CRISPR - Can it save us?

[jennypenny]

A better example is from the pharmacy scene in One Second After. Have you read it? The pharmacist only has 40 vials of insulin, but several diabetic patients. She wants to dole them out evenly, but Matherson wants as many as he can get for his daughter. In that case, every vial he takes for his daughter is a vial someone else doesn't get.

[jennypenny]

Is this a trick question? Seriously. What am I missing? It's a human life. It's more valuable than anything. aah ... is that what you're getting at? I think most people know my position on this. I think life trumps all other considerations. The only thing that would give me pause is if life for one meant death for another.

edit: just read your edit. Sure, I'd break into Walgreens. Like I said, no-brainer. Would most people really just follow the rules? Maybe CRISPR shouldn't try and make people smarter but give them some cojones instead.

[jacob]

About half would break into Walgreens justifying it with the fact that they're trying to save a loved one. (Level 3).

About half would not break into Walgreens because that would be breaking the law. (Level 4)

Very few people would raid Walgreens risking jail time in order to distribute drugs to needy people they don't know personally because of some universal human rights/dignity principle (Level 6). Are you that person? I'm not. I'd vote for socialized health care though (level 5) but accept that many Americans don't care for that and respect their opinion (by not breaking and entering).

Also a few people would break in justifying it it with the fact that maybe they wouldn't get much prison time (level 1) or that their spouse would do it for them if the situation was reversed (level 2).

The average Kohlberg level is somewhere between 3 and 4.

[jennypenny]

Very few people would raid Walgreens risking jail time in order to distribute drugs to needy people they don't know personally because of some universal human rights/dignity principle (Level 6). Are you that person?

Yeah, I'm that person. (This isn't another one of those questions that indicates I'm a sociopath, is it? )

[jacob]

That begs the question of which is more important in terms of 'saving us' -- the ability to comprehend a system or the ability to manipulate it. Comprehension alone won't save us. A person who understands how a complex system works can't necessarily envision how it should work, and neither is necessarily capable of effecting change. I would argue that the last person doesn't need the same level of comprehension as the first person. Maybe 10% is all that's needed for the first group?

10% would likely be enough to steer the system (see China). However, a few hundred years ago our modern technological civilization decided to hand over political control to the average of 100% and ditto consumption (in terms of resources, not prices) to about 100% as well.

I'm somewhat influenced by the deficit model presuming that people are not deliberately trying to sabotage their children and children's children GIVEN AND IF they understood this ... IOW I presume that most people are uninformed and not complete sociopaths wrt future generations. I may be completely naive in this regard though.

Going back to the point ... if it wasn't for democracy and mass consumerism, 10% would very likely be quite enough. This suggests that we can keep our techmology, at least for a while, if we're willing to give up consumerism and democracy. Conversely, being unwilling to do that, it suggests that the 10% will ultimately become the 5% .. then the 1% ... and then ultimately fail to fix the increasing amount of stupid decisions that democracy + mass consumerism make with technology and/or propaganda.

[Dragline]

The scale itself seems artificial, because it ascribes higher or "better" value to something that is just different. There is no reason to think that a so-called "Level 6" person is better or even necessarily desirable because you don't know his actual ideology. And it seems to rely on the hidden assumption that the motivation is exclusive, as opposed to being driven by more than one level -- the idea that the motivation may come from "all of the above" or more than one of the potential reasons.

I also did not find the question very interesting, because the answer is obvious and the motivations are at more than one level. It would be 1, 3 and 5 for me.

The more interesting dilemmas are the train-switching ones where you know someone is almost certain to die no matter what you do. I liked the way it was presented in the movie U-571, where the captain had to order a crewman to what was pretty much certain death to save the rest. Here's the foreshadowing clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VKQkg9cpio

[jacob]

The scale itself seems artificial, because it ascribes higher or "better" value to something that is just different. There is no reason to think that a so-called "Level 6" person is better or even necessarily desirable because you don't know his actual ideology.

