Dialectical behavioral therapy

When birds fly in a circular formation, following the bird(s) directly ahead of them, it can become impossible to pinpoint the exact causal chain which sustains their movement. A similar collective retardedness lies at the heart of every person. This is visible beyond the standard Prisoners Dilemma. Mobs lynching people assume moral immunity, as each of its members deny individual responsibility. The moralising leaders attempt to arouse hostile feelings within a crowd and ultimately seek to divide human beings by categorising some as extremely different to others, contrary to all evidence.

Communities distant in the circles [that represent cultures] always overestimate, relative to other observers, their differences with their neighbors. Eg: to Australians, the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims or between Chinese and Taiwanese or Indians/Pakistanis is small, and yet to these parties, it seems a lot larger. And vice-versa.

If humans were less susceptible to emotive reasoning, being persuaded only by rigorous, sobre arguments, eventually our emotional responses could come to coincide with our rational judgements. Our minds and our hearts could finally synthesise in a glorious harmony. But, as it stands, a massive chasm has opened up between our emotions and our reasoning, causing a little discomfort, but mostly confusion.
In the logical part of our brain,
-- We know that helping out 'desperate' (but just lacking luxuries) members of our family or local/religious/ethnic community at the expense of truly starving children in Africa is inexcusable. Yet we follow the emotional imperative to help our kin's genes. Even though we realise a collectively rational world would consist of every individual protecting the most vulnerable, despite lack of proximity. This social contract, in the literature, is Brittle, but could become Strong
-- Intelligent, rich individuals know that pride about their genetic good fortune is foolish, because they did not earn it, and that their contempt for stupid humans is completely unfair. Yet there is still a smug superior feeling one gets. Unrelated, but racial tolerance isn't sufficient if we are to be cultural snobs anyway!!!
-- Anybody with any level of imagination can see that people are not cops or robbers, they are both, in different circumstances. Yet... ____
-- We know that killing one healthy man to harvest his healthy organs to save five other lives probably does more good than harm. Yet we have an instinctive resistance to helping the unhealthy at the cost (bloody murder!) of the healthy innocent (with good evolutionary reason to do so! Save the species!!).
-- We know that animal pain probably feels v.similar to human pain, and yet we convince ourselves that their pain is morally insignificant, because species have a bias towards preserving themselves. We can stab cows. Morality must have some connection, however, to the creation of pain/pleasure. Yet...I do like meat though.
-- Like 50 people die between P-Plater deaths. Consequentialism may be cognitively demanding, but FUCK, people! Who cares? Is it worth restricting the freedoms of young drivers over? I think not. I must be cold.
-- We ignore human rights because diversity is the new religion, and sacrificial altar [Consider the Amish]. Why do I feel bad encouraging others to claim their rights? What about the sexual oppression of women in many religious societies?
-- We shouldn't feel hatred at the news of murder. Others may interpret this as me being "soft" on crime, or living in a fantasy world. I am simply not for revenge. The Law incarcerates criminals to prevent crime, not to satisfy the vengefulness of the bereaved by taking pleasure in the misery of the perpetrator. Rage is the most primitive of conventional emotions, replaceable by smarter emotions, like regret, disappointment, disgust.

All of this may just prove that our attempts to moralise are utterly stupid, self-righteous, pointless. Meh. “Battle against Heaven, Earth and Man, and you will find happiness”. Fight reasonably for reason. It will be long and it will be hard. At least the fight is defined. Note: I am NOT advocating harvesting organs from healthy people...I just believe we should constantly strive to give our reasons a little more weight in our choices , and protest if we are called cold for doing so. Being cold may just often be the kindest thing that you can do.

Also, I think morals have a strange connection to smarts.
++ Pre-conventional morals such as obedience are reinforced by reward and punishment and work best on toddlers - "I have a stick...or a sweet...a bomb or development aid". ++ Conventional morals appeal to a sense of duty to community and work on sheep eg "be brave and selfless and serve in the army". ++ Modern philosophical morals appeal to abstract truths of justice and are made best by, and are convincing to, genius. And it was only the material comforts that Science provided which pacified human hearts. And Rawls, you are a genius!

So...a question in summary:
What kind of society would never collapse, never have enemies on the inside or out?
Sob, if it is to be a power struggle, remember that I am likely to crush you.


***********
Victorian morality: “Do not do what you want to, including relax and have sex as you wish, because doing what you want to is bathing in the FILTH of your instinct"