I think this idea is very interesting. If I get you right you say that utilitarianism is for two kinds of people: People who lack moral feelings and people who want to justify the moral feelings they have and find no better justification. It all sounds very plausible.
When someone says that there was a study with "autistic" people I get a bit tired, because autistic meant very different things in different time. The average autistic person born in the 1950s is very different from the average autistic person born in the 2000s. The day when psychological research replaces "an ASD diagnosis" with something more scientific and consistent will be a big day for psychology.
Well, *really* I think utilitarianism is for one kind of person: Someone who is both 1. emotionally dry, and at the same time still 2. wants to justify their moral feelings somehow. Yes, some people are going to be only "type 1" or "type 2," but I've encountered few utilitarians who don't check both boxes.
To me, most human beings come across as absolutely dripping wet, emotionally underwater, swimming, *drowning* in a vortex of feeling. So the cool kids are less emotional? OK, but they're still pretty emotional, and even if they can occasionally swim high enough above the waves to gulp air and realize there's even a question about morality at all, in a moment they submerge again.
> When someone says that there was a study with "autistic" people I get a bit tired
I'll bet!
Luckily, both studies were looking specifically at the relationship between utilitarianism and autistic *traits.* Even though the strength of traits needed for an ASD diagnosis may have dropped over time, the traits in question haven't changed much, so the question is simply "Does more autism mean more utilitarianism, or less?" One study looked within a sample of people having an ASD diagnosis (whatever that means) and another study looked within a sample of people on MTurk (whoever they were), and they found the same thing. Scott Alexander writes about this correlational approach at: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of-life
"To me, this is the real argument against utilitarianism. It isn’t that utilitarians are autistic, or that they lack moral feelings, but rather that there is no way to substantiate utilitarianism logically or empirically. Even I don’t know many truly amoral utilitarians, but I do bump into a lot of self-rationalists who want to be “Less Wrong,” and then whatever, just believe whatever they want and cobble together the explanation afterwards. If you call yourself a rationalist, and then find yourself you are concerned with moral systems matching your intuitions, just remember, this is the same reason George W. Bush felt sustained by the prayers of his supporters: “I just feel it.” "
What you have noted here, and by noting it you have noticed more… is I what call this the world-building urge. Everyone empathic world-builds except narcissists and psychopaths, who are the world and are perfect as they are. (this is the notice that should reframe after the notice you have written above)(neo-Pyrrhonism is not far away) Worldbuilding urge does not care what the outcome is, much the same way hunger does not care what you eat, and definitely not recipe you use to make a meal you share with others, even with the 'W'.
I can tell that I still don't understand you very well because of your whimsical use of language, and I'm suspicious that there are some ideas in this comment that I wouldn't agree with if I understood them firmly. But I *can* relate emotionally to "Everyone empathic world-builds except narcissists and psychopaths, who are the world and are perfect as they are," which is an absolutely beautiful description of their essence.
also autistic self-absorption is not narcissistic per se, it's just another "special project". Part of being autistic is that feelings often overwhelm, including empathic rigmaroles, and it can be best to shut it out or shut down. Narcissists do not have special projects because they are special, they are the world, and so nothing they do is wrong, or right, they are immune to the reality principle and empathy equally.
The first study you cite is irrelevant because it's looking at autistic traits within a group that is already diagnosed with ASD. The interpretation of that isn't straight-forward at all. The second study is interesting, but it doesn't invalidate the literature that already exists (which I cited in my essay) showing increased consequentialism associated with autism. Regardless, we need more research before any firm conclusions can be made.
Are you sure it matters that, in one study, autistic traits were considered within those already diagnosed with ASD? And, are you confident that a direct finding of an inverse relationship between autism and utilitarianism in the other study doesn't falsify a series of indirect arguments to predict a relationship between utilitarianism and autism which you offered in your own post?
Sorry it didn't pan out for you, Brett. On the plus side, I really do think that with a different conceptualization of the Good and the Just, you still might be able to go far with a Nietzschean interpretation. Best of luck.
No hard feelings; if you're not accustomed to working with the sciences, maybe you aren't aware that this doesn't warrant an "Although these results support expectations, more research is needed," or even, "Darn, p = 0.08, we don't yet have evidence for our claim;" this is two direct disconfirmations of your hypothesis. Science doesn't prove anything, but it isn't bad at *disproving* things.
