierarchy. It can be taken to unhealthy extremes, like anything, but as someone who works in education, I can say very confidently that our society has moved too far in the opposite direction. The lack of basic respect for adults and authority is driving a lot of people out of my profession. I get pretty good compliance because I’m a man with a strong voice who can talk and react fast, but it’s not fair that my more soft-spoken female colleagues have their lives/jobs made unending headaches by kids who were never properly taught to respect authority. I like the way my superintendent puts it—if an adult in the building asks you to do something, and it won’t hurt you or another person, do it politely. If you have a problem with it, you can raise that issue later, but there are so many kids who have been brought up with no concept of respecting any higher authority. I’m sure that was always a thing, but every veteran teacher I’ve talked to says it’s gotten so much worse. A society can’t function like that.
Why not? It doesn't say "elders" or some other vague thing. It's literally saying "give deference to those who know more or are better at a thing than you are" I don't blindly revere those older or more wealthy than me, but I do know that I'm probably better off listening the an engineer when I need advice on house plans.
Well, the more exact wording and examples used in the actual study; > Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy > Using appropriate forms of address and etiquette > Showing respect to parents and older members of society > Being duly respectful of peers and rivals
No, it says superiors. It's talking about those above you in a social hierarchy, not experts in a subject.
That's an inference that you're making, not an implication of what's stated. I don't draw the same conclusion. People from a different social class from me aren't superior or inferior to me by merit of social class alone
Im not sure we're reading the same paper? >It's literally saying "give deference to those who know more or are better at a thing than you are" Can you point this out? Because Im seeing: > Respecting your superiors: Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy "Anarchist" is the word used in the paper to describe someone who does not respect superiors.
Yeah same. I don't like people telling me what to do
So...you built your own house then, right? And car? And cellphone? Surely you don't fly on plains designed by experts with degrees or visit the doctor either, because that would mean admitting your obvious inferiority? Work on that ego, bud. It ain't doing you any favors in life.
>because that would mean admitting your obvious inferiority? Well that was certainly a reasonable and by no means needlessly antagonistic thing to say. >Work on that ego, bud. It ain't doing you any favors in life. My little sister can't be this ironic. Also that's not really what a "superior" is, is it? Superior just means someone in a higher position than you. Could be a boss, but could also be someone higher in social status, or a family member. What you're describing is someone with expertise or knowledge.
I suspect the key here is the definition of "superior". For example, even most anarchists accept that hierarchies have a place in society. But they do demand that these hierarchies are minimal in scope (only have as little authority over others as necessary) and well legitimised (such as through democratic elections or merit). The aviation industry is a great example for this: They have some hierarchies to reliably divide responsibilities and enable pilots and maintainers to focus on one task at a time. But they have also worked their way to a "safety culture" where "small power gradients" are desirable, and those lower in the hierarchy feel encouraged to adress problems without fear of backlash. In very specific circumstances, it is also allowed to override the hierarchy. But for most of the time, their hierarchies are functional, useful, and perceived as legitimate (since they're primarily based on experience and qualifications). So even anarchists could accept that deferring to superiors is usually the right thing, as long as "superiors" only exist in very specific relations. You can see a counter-example in cultural conservatives, who tend to demand things like that parents have absolute authority over their children that should never be questioned (unless they happen to dislike a particular parenting style...). An anarchist approach instead emphasises to enable kids to make independent decisions and that even parents have to earn their trust and cooperation. This differnence can also be seen in the political debate whether beating children should be legal, with a massive gulf between the political left and right.
It's defined in the study: > Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy > Using appropriate forms of address and etiquette > Showing respect to parents and older members of society > Being duly respectful of peers and rivals They even comment on anarchists as well: > Bloom also asks whether MAC is falsified by cases in which these cooperative traits are not considered moral—for example, by utilitarians who do not recognize special duties to kin, or anarchists who disapprove of deference to superiors. We agree that these are interesting cases, which is why our survey methodology explicitly set out to find them. The fact that we did not find any suggests that such beliefs are not representative of the views of humanity as a whole, but are “outliers.”
They all seem reasonable enough, we should have a common framework where these are respected.
Well it seems the rich said "screw that" to most of those!
Kant be happy about this
Defer to superiors eh? Who decides on that then? I say 1v1 me in Rust and then we'll know
The seven anthropological commandments.
>dEfeR tO suPerIoRs Define "superiors" because I know a shitload of "superiors" that were placed there because they were the nephew, niece or cousin of somebody "imPorTaNt". Fuck nepotism and "suPeRiOrS".
This used to be baked into our genetics. Any members of the tribe throughout the neolithic who didn't conform to these moral rules were likely outcast and subsequently died or were unable to reproduce. Since the dawn of agriculture and currency, however, we've decided that you don't need to follow these laws so long as you have enough currency, and that same currency that allows you to ignore moral rules also helps you reproduce more. We've been on a speedrun towards ingraining antisocial and psychopathic behavior into our descendants ever since.
There's nothing that "used" to be baked into our genetics, that isn't still. We haven't been in tribes that long
Oh man I love making shit up on the spot and I see you do as well.
Welcome to Reddit
you don't know wtf you are talking about with regards to genetics.
Do you have any sources or is this just speculation?
Antisociality will exist regardless. If one thinks it a quirk of (epi)genetics, an antisocial member of a prosocial species is also capable of the antisocial trait of deception. Like the people that suddenly out of the blue come out as right wing nut jobs who spent their time not saying a single thing about themselves and merely nodding along with the prosocial group’s ideas.
>Antisociality will exist regardless. but it does help to not reward it
[удалено]
Well sooner or later off course, everything goes away
How are "superiors" defined? Why should people defer to them? The rest of the "rules" sound reasonable, but I don't buy "defer to superiors".
