top of page

TED videos, summaries, and comments

Video Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/damon_horowitz.html

 

Damon Horowitz calls for a “moral operating system”

 

Damon asks “What we should do?”  What is our moral framework, “moral operating system”.  “How do we figure out what is right or wrong”.   He goes on to summarize philosophical theories in “applied ethics”.

 

Plato… “Can ethics be like math?”  “Are their ethical truths?”  

 

Aristotle thought… “Ethic is about making decisions in the here and now; using our best judgment to find our best path.”  

 

John Stewart Mills – Utilitarianism  – maximize pleasure, the greater good, the best consequence, etc.  

 

Immanuel Kant – “We should use our reason to figure out the rules to guide our conduct, and then it is our duty to follow those rules, not a matter of calculation.”

​

 

“What’s the formula?  There is not a formula.  Ethics is hard, it requires thinking.”

​

 

Hannah Arendt – “The sad truth is that most evil that is done in this world is not done by people who choose to be evil, it arises from not thinking” – The Banality of Evil.

​

 

Per Damon, “The response to that is that we demand the exercise of thinking from every sane person.”  … “We care”… about ethical matters.

​

 

It is part of our inherent condition.  Luckily, we are born with the inherent knowledge to be able to introspectively resolve ethical matters if we simply ask good questions, starting with the Golden Rule, “How would I like it if someone did that to me?”

​

 

Philosophers in the past made ethics impossible to solve by trying to make it purely rational, mathematical.  A purely rational model of ethics could never work because it lacked a key component of ethics, emotion.  You need to be able to introspectively ask rational questions of your emotional state.  If it helps to focus your efforts, frame your dilemma in terms of harm/care and fairness reciprocity.  Then ask yourself questions about your dilemma until you come to a conclusion that makes sense to you emotionally and one that can be rationally defended on that basis.

Video Link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html

 

Rebecca Saxe:  How we read each other’s minds – Sensing the motives and feelings of others is a natural talent for humans. But how do we do it?

​

 

Good discussion on the development of the brain as it relates to our ability to understand what others are thinking.  Good discussion on the role of intentions in ethical judgments.  She notes that in adult brains, the development of a given section of the brain can influence one’s ability to properly judge an ethical act.

 

If you think of the brain like a muscle, someone who exercises their brain will develop his or her capabilities.  Someone who does not develop their brain will be mentally weaker. This, of course, is not mere conjecture, this new science provides proof along these lines.

 

If you think of the major cultural influences on children – school, religion, some parenting philosophies… many teach blind obedience, submission to authority/respect, loyalty/in-group, concepts of purity/sanctity…basically the tenants of morality which are divergent from ethics.

 

The influences mentioned are means of social control. If fully absorbed, they cause you to do two things: (1) Think less, (2) Self-censor thoughts and actions.

 

Repeated thoughts become beliefs, powerful memes that inform your view of the world. This leads many to see the world through highly contrasted lenses, making the world very black and white, while others see the world through clear lenses, allowing a more nuanced view.  The ones who see clearly are those who maintain independent thought.

​

Ethics requires independent thinkers. We would be far greater served by instilling independent thought and basic ethical understanding into our children as opposed to blind obedience and fear of authority and complete submission that many kids receive.

Video Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

​

Daniel on Dangerous Memes:  Starting with the simple tale of an ant, philosopher Dan Dennett unleashes a devastating salvo of ideas, making a powerful case for the existence of memes — concepts that are literally alive.Dennett

 

“What is the most persistent parasite in the world?  An idea.” – from “Inception”

 

Ideas are infectious and repetitious; like a virus.  We humans subordinate our genetic interest for other interest.  This is uniquely human.  It can be the source for great innovation or mass suicide.

 

Simply understanding what memes are is important.  The next leap is to understand that people are not the only source of authority over other people, ideas can have authority over people.  Understanding the power of memes allows you to understand how powerful ideas can be; for good and for bad.

 

The only antidote to bad memes is light.  If you are in earshot of someone spreading bad ideas, the best way to prevent further spread of those ideas is to counter them with better ideas; speak up!  Silence can be dangerous.

Video Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_drori_on_what_we_think_we_know.html

 

Jonathan Drori on what we think we know – Good talk on people’s misconceptions and learned ignorance.

 

His talk reminded me of a Mark Twain quote, “The problem is not what you don’t know; it’s what you think you know that just isn’t so.”

 

Per Jonathan Drori’s talk, “We look for evidence that reinforced our models” …and others help as well.