Perhaps the reason utilitarianism is to many more appealing than moral nihilism as you describe it is that utilitarianism is universally applicable; in theory, I can behave in a way that is consistent with utilitarianism and I can ask that other people also behave in that way. My moral intuition, by comparison, may be completely different from that of my neighbor, or someone living on another continent. Encouraging other people to follow their moral intuitions (or other intuitions) has the potential to directly contradict mine. Because moral nihilists rely more overtly on intuition, moral nihilism can answer the question, ‘what should I do?’ but cannot answer the question, ‘what should we do?’ In this way, utilitarianism (though flawed) offers a sort of social contract that moral nihilism cannot.
My objection is largely just what you wrote, though: "utilitarianism (though flawed) offers a sort of social contract that moral nihilism cannot." People accept it because it's beneficial, rather than because we have good reason to believe it is correct.
This kind of appeal to consequences smells decidedly illegitimate to anyone who is actually, *genuinely* concerned with being less wrong. After all, religious people seem to be happier than atheists; Christianity (though flawed) offers a source of meaning, comfort, a healthy boost in the Darwinian race, *and* a social contract that atheism cannot. Right? Why not just accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and reap the benefits? The atheist-utilitarian-rationalists balk at this, because all their friends know "There's no God, religion is silly," but they'll turn around with a sigh and say "Well utilitarianism is the best we've got!" I mean, they're right that it *is* the de-facto organizing philosophy for their community - but to me utilitarianism looks like a Schelling point they're all clustering around like a bunch of barefoot grade schoolers poking at a dead squirrel with a stick.
This is obviously a very dreary conundrum. Worse: it doesn't involve apples! So I promise someday to share a brand new solution that is chock full of apples and will allow all the cool kids some strong, sweet-smelling alternatives to utilitarianism. (It's still baking right now. But someday!)
I world-build in whimsy, fair.
I think this idea is very interesting. If I get you right you say that utilitarianism is for two kinds of people: People who lack moral feelings and people who want to justify the moral feelings they have and find no better justification. It all sounds very plausible.
When someone says that there was a study with "autistic" people I get a bit tired, because autistic meant very different things in different time. The average autistic person born in the 1950s is very different from the average autistic person born in the 2000s. The day when psychological research replaces "an ASD diagnosis" with something more scientific and consistent will be a big day for psychology.
Well, *really* I think utilitarianism is for one kind of person: Someone who is both 1. emotionally dry, and at the same time still 2. wants to justify their moral feelings somehow. Yes, some people are going to be only "type 1" or "type 2," but I've encountered few utilitarians who don't check both boxes.
To me, most human beings come across as absolutely dripping wet, emotionally underwater, swimming, *drowning* in a vortex of feeling. So the cool kids are less emotional? OK, but they're still pretty emotional, and even if they can occasionally swim high enough above the waves to gulp air and realize there's even a question about morality at all, in a moment they submerge again.
> When someone says that there was a study with "autistic" people I get a bit tired
I'll bet!
Luckily, both studies were looking specifically at the relationship between utilitarianism and autistic *traits.* Even though the strength of traits needed for an ASD diagnosis may have dropped over time, the traits in question haven't changed much, so the question is simply "Does more autism mean more utilitarianism, or less?" One study looked within a sample of people having an ASD diagnosis (whatever that means) and another study looked within a sample of people on MTurk (whoever they were), and they found the same thing. Scott Alexander writes about this correlational approach at: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of-life
"To me, this is the real argument against utilitarianism. It isn’t that utilitarians are autistic, or that they lack moral feelings, but rather that there is no way to substantiate utilitarianism logically or empirically. Even I don’t know many truly amoral utilitarians, but I do bump into a lot of self-rationalists who want to be “Less Wrong,” and then whatever, just believe whatever they want and cobble together the explanation afterwards. If you call yourself a rationalist, and then find yourself you are concerned with moral systems matching your intuitions, just remember, this is the same reason George W. Bush felt sustained by the prayers of his supporters: “I just feel it.” "
What you have noted here, and by noting it you have noticed more… is I what call this the world-building urge. Everyone empathic world-builds except narcissists and psychopaths, who are the world and are perfect as they are. (this is the notice that should reframe after the notice you have written above)(neo-Pyrrhonism is not far away) Worldbuilding urge does not care what the outcome is, much the same way hunger does not care what you eat, and definitely not recipe you use to make a meal you share with others, even with the 'W'.