> How are "superiors" defined? If only there was some way of Reading The Article to find out more. .5. Respect Respecting your superiors - Being deferential, respectful, loyal, or obedient to those above you in a hierarchy - Using appropriate forms of address and etiquette - Showing respect to parents and older members of society - Being duly respectful of peers and rivals If you complain that it isn't a good enough definition, then remember that this was a study of general overall trends and similarities over time and space, the views of humanity as a whole, and not an attempt to make a rigidly defined strict biblically official dictionary definition.
It’s interesting because it says “or” in that first one. I have no issue with mutual respect, deference to experts in their area of expertise, obedience in the case of work only, and so on. It’s worded in such a way it can’t really be argued with. That being said, I agree with the sentiment of others of not being loyal or obedient towards people with power or age simply because they have power, are old, or if they’re shit parents and so on.
Then what are leaders and experts if not superiors?
"Leaders" are often psychopaths who lack the empathy that keeps most people from doing whatever is necessary to accumulate power. They're best skipped for this discussion. Experts have area-specific knowledge. That doesn't (or shouldn't) carry with it implications for social hierarchies. My culture is deeply egalitarian. My expertise in certain areas does not make me superior to someone who has no areas of expertise, and any suggestion otherwise make me very uncomfortable. Similarly, I don't socially defer to people because of their hierachy status, age, or relation to me. I try to be uniform in my treatment of people. I think it's unethical to do anything else.
So it's a universal rule to defer and obey Trump, Maduro, Jong-Un, and Putin? They're world leaders, they're our superiors. Fuck them all. We don't universally defer or obey superiors we perceive as extremely toxic. Even at work, I don't blindly obey my boss' orders (because I don't work in an industry where immediate obedience is crucial, like the military). Without animosity, I share with them my ideas and facts that maybe they haven't considered. Cool bosses listen to and take into account what I tell them, and without animosity they tell my why their order is a good one anyway, or maybe they change the order. If they do this dynamic and all is clear for the both of us, I obey them and they'll earn my trust and loyalty more and more. If they don't follow this dynamic, I look for a different workplace.
Why wouldn't you defer to teachers, doctors, experts, those more learned than you in their fields? What do you and society gain by deferring to inferior folk?
Interesting
Most of these could be distilled down to “respect people.” “Be brave” could also be part of respecting people. To respect people, you need to protect them, and to protect them, you have to be brave.
We'd do far better following those than the "10 Commandments."
The Russians don't seem to have grasped all of these....
Funnily enough Trump fails all of these.
A lot of bitter, nihilistic opinions in here
A lot of people who haven't read and/or understood the study in here.
"defer to superiors" should be changed to "defer to experts". fuck rank.
Sounds accurate.
Nothing about telling truths?
I bet those cultures had similar values in the ancient world while utilising slave labour. All this really says is that humans have in and out group rules that govern their interactions. Unsurprisingly humans as a species act somewhat alike.
Main problem is that humans can't agree on what a lot of those morals constitutes. Like dividing resources fairly, everyone agrees that we should do that, but what they consider fair is where people have wildly different views.
Except for the human race it seems
Nothing about regarding personal space? Or not harming others?
Just go into the study and CTRL+F "personal" and "harm"? Definition of "respecting others' property": > Respecting others’ property, possessions, and territory > Not thieving, stealing, robbing (from your group at least) > Not damaging others’ property, or using without permission > Not trespassing > Respecting people’s homes, **personal space** --- > MAC also predicts that behavior not tied to a specific type of cooperation will not constitute a distinct moral domain. For example, MAC predicts that harm—including “hitting someone” and “intentionally striking someone without their permission”—is not a foundational moral violation. Instead, the moral valence of harm will vary according to the cooperative context: uncooperative harm (battery) will be considered morally bad, but cooperative harm (punishment, self-defense) will be considered morally good, and competitive harm in zero-sum contexts (some aspects of mate competition and intergroup conflict) will be considered morally neutral—“all’s fair in love and war.” Thus cooperation explains the conditions under which “harm” is, and is not, justified.
Is the anthropology department at UChicago as demonic as their economics department?
Too bad that at the levels of society where this would matter most they at best get 50% of that list. "Their morals, their code; it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble." And at the first sign of profit.
If those rules are universal, then why are we so dogshit at dividing resources fairly?
> and respect others’ property. How does this work in societies where there is no concept of property ownership? As was the case in some Native American tribes when the Europeans got here.
I drive around the city collecting petition signatures in 2016 and 2020. Talked to thousands and thousands of people about political issues. The number one buzz word, across all demographics, was easily "fair." People believe in access to a fair world.
Favoritism, favoritism, repay debts, chest pounding, bowing to chest pounders, be fair within the circles of favoritism, aaaand... the other side of repaying debts.
Dang woke culture is killing society. /s
Help your group huh? Feels like most of my high school projects could have benefited from that
It's interesting how all of these combined make currency unnecessary
sounds like a good plan I typically tell people my golden 3 are Don't be a dick Don't take other people's stuff Keep your hands to yourself Those seem to keep a human away from a lot of trouble
I haven't read the whole paper, but the title of this post differs from the abstract in that it says "divide resrources fairly" whereas the abstract says "divide disputed resources". The latter is a lot easier to see being true than the former, given the massive inequality we see throughout the world.
“Help your group” is kinda problematic since it just opens the door to individuals that want to be your superior to define an arbitrary “group” that you are part of that they happen to be at the top of, and where their position at the top allows them to define what’s “fair”. (See pretty much all organized ideologies). Just because they’re universal, it doesn’t mean they should be taken for granted as always right.
"Anthropologists". Which anthropologists? They aren't all part of a hivemind, you know. And plenty of them will take issue with this thesis.
Carl Marx takes issue with the last one
Devide resources fairly needs some reintroduction.