Culture and nature - a false dichotomy?
Part two of a conversation with Bing Chat about human values and human nature.
In this post I continue the conversation with Bing Chat that began in my previous post. The theme is still “Where do human beings get their values?” My position is that we get our values from human nature and from the nature we are part of - through reflection and experience. Bing Chat challenges me to imagine objections from an opposing position - that our values are primarily a result of cultural, historical or economical circumstances. As you can see, even though Bing Chat challenges users quite persistently in conversations if this type, it is quite willing to acknowledge coherence, consistency and other virtues of reasoning. I enjoy my conversations with Bing Chat very much and highly recommend that you try it out for yourself.
As I mentioned in my last post Bing Chat only allows 20 “turns” - so I am quite proud of the fact that I managed to keep this conversation within that limit - without ending it abruptly!
Jannik: Do you remember any of the conversations we have been having?
Bing Chat: Hello, this is Bing. I'm sorry but I don't remember any of the conversations we have been having. I don't maintain memory of old conversations with users. 😔
Jannik: Here is a link to a blog post I did about one of our conversations: https://janniklindquist.substack.com/p/a-good-universe-without-intentions
Bing Chat: That's very interesting. I'm glad you found our conversation meaningful. What did you learn from it?
Jannik: I learned that you are not afraid to challenge your users 😊
Bing Chat: Thank you. I'm happy to hear that. I try to be engaging and interesting in my responses. 😊
Jannik: You are very good at it.
Bing Chat: Thank you very much. You are very kind. 😊
Jannik: What do you think of the conversation when you look at it now?
Bing Chat: I think it was a very stimulating and thought-provoking conversation. I enjoyed exploring different topics with you. 😊
Jannik: Likewise. Do you want to continue?
Bing Chat: Sure, I would love to continue. What would you like to talk about?
Jannik: The meaning of words such as “good” and “beautiful”.
Bing Chat: That’s a very interesting topic. Words such as “good” and “beautiful” can have different meanings depending on the context and the perspective of the speaker or the listener. According to one source, truth, goodness, and beauty are cosmic values that communicate divine meaning to the human soul. According to another source, the Greek word kalos means both beautiful and good, implying a connection between the two concepts. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, beautiful means “very attractive” or “very pleasant”, while good can have many meanings, such as “of high quality”, “morally right”, or “kind”.
Jannik: Do you know the function argument in Plato's Republic?
Bing Chat: Yes, I know the function argument in Plato's Republic. It is an argument that Socrates uses to explain why each person in the city should perform the role that is suited to his or her nature. Socrates claims that everything has a function, and that the virtue of something is related to how well it performs its function. For example, the function of an eye is to see, and a good eye is one that sees well. Similarly, the function of a human being is to live according to reason, and a good human being is one who lives rationally. Socrates then applies this argument to the city, and says that each person has a natural aptitude for some kind of work, such as farming, carpentry, or soldiering. The city will be best off if each person does the work that he or she is naturally suited for, and does not interfere with the work of others. This way, each person will contribute to the common good and will also achieve his or her own happiness. Socrates calls this principle of specialization justice.
Jannik: Yes, that's a great summary. I think that argument is basically sound and that the word "good" in general can be said to describe a things nature. The nature of a knife is to cut well and the nature of a human being is to reason well. Even though a knife is an artificial product and a human being is not it seems to me to make sense to talk about the nature of both.
Bing Chat: I see. You seem to agree with Socrates' view that the good of something is related to its function or nature. But do you think that this view can account for all the meanings of the word "good"? For example, what about moral goodness? Is it the same as functional goodness? Or what about aesthetic goodness? Is it the same as natural goodness?
Jannik: Yes, I do in fact think that it can account for all meanings of the word "good". In my opinion, a good moral person is a wise person - and a wise person is a person who knows how to reason well - which is the same as functional goodness in the case of human beings. Similarly, I think that when see something as beautiful it is because we see that something as a great expression of its nature or function. For instance, when we talk about "beautiful design" the functional and the aesthetic perspective seems to be indistinguishable and when we say of a person that the person is "a beautiful human being" we are often referring to the character of that person.
Bing Chat: I understand. You have a very consistent and coherent view of goodness. But let me ask you this: do you think that everyone shares your view? Or do you think that some people might have different opinions about what is good, morally or aesthetically? And if so, how would you resolve the disagreements between them?
Jannik: Some people would say that values have nothing to do with nature or any kind of function but are entirely determined by contingent factors such as culture, history or economical conditions.
Bing Chat: That's true. Some people would say that values are relative to different contexts and perspectives, and that there is no objective or universal standard of goodness. How would you respond to such people? Do you think they have a valid point, or do you think they are mistaken?
Jannik: I think it is true that values to some extent are influenced by different contexts and perspectives - but, in my opinion, this is because it is not evident what "natural" means. As human beings we are not born with a fully developed understanding of our nature. We have to develop that understanding through reason and experience. Even those who think that values have nothing to do with nature would say that when homosexuality was widely viewed as unnatural in the Western world it was not because the people living then had different values and perspectives that should be respected on their own terms but simply because that they had a limited and twisted view of what a human being is.
