Oddbean new post about login | logout this stuff about how 2/3rds obey evil orders as discovered by the Milgram experiment it made me think of something there is three sections of the population, equal thirds, and they have the following characteristics: 1. strive towards goodness no matter what the cost 2. strive towards goodness only if equal numbers also, otherwise they will follow evil orders and believe lies 3. love to do bad things, and try to convince 2 that they are really 1 why the 2s flip to the side of the 1s is because of subjective experience of proof of the wrong plus knowing others from 1 who refuse to join - this doesn't happen immediately, because the 2s follow the neutral or evil until they suffer from it, and then they will follow the good the state change happens long after evil becomes institutionalised, it is an exponential process where each additional flip increases the chances of another flip human's aren't evil, they are 1/3 evil, 1/3 undecided and 1/3 good the undecided follow evil because it's cheaper for them, until it becomes more expensive, and then they flip i think that if you could find all the 3s and remove them from the population, however, that the bias would be way against evil
GM wouldn't that require doing bad things to then remove the 3s? I like thinking about things like this because everything requires a "it depends" answer. Somethings not acceptable in culture A and are bad/evil may not be the same in cultures B,C,D etc. However, in today's world the state has institutionalized it and are controlling it. I like this post thank you.
Would be cool is society evolved some kind of flytrap for the 3s. Some meta game that gets all the crabs in the same bucket so they can neutralize each other without polluting the main game of life.
THis sounds like what God did to the people on the way from Egypt to Canaan. When they complained, he sent poisonous snakes among them. When Moses disappeared for a month, they decided to make a golden calf. then GOd killed a whole bunch more. there is at least a coulpe more of these. God was doing some serious moral culling along the way. I'm afraid it's shocking to the average reader. I think the #3s can become #1 s randomly like popcorn. So it's hard to devise a flytrap. and by doing so #1s would become #3s . The #1s would go from being "Wise as serpents and harmless as doves" to just "wise serpents". I think as #3s come into contact with the forged-in-the-fire #1s, expecting them to be #2s , they either shatter and reform as #1s or they self-destruct.
I'd argue there are much fewer than a third in state 1 (sadly probably <10%) and also less than a third in state 3. I'd bet more than half are in the wishy washy middle that have no real moral compass and usually just follow the crowd.
Why are moral obligations negative though? Your moral compass helps guide you in the direction to help someone whether mutually beneficial or not. Sure you may get a quick dopamine hit, but other than that helping people isn't always beneficial to both parties. One could argue your harvest reaping as evil though. That was my previous point that I probably didn't communicate well, I'm a bit smooth brained. I'm not God so I don't think I could bring myself to do that because of my morality. However, if my family were in trouble then I'm certain I would be truly capable of a scorched earth policy on those who threaten them. This is where the "it depends" comes into play. I've never read the book of Enoch, but need to. I have always been fascinated with Revelations though. Thank you for the conversation
you are obliged to not harm you are not obliged to help i absolutely could leave someone behind if they had repeatedly done me wrong, and this would be the wages of their sins against me, it would not be my judgement no matter how likely their death might be in the absence of my help, that would decide if they die or not i am not going to be the turtle carrying the scorpion across the flooding river it is not a quality of goodness to comfort evil, in fact this is the hardest thing for most people to understand, you must choose who you associate with and it is incumbent upon you as an aspiring righteous person to not consort with people who delight in iniquity sometimes it is said that doing things that don't benefit evil people is doing them evil - it even is written that way sometimes in biblical texts, but it is a nonsense way of describing it... not doing something is not the same as doing something, inaction is a decision, as is action, but inaction to help evil is not evil, it is actually good idk how many times i see it in many moral fables in novels and movies where a person who would be categorised as a 2, is redeemed by a 1 refusing to help anymore, it's a universal pattern and that's just life i'm not gonna refuse to help anyone who has not established a reputation for mischief, but after i see it happen several times my interactions with them can only be purely self serving and that includes abandonment, because if they are a 2, that might be the act (or more exactly decision) that helps them change their side