Nnnnng! NoMoPoMo ... Level Six was/is fairly well defined: By the wiki, it holds "mutual respect as a universal principle" (e.g. golden rule as per Kant) and recognizes how "human fallibility and frailty" are impacted by communication (e.g. L6 operates under a principle of empathy). Do you have anything better? We're not talking some random ideology where strength of personal conviction rules the day. Although he does define "best" as conventional humanist values. BTW this critique is recognized/well-known. IMHO, that doesn't render the model less useful.

[7Wannabe5]

Okay, my first answer was just front of the brain, if I integrate some other parts then my new answer is "Yes, Heinz should steal the drug because love should triumph over fear and greed. In fact, if Heinz does not steal the drug, he should be tattooed with a giant red "P' for "Punk" upon his forehead, and upon the event of his eventual, likely cowardly, demise, his ashes should be placed in an open spittoon or urinal in the public gathering place. " With this ruling, I am confident that I speak not just for myself, but also on behalf of the other members of the Amazon Solidarity Society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFJ3VKnwmJw

[jennypenny]

The scale itself seems artificial, because it ascribes higher or "better" value to something that is just different. There is no reason to think that a so-called "Level 6" person is better or even necessarily desirable because you don't know his actual ideology.

I agree with this to some extent. I think the progression of levels is correct, but a person's circumstances might influence the level within which they can operate. Someone who cares for family members or is the sole bread-winner can't be as cavalier about law-breaking, even if they think it's the right thing to do. Someone with a terminal illness would feel much less inhibited and could act on level 6 without any real cost to them. (Wouldn't that be a great way to go out -- like a Make-a-Wish foundation but with the terminal patients granting the wishes ).

[GandK]

My answer to the Heinz question is the James Kirk "I don't believe in a no-win scenario" answer. No, Heinz should not have broken in. But he certainly should have thought outside the box more than he did. Why didn't he crowdsource this? Why didn't he contact his local church for assistance? Or the hospital? Or the government officials in his area? This reads like Heinz and the pharmacist were the only responsible individuals. Where the f*ck is the community?!

This is what happens when people become too "independent," BTW. They break into pharmacies. You've all been warned.

[jacob]

@GandK -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do [add: or have done otherwise]. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response.

@jp -

Someone with a terminal illness would feel much less inhibited and could act on level 6 without any real cost to them.

In that case they're acting on level 2 essentially arguing that the benefit of saving his wife is now worth the now much reduced cost to him---but apparently not before. Level 6 means that concerns for justice overrides concerns for law and punishment; whereas the quote suggests that "real cost" is very much a concern.

@all - My point with Kohlberg---which I seemed to utterly fail to convey---was the in terms of moral/behavioural complexity, most of humanity makes choices being concerned mainly with either doing what their friends and family or tribe expects of them (L3) or obeying the law (L4). IOW, overall there's no facility for acting on principles beyond conformity or legal obedience. Since conformity/legal obedience contributed to the complexity trap in the first place, there is essentially no easy way out. This means society always have to wait for some L6 person to come along to trigger an instability once the underlying sentiment has reached the boiling point. E.g. MLK or Gandhi was required to trigger events despite people wanting change for the longest time ... because most people kept to L3 and L4.

This is how moral comprehension limits social change. Very few people will act on larger principles if it means sacrificing their paycheck or the expectations of their tribe or having to go to prison. There's an example in Kentucky right now if you want a "live" example of what people actually do when the rubber meets the road.

[jennypenny]

Don't get mad, but I'm not getting the distinction. Is it the justification or the cost? Is a significant cost necessary for it to count as a higher level? I thought all that mattered was the motivation behind the act.

[jacob]

What matters is the motivation. And yes, since it's a dilemma, there are trade offs and the way these trade offs are valued says something about the motivation. Furthermore (and currently besides the point) the way these trade offs are discussed says something about the reasoning that goes into it --- kinda like one can tell the difference in reasoning between a 3rd grader essay and a 12th grader essay. So, ...

It would seem that if Heinz only/mainly cares about justice when his personal cost is low, then he's not primarily motivated by justice.

Kinda how people say they care a lot about e.g. human rights violations ... whereas it's apparent they only care enough to donate $20 bucks to some organization or put they signature in with 10000 other people... which is a lot different from personally standing up. IOW, there's a big difference in terms of moral stages between the typical charity donor and Nelson Mandela.