I can tell that I still don't understand you very well because of your whimsical use of language, and I'm suspicious that there are some ideas in this comment that I wouldn't agree with if I understood them firmly. But I *can* relate emotionally to "Everyone empathic world-builds except narcissists and psychopaths, who are the world and are perfect as they are," which is an absolutely beautiful description of their essence.
also autistic self-absorption is not narcissistic per se, it's just another "special project". Part of being autistic is that feelings often overwhelm, including empathic rigmaroles, and it can be best to shut it out or shut down. Narcissists do not have special projects because they are special, they are the world, and so nothing they do is wrong, or right, they are immune to the reality principle and empathy equally.
The first study you cite is irrelevant because it's looking at autistic traits within a group that is already diagnosed with ASD. The interpretation of that isn't straight-forward at all. The second study is interesting, but it doesn't invalidate the literature that already exists (which I cited in my essay) showing increased consequentialism associated with autism. Regardless, we need more research before any firm conclusions can be made.
Are you sure it matters that, in one study, autistic traits were considered within those already diagnosed with ASD? And, are you confident that a direct finding of an inverse relationship between autism and utilitarianism in the other study doesn't falsify a series of indirect arguments to predict a relationship between utilitarianism and autism which you offered in your own post?
Sorry it didn't pan out for you, Brett. On the plus side, I really do think that with a different conceptualization of the Good and the Just, you still might be able to go far with a Nietzschean interpretation. Best of luck.
"Sorry it didn't pan out for you, Brett."
Oh, I didn't realize I was dealing with an idiot. Thanks for the heads up.
No hard feelings; if you're not accustomed to working with the sciences, maybe you aren't aware that this doesn't warrant an "Although these results support expectations, more research is needed," or even, "Darn, p = 0.08, we don't yet have evidence for our claim;" this is two direct disconfirmations of your hypothesis. Science doesn't prove anything, but it isn't bad at *disproving* things.
Perhaps the reason utilitarianism is to many more appealing than moral nihilism as you describe it is that utilitarianism is universally applicable; in theory, I can behave in a way that is consistent with utilitarianism and I can ask that other people also behave in that way. My moral intuition, by comparison, may be completely different from that of my neighbor, or someone living on another continent. Encouraging other people to follow their moral intuitions (or other intuitions) has the potential to directly contradict mine. Because moral nihilists rely more overtly on intuition, moral nihilism can answer the question, ‘what should I do?’ but cannot answer the question, ‘what should we do?’ In this way, utilitarianism (though flawed) offers a sort of social contract that moral nihilism cannot.
Hello Bazinga!
Rationalists definitely do seem very keen to coordinate mass effort when they write about cooperation, game theory, and Schelling points. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) )
My objection is largely just what you wrote, though: "utilitarianism (though flawed) offers a sort of social contract that moral nihilism cannot." People accept it because it's beneficial, rather than because we have good reason to believe it is correct.
This kind of appeal to consequences smells decidedly illegitimate to anyone who is actually, *genuinely* concerned with being less wrong. After all, religious people seem to be happier than atheists; Christianity (though flawed) offers a source of meaning, comfort, a healthy boost in the Darwinian race, *and* a social contract that atheism cannot. Right? Why not just accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and reap the benefits? The atheist-utilitarian-rationalists balk at this, because all their friends know "There's no God, religion is silly," but they'll turn around with a sigh and say "Well utilitarianism is the best we've got!" I mean, they're right that it *is* the de-facto organizing philosophy for their community - but to me utilitarianism looks like a Schelling point they're all clustering around like a bunch of barefoot grade schoolers poking at a dead squirrel with a stick.
This is obviously a very dreary conundrum. Worse: it doesn't involve apples! So I promise someday to share a brand new solution that is chock full of apples and will allow all the cool kids some strong, sweet-smelling alternatives to utilitarianism. (It's still baking right now. But someday!)