Seems to me that most people understand the difference between good and evil, and most people prefer good to evil, but we have a fashion where good is considered low-status, so many people are ashamed to admit their preferences publicly.
It’s probably some mix of signalling and counter-signalling. On the signalling side, powerful people are often evil, or at least indifferent towards good and evil. By pretending that I don’t care about good, I am making myself appear more powerful. On the counter-signalling side, any (morally sane) idiot can say that good is better that evil; I display my sophistication by expressing a different opinion.
but we have a fashion where good is considered low-status,
I do not think that is true. There are exceptions of course but in general most people would say that they prefer someone that is truthful to a lier, honest to deceitful etc. and also despise malevolence.
powerful people are often evil or at least indifferent towards good and evil
That is also not really true as far as I can tell. Again, there are exceptions, but the idea that powerful people are there because they oppressed the less powerful seems to be a residue of Marxist ideology. Apparently studies have found that in western societies successful people tend to be high in IQ and trait conscientiousness. This just means that people are powerful and successful because they are intelligent and hard working..
Seems to me that most people understand the difference between good and evil
When you say understand you mean ‘believe in’ or ‘intuitively understand’ I assume? Cause rational assessment does not conclude so, as far as I can tell.
Thanks for sharing. I must admit, I am not convinced by the methods of measurement of such complex mental states but I do not properly understand the science either so.. Do share the result from stackexchange if you get an answer (can’t find how to ‘watch’ the question).
the idea that powerful people are there because they oppressed the less powerful seems to be a residue of Marxist ideology
The reality may be country-specific, or culture-specific. Whether more powerful people are more evil may be different in America, in Russia, in Saudi Arabia, etc.
And for status purposes, it’s actually the perception that matters. If people believe that X correlates with Y, even if it is not true, displaying X is the way to signal Y.
in western societies successful people tend to be high in IQ and trait conscientiousness
Yep, in “western societies”. I would say this could actually be the characteristic of “western societies”. By which I mean, for the rest of the world this sounds incredibly naive (or a shameless hypocrisy). I believe it’s actually true, statistically, for the record, but that came as a result of me interacting with people from western societies and noticing the cultural differences.
Also, notice the semantic shifts (“powerful” → “successful”; “good” → “high in IQ and trait conscientiousness”). Perhaps a typical entrepreneur is smart, conscientious, and good (or at least, not worse than an average citizen), that seems likely. What about a typical oligarch? You know, usually a former member of some secret service, who made his career on torturing innocent people, and who remains well connected after end of his active service, which probably means he still participates on some activities, most likely criminal. I would still say higher IQ and conscientiousness help here, but seems like a safe bet than most of these people are quite evil in the conventional meaning of the word.
And for status purposes, it’s actually the perception that matters. If people believe that X correlates with Y, even if it is not true, displaying X is the way to signal Y.
Yes, you are right!
I believe it’s actually true, statistically, for the record, but that came as a result of me interacting with people from western societies and noticing the cultural differences.
I would still say higher IQ and conscientiousness help here, but seems like a safe bet than most of these people are quite evil in the conventional meaning of the word.
These are good points. And a very interesting observation about the semantic shifts. On further thought I would say that in a corrupt society the evil will be powerful while in a fair and good society the good. And of course in reality most cultures are a mixture. At the moment I believe it is impossible to be certain about what our (or any other) society is really like cause the interpretations are conflicted and the sources quality ambiguous. Plus intellectually we can not define the good in any absolute sense (though we kind of know its characteristics in some sense). In any case let’s avoid a political discussion, or even one of specific moral particulars for now since the point of the thread is more general.
One thing I would like to bring up is that, to me, it seems that it is not a matter of signalling to others (though that can happen to). I would be quite confident that in interpersonal relationships people tend to value the ‘good’ if the community is even relatively healthy. I am talking about people and societies that act and strive for the good [1] while intellectually believing in moral relativism or something akin to that. Hence the performative contradiction. This is an internal contradiction that I believe stems from our rejection of traditional wisdom (in the intellectual but not in the performative level for now) and its result in an incoherent theory of being.
[1] Even propaganda basis its ideals to a (twisted) conception of good.
Seems to me that most people understand the difference between good and evil, and most people prefer good to evil, but we have a fashion where good is considered low-status, so many people are ashamed to admit their preferences publicly.
It’s probably some mix of signalling and counter-signalling. On the signalling side, powerful people are often evil, or at least indifferent towards good and evil. By pretending that I don’t care about good, I am making myself appear more powerful. On the counter-signalling side, any (morally sane) idiot can say that good is better that evil; I display my sophistication by expressing a different opinion.
I do not think that is true. There are exceptions of course but in general most people would say that they prefer someone that is truthful to a lier, honest to deceitful etc. and also despise malevolence.
That is also not really true as far as I can tell. Again, there are exceptions, but the idea that powerful people are there because they oppressed the less powerful seems to be a residue of Marxist ideology. Apparently studies have found that in western societies successful people tend to be high in IQ and trait conscientiousness. This just means that people are powerful and successful because they are intelligent and hard working..
When you say understand you mean ‘believe in’ or ‘intuitively understand’ I assume? Cause rational assessment does not conclude so, as far as I can tell.
There’s some research that suggest that high socioeconomic status reduces compassion: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
I also added a skeptics question: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/38802/196
Thanks for sharing. I must admit, I am not convinced by the methods of measurement of such complex mental states but I do not properly understand the science either so.. Do share the result from stackexchange if you get an answer (can’t find how to ‘watch’ the question).
The reality may be country-specific, or culture-specific. Whether more powerful people are more evil may be different in America, in Russia, in Saudi Arabia, etc.
And for status purposes, it’s actually the perception that matters. If people believe that X correlates with Y, even if it is not true, displaying X is the way to signal Y.
Yep, in “western societies”. I would say this could actually be the characteristic of “western societies”. By which I mean, for the rest of the world this sounds incredibly naive (or a shameless hypocrisy). I believe it’s actually true, statistically, for the record, but that came as a result of me interacting with people from western societies and noticing the cultural differences.
Also, notice the semantic shifts (“powerful” → “successful”; “good” → “high in IQ and trait conscientiousness”). Perhaps a typical entrepreneur is smart, conscientious, and good (or at least, not worse than an average citizen), that seems likely. What about a typical oligarch? You know, usually a former member of some secret service, who made his career on torturing innocent people, and who remains well connected after end of his active service, which probably means he still participates on some activities, most likely criminal. I would still say higher IQ and conscientiousness help here, but seems like a safe bet than most of these people are quite evil in the conventional meaning of the word.
Yes, you are right!
These are good points. And a very interesting observation about the semantic shifts. On further thought I would say that in a corrupt society the evil will be powerful while in a fair and good society the good. And of course in reality most cultures are a mixture. At the moment I believe it is impossible to be certain about what our (or any other) society is really like cause the interpretations are conflicted and the sources quality ambiguous. Plus intellectually we can not define the good in any absolute sense (though we kind of know its characteristics in some sense). In any case let’s avoid a political discussion, or even one of specific moral particulars for now since the point of the thread is more general.
One thing I would like to bring up is that, to me, it seems that it is not a matter of signalling to others (though that can happen to). I would be quite confident that in interpersonal relationships people tend to value the ‘good’ if the community is even relatively healthy. I am talking about people and societies that act and strive for the good [1] while intellectually believing in moral relativism or something akin to that. Hence the performative contradiction. This is an internal contradiction that I believe stems from our rejection of traditional wisdom (in the intellectual but not in the performative level for now) and its result in an incoherent theory of being.
[1] Even propaganda basis its ideals to a (twisted) conception of good.