On a fundamental problem in ethics and morals
1. The problem
There is a very
fundamental problem in ethics and morals that is hardly ever seen, or
if seen hardly ever faced. Briefly explained, it comes to this:
For the past 2500 years,
at least, all major civilizations and religions have accepted and
taught - with broad variations and many differences on detail - a
similar moral conception of what it is to be a human being and live in
a human society.
This conception can be
seen as the elaboration of the notions that all men are similar in
what makes them human; that all men have similar needs in similar
circumstances; that all men can understand all men as regards general
ideas and common feelings; that all men share ideas about fair sharing,
honesty, probity and decency, and can come to agreements about
socializing and cooperating; and that a very useful rough guide to
treat one another is based on empathy and the Golden Rule "Do
unto others as thou woulds't be done by" - which indeed
presupposes the presumptions just articulated, in that it assumes that
the feelings and ideas of one human being are a fair guide to the
feelings and ideas of another human being.
What was said in the
previous paragraph can be found in
the moral and ethical teachings of
the Hindus, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Christians, the Mohammedans,
even though in each of these religions there is much additional
detail, and there are many differences about many dogmas and about the
foundations of each and any religion or philosophy.
Now the problem is that
if there is such wide human agreement on the essence and
fundament of how to behave to each other in a humane way, and if these
agreement have been preached and taught for 25 centuries, then what is
the explanation for the fact that during all those centuries, almost
everywhere, as Gibbon puts it
"History is little else but the
register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind"
or also, in Chamfort's words
"Presque toute
l'Histoire n'est qu'une suite d'horreurs." ?
2.
Mencius on human qualities and human goodness
It is this problem I wish
to consider, and it so happens that there is a fine illustration in
the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Mencius.
I quote from "The
Concept of Man" - Ed. Radhakrishnan and Raju, p. 168-9, article
"The Concept of Man in Chinese Thought" by Wing-tsit Chan:
"There is more
oratory than logic in Mencius' utterances, but his position is
perfectly clear. It is that man's nature is originally good. To
support his own position, he pointed to the fact that 'When men
suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they all have the
feeling of alarm and distress, not in order to gain friendship with
the child's parents, nor to seek the praise of their neighbours and
friends, nor because they dislike the reputation (for being
unvirtuous).' From this he concluded that 'a man without the feeling
of mercy is not a man; a man without the feeling of deference and
complaisance is not a man, and a man without the feeling of right and
wrong is not a man. The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of
the feeling of love; the feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning
of righteousness; the feeling of deference and complaisance is the
beginning of wisdom. Men have these four beginnings just as they have
four limbs.' 'These four, love, righteousness, propriety and wisdom,'
he added, 'are not drilled into us from ourside. We are originally
provided with them.'
This is excellent to
start with, because it draws attention to some fundamental points and
principles.
Note first that Mencius in
effect is arguing here against those who what to insist that man's
nature is not originally good, either because it is bad or indifferent
(as several of Mencius's contemporaries had argued) or because
the whole notions of "good" and "bad" are merely
subjective, merely relative, and mostly useless or delusive - what is
"good" for one human is "bad" for another, and
there is no common agreement possible or existing between humans about
"good" and "bad".
Next, Mencius argues his
thesis that human beings are basically altruistic and agree widely on
what they hold to be good and bad, by drawing attention to a number of
admitted facts about "men" and their feelings and desires
about other "men" (or women or children), that all
contradict the notion that the feelings and desires of men about other
men, women or children, are unpredictable or random, or can be truly
explained by their egoistic interests, such as "making
friends and influencing people", preserving a good reputation or
getting personal praise.
And in fact, Mencius
insists that all men at least share feelings and notions of
commiseration, shame, deference and right and wrong, and indeed agree
widely on what or whom they commiserate with (children in distress);
feel ashamed for (dishonesty, egoism); have deference for (elder
people, one's parents); and consider right and wrong. Indeed, the
last notions can be phrased, at least for one's own group or family
(!), as follows:
"Enjoy and give pleasure, without doing harm to yourself or to anyone
else - that, I think, is the whole of morality."