 

This concept relates to cultural norms and moral thinking. Many times people will act in a manner against what they should know is right (in a harmful or unfair manner to themselves or loved ones – unethically), simply because their culture instructed them to (powerful memes that have authority over them).  

 

Examples: Female gentile mutilation in Africa, Oppression of women (many places but the Middle East is a good example), Oppression of homosexual people (many places but much of the US with the denial of married rights), the list is long.

 

He notes we should “Get people to articulate their models.” This is key. 

 

The key to understanding ethics is to be able to articulate your ethical perspective. Being effective with ethics requires you to be able to defend your ethical position in a manner that it can appeal to anyone, in any culture, at any time. If you can succeed with that, your ethical understanding is guaranteed to be correct.

Video Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alice_dreger_is_anatomy_destiny.html

 

Outside of being very interesting, Alice Dreger’s talk made me think of two things: (1) I found it interesting to peek into the mind of someone who sees the world through an anatomical lens.

 

While I found it a bit difficult to make every connection she made, the depth which she understood the nuances of anatomical differences, something we all assume is about as binary a condition as possible, lead her to make some very interesting connections.  She connects human anatomy with the structure of the US government, a unique connection to be sure but one that is seamless through her eyes and taking that journey enhanced my view of the world a bit.

 

(2) It appears her deep understand lead to some deep introspection on labels and categories, which she first had to tear down, and them build back up, modifying the structure to account for her new understanding.  A paradigm shift requires acknowledgment that you have things wrong, or a bit off at least, and that there is a better way / a deeper understanding to be had if you take a different view.

 

The institutions/ideas we build up over time are valuable but they need some major re-work from time to time.  It is important to give our institutions/ideas an overhaul every now and again.  Our sacred institutions should not be so sacred as to be immune from questioning?  If we don’t like the answers, its time for reform.  If you keep up with the repair work, a building, vehicle, institution/set of ideas can be well maintained indefinitely.  If it sits unmoved in time, however, it will surely rot.

 

Getting back to the binary concepts we like to hold (mainly out of laziness… to make things easier)…  If you take a rationalist view of ethics, i.e. things in this world are either “A” or “not A”… a necessary condition for a mathematical proof, then you will want to see things in black and white. The assumption is that in war there is only kill or be killed (forgetting aggression and submission which happens in the animal world and in ours all the time… even on the battlefield in war; see “On Killing” by Dave Grossman for more on these interesting distinctions and assumptions).  We are sure that people are only male or female (except for all those other possibilities… see Alice Dreger’s talk).

 

If you try (or want/desire) to see the world in black and white than that can become your model/reality. You can take the dark gray and make it black; the light grey becomes white. Unfortunately, your model will not reflect the world accurately, and your rounding errors can be large; such is the problem with all Fundamentalist.  Ethics is not black and white, it exists in reality, and reality comes in many shades of gray.

​

Understanding ethics allows you to understand the world around you better.

The Hierarchy of Thinking

  1. Scientist

  2. Sports fan

  3. Lawyer

  4. Zealot

 

  1. SCIENTIST: Truth seeing is paramount. You don’t identify with your ideas, rather they are the things that form your mental models of the world. You want them challenged because if they are found to be at fault then it provides you with an opportunity to learn and adopt better mental models of the world; I.e. greater truth and understanding of the world. 

  2. SPORTS FAN: Sports fans may root for their ideas, but they respect the game and obey the rules of the game. They won’t cheat to win, and if their ideas lose, they are OK with that, because losing is often time the best way to learn.

  3. LAWYER: In this mode of thinking, truth seeing is not the goal, rather you are concerned with defending your position. Your mental models are fragile and somewhat sacred, requiring vigilant defense less they be bent or broken. You will only adopt new mental models if the evidence is overwhelming to prove you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, and even then, slowly and reluctantly. 

  4. ZEALOT: Your mental models of the world are sacred to you because they form the basis of who you are. To question your mental models of the world is to have an identity crisis. To avoid that discomfort, you reject any contradicting facts automatically. The disturbing truths must be false because you know you are right! In this mode debate is impossible because you are not open to leaning from having your ideas challenged. 

 

Author of this concept of thinking: Tim Urban

Blog: https://waitbutwhy.com/

TED talk: https://www.ted.com/speakers/tim_urban

Interview with Sam Harris: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/315-the-great-derangement

 

      High level thinking and debate should take place on level one. Unfortunately, most political debate takes place on level three or four. On level three or four, the goal is not to convince, rather coercion or force.

bottom of page