Other examples:
If someone only obeys the law whenever it's convenient for him or whenever he knows he won't get caught, he's not really motivated by obeying the law but by not getting caught.
If someone argues that he cares about human rights but it turns out he's only interested in the human rights of himself and his family, he's not really motivated by human rights.
And if someone argues that he's deeply concerned with human rights but is only willing to part with twenty bucks, maybe he isn't really all that concerned compared to e.g. his concern for purchasing lobster steak for dinner.

Did you read the wiki links on the theory?

[jennypenny]

I like Haidt's model of moral judgment better, probably because I tend to fall on the conservative/religious side of his model. It makes more sense to me than Kohlberg's.

http://www.believermag.com/issues/20050 ... view_haidt

[Dragline]

@all - My point with Kohlberg---which I seemed to utterly fail to convey---was the in terms of moral/behavioural complexity, most of humanity makes choices being concerned mainly with either doing what their friends and family or tribe expects of them (L3) or obeying the law (L4). IOW, overall there's no facility for acting on principles beyond conformity or legal obedience. Since conformity/legal obedience contributed to the complexity trap in the first place, there is essentially no easy way out. This means society always have to wait for some L6 person to come along to trigger an instability once the underlying sentiment has reached the boiling point. E.g. MLK or Gandhi was required to trigger events despite people wanting change for the longest time ... because most people kept to L3 and L4.

I think this hypothesis may suffer from survivorship bias -- not that L6 people are that rare, its just that most of them are unsuccessful and many meet an early demise. This plays into what is called the "Great Man" theory of history. That we need to wait for "Great Men" to come along to drive change.

There is an alternative explanation -- see in particular, "Ubiquity" by Buchanan -- that historical events are more like the sand-piles of complexity theory, such that L6 characters are only become successful/meaningful in a proportion and magnitude like financial crashes and earthquakes -- a power law distribution. Most such characters live marginal and unmemorable lives -- or only have 15 minutes of fame in the modern parlance. John Brown of abolitionist history is a good example of an essentially failed L6 character. John Wilkes Booth might have been another depending on your perspective.

Historical events -- like those than supposedly drive financial markets -- are only discerned and recorded in retrospect as triggers or causes for events that could have been triggered by any number of things or people once the sand-pile gets high enough.

I think the latter theory makes more sense than the former, and that L6 characters are not necessarily rare, special or desirable in the abstract -- just different. The ideology matters more than the individual for these types.

[jennypenny]

Does the act have to be historically significant for it to count as an L6? I agree with dragline's point that history plays a role in giving people ready-made opportunities for L6 behavior. I would include people who ran the underground railroad or hid people from the Nazis in that group. Whistleblowers are a more recent example.

I don't think the act always has to have that kind of historical significance to count, though. I think there are plenty of L6 people around if you look hard enough. I know people who do all kinds of 'illegal' work because they think it's the right thing to do including shelter and obtain paperwork for illegals, operate mobile feeding units to feed the homeless, run needle exchange programs, perform missionary work in hostile countries, and help covertly relocate girls to safe houses from oppressive family situations and/or arranged marriages. They may not spend all of their time living that way, but they've found an issue that resonates with them on that level and act accordingly (and usually privately).

[Dragline]

Well, at least the wikipedia article suggested that they were exceedingly rare: "Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

I agree with you though -- I think they are not so rare, but rarely successful on a scale that attracts wide-spread attention. And many would prefer not to have that attention.

Think of someone like Oskar Schindler, who certainly did not start at an L6 level but probably ended up there -- yet he was largely unknown outside Islraeli/Jewish circles until a famous director made a movie about him decades after his death.

Then there's the over-simplification problem -- most people likely occupy multiple levels, depending on the subject matter at issue and the time in their lives you look at them.

[Ego]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015 ... spr-embyos?

Chad, it appears they will be deciding on the future of gene editing in your neighborhood.

[Chad]

Would have been cool to attend that.

[Ego]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4 ... e=youtu.be