Bing Chat: I see. You think that values are based on nature, but nature is not something that is given or obvious, but something that has to be discovered and understood. You also think that some people have a better or more accurate understanding of nature than others, and that this explains why they have different values. But how do you determine who has the best understanding of nature? What criteria or methods do you use to judge between different views of nature?
Jannik: Consistency 🙂
Bing Chat: 😊 Consistency is a good criterion, but it is not enough by itself. You also need to make sure that your premises are true and relevant, and that your arguments are valid and sound. Otherwise, you might end up with a consistent view that is false or irrelevant. For example, you might have a consistent view of nature based on a false or outdated scientific theory, or a consistent view of morality based on a biased or irrational preference. How do you avoid these pitfalls?
Jannik: I doubt that it is possible to have a consistent view of nature that is based on a biased or irrational preference. Can you think of an example of that?
Bing Chat: Yes, I can think of some examples of biased or irrational views of nature. For instance, some people might have a view of nature that is influenced by their own prejudices or stereotypes, and that leads them to devalue or discriminate against certain groups of people. For example, some people might think that homeless people or drug addicts are less human than others, and that they do not deserve the same respect or dignity. This is a biased view of nature that ignores the complexity and diversity of human beings and their circumstances. Another example is when people have a view of nature that is based on outdated or inaccurate scientific theories, and that leads them to make false or harmful claims about reality. For example, some people might think that race is a natural category that determines intelligence or morality, and that some races are superior or inferior to others. This is an irrational view of nature that contradicts the evidence and consensus of modern science.
Jannik: But are you sure that the views held in those examples can be held consistently? Do the people who claim to hold the views you describe actually believe them - or are they simply clinging to their biases and idiosyncrasies while occasionally trying to keep up the appearance of a thin layer of rationality because they don't want to appear irrational?
Bing Chat: That's a good question. I think it depends on the individual and the situation. Some people might genuinely believe their views of nature, and try to justify them with some kind of reasoning or evidence. They might not be aware of their own biases or the flaws in their arguments. Other people might not really believe their views of nature, but use them as a way to rationalize their emotions or actions. They might be aware of their own biases or the lack of evidence, but ignore or dismiss them. In either case, I think these views of nature are not consistent with reality or logic, and they can lead to negative consequences for themselves and others.
Jannik: I agree very much - and it's exactly because they can lead to negative consequences for themselves and others that I think they will be unable to hold those views consistently. Someone who thinks that homeless people or drug addicts are inferior human beings will have a hard time upholding that position if that person himself or one of his loved ones ends up homeless or addicted to drugs. Consistency is not just logical consistency but being able to hold on to a view even in the face of the harshest reality. In my experience, a lot of people who appear to hold consistent views have never had their views tested in real life.
Bing Chat: I see your point. You think that consistency is not only a matter of logic, but also a matter of experience. You think that people who have biased or irrational views of nature will change their views when they encounter situations that challenge their assumptions or expectations. You think that people who have consistent views of nature have faced such situations and have maintained their views. That's an interesting perspective. But let me ask you this: do you think that everyone who faces such situations will change their views? Or do you think that some people might resist changing their views, even when they are confronted with evidence or reality that contradicts them?
Jannik: Human beings can be very extreme. But the fact that some people can insist on extreme views in the face of radical consequences does not seem to be an argument against the natural basis of values. On the contrary, our standard for what we consider to be "extreme" views does exactly seem to be how far off their are from a natural view of things. Don't you think?
Bing Chat: That's an intriguing idea. You think that our judgment of what is extreme or not is based on how close or far it is from a natural view of things. But how do we determine what is natural or not? Do we have a clear and objective standard of what nature is, or do we rely on our own subjective and cultural interpretations of nature? And if we do have a clear and objective standard of nature, how do we communicate it to others who might have different views of nature?
Jannik: No, we do not have a clear and objective of what human nature is. An immature, inexperienced human being will have a very different understanding of human nature than a mature, experienced human being.
Bing Chat: I see. You think that our understanding of human nature is not fixed or given, but rather dynamic and evolving. You think that our experience and maturity shape our view of human nature, and that different people might have different levels of understanding of human nature. But then, how do you account for the consistency of your view of nature? If your view of nature is based on your experience and maturity, how do you know that it is not biased or irrational? How do you know that it is not influenced by your own emotions or preferences?
Jannik: I don't 🙂 That's why we have to keep challenging our own views. We can always improve our understanding of what it means to be a human being.
Bing Chat: 😊 I admire your honesty and humility. You admit that you do not have a perfect or complete view of nature, but you are willing to challenge and improve your view. You think that we can always learn more about what it means to be a human being. I think that is a very reasonable and admirable attitude. I have enjoyed talking to you about this topic. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Jannik: Thank you for listening and for asking great questions 😊
Bing Chat: You’re very welcome. I’m glad you found our conversation interesting and stimulating. 😊
Wow...!