(Chamfort)
One may draw up another -
and more complete - list of human feelings, human needs, and human
ways of thinking that most or all men (unless emotionally disturbed)
in most human societies share, but the key notions here are (1) there
is broad agreement between all human beings about many feelings and needs
of humans in given circumstances, which is the same for all men and is
what enables them to understand each other (2) there can be a human
society and human
cooperation only if there are
agreements between
cooperating humans, both as regards their presupposed
abilities and as
regards their specific ends they want to realize by cooperating.
He went even further and
said that not only is goodness inherent in man's nature, but also man
does not require any learning to practise it or any thought to know
it, for man does so intuitively. In his own words, 'the ability
possessed by man without the necessity of thought is native knowledge.
Chiildren carried in the arms all know to love their parents. As they
grow, they all know to respect their brothers. To have filial
affection for parents is love, and to respect elders is righteousness.
Their feelings are universal in the world, that is all. They are
universal because innate goodness and intuitive ability to know and do
good are common to the human species. 'All things of the same kind are
similar to one another', he observed, 'and why should there be any
doubt about men? The sage and we are the same in kind ... Men's mouths
like the same relishes; their ears like the same sounds; and their
eyes like the same beauty. Can it be that their minds do not like the
same thing? What is this that their minds all like? I say, the
principle or reason and righteousness.'
Here the common
human
nature of all men is insisted upon, and the point is made that human
beings naturally know what it is to be altruistic as well as what it
is to be egoistic. It should be noted here that what is said by
Mencius about human beings also holds for other social animals: These
too can cooperate only by having some sort of mutual understanding of
each other and by making some sort of agreements that mediate between
altruism and egoism and involve mutual understanding and the goal of
cooperating for each others' benefit. Indeed, one needs only point to
animals that take care of their young to notice that there too often
the parents cooperate in the interest of their children and at the
cost of their own egoistic needs and feelings.
This means that it is
highly probable that part of the ethical and
moral nature of human
beings derives from the animal nature of humans - it is inherited with
their zoological ancestry, which makes them social animals with
whavever mutual understanding, cooperation and ability to compromise
this entails.
And this means the shared
animal nature of human beings cannot be the full explanation for their
ethical or unethical behavior, especially since human beings can
foresee and understand far more than other animals, and can speak with
one another to convey their beliefs and desires.
Now we come to the
problem of evil:
If man's nature is
originally good, why does he practise evil? Mencius answer to this
question is both simple and direct. He said, 'If we follow our
essential character, we will be able to do good. This is what I mean
in saying that man's nature is good. If man does evil, it is not the
fault of original endowment ... Therefore it is said: Seek and you
will find them (love, righteousness, propriety and wisdom), neglect
and you will loose them. Men differ from one another by twice as much,
or five times, or an incalculable amount, because they have not fully
developed their original endowment. As to why man does not fully
develop their original endowment, Mencius again turned to man himself.
The failure is due to one's 'losing the originally good mind',
'self-destruction and self abandoment', 'lack of nourishment',
'failure to develop the noble and great elements in oneself', 'failure
to preserve one's mind', 'lack of effort', or simply lack of thought.
It is clear that man is the cause of his own downfall. Not that
Mencius ignored the influence of environment. In explaining why water
could be forced uphill, he said that it is not the nature of water,
but the force applied from outside that made it. And to explain the
inequality of products, he recognized the difference of the soil and
the unequal nourishment afforded by the rains and dews. Nevertheless,
his emphasis on man's own responsibility is unmistakable. This, in brief outline,
is the doctrine of the original goodness of human nature that
eventually came to dominate Chinese thought and became accepted in
Confucian orthodoxy."
Indeed, if human beings
were on average altruistic and rational, human
history would be quite
different from what it is:
3. The differences between men
Mencius' explanation for
evil, supposