OK, I guess we’re arguing about whether “intrinsically caring about other people” is a thing that exists in humans or not. Right? Well I think it does. This seems very obvious to me, and I’m puzzled if it doesn’t to you.
very specific arrangement of incentives manages to limit human to being cruel mostly to enemies and those out of sight
Here’s a scenario.
Alice is an elderly lady with just one daughter, Beth. Beth has a terminal illness, and is clearly about to die. (Alice is a retired hospice nurse, so she knows what “clearly about to die” looks like.) They are alone in a rural area with no phones or cameras, and there’s no chance that anyone else will arrive at the house before Beth dies (there’s a blizzard, the road will be impassable for the next few days).
Alice can (A) torture Beth just out of curiosity to see how Beth will respond, or (B) walk away from Beth to do the dishes, or (C) try to make Beth feel very comfortable and loved in her last moments of life.
There are no incentives here. No one will know either way.
My prediction is that the overwhelming majority of Alice’s (>90%) would choose (C). If you believe that people are nice only because of a “very specific arrangement of incentives”, then presumably you would guess that (C) would be very rare, and most Alice’s would choose (A) or (B).
I didn’t try to claim ‘“intrinsically caring about other people” is not a thing that exists in humans’. It does. I also think it’s not strong enough to do that much vs other incentives. It’s strong enough to in some places establish a system which in a buch of situations aligns other incentives with the drive.
And replying to your example: parent-child instincts are real so I’d expect Alice to care. But if roles were reversed a lot of people decide to not take care of their parents
OK, I guess we’re arguing about whether “intrinsically caring about other people” is a thing that exists in humans or not. Right? Well I think it does. This seems very obvious to me, and I’m puzzled if it doesn’t to you.
Here’s a scenario.
Alice is an elderly lady with just one daughter, Beth. Beth has a terminal illness, and is clearly about to die. (Alice is a retired hospice nurse, so she knows what “clearly about to die” looks like.) They are alone in a rural area with no phones or cameras, and there’s no chance that anyone else will arrive at the house before Beth dies (there’s a blizzard, the road will be impassable for the next few days).
Alice can (A) torture Beth just out of curiosity to see how Beth will respond, or (B) walk away from Beth to do the dishes, or (C) try to make Beth feel very comfortable and loved in her last moments of life.
There are no incentives here. No one will know either way.
My prediction is that the overwhelming majority of Alice’s (>90%) would choose (C). If you believe that people are nice only because of a “very specific arrangement of incentives”, then presumably you would guess that (C) would be very rare, and most Alice’s would choose (A) or (B).
Is that your belief?
I didn’t try to claim ‘“intrinsically caring about other people” is not a thing that exists in humans’. It does. I also think it’s not strong enough to do that much vs other incentives. It’s strong enough to in some places establish a system which in a buch of situations aligns other incentives with the drive.
And replying to your example: parent-child instincts are real so I’d expect Alice to care. But if roles were reversed a lot of people decide to not take care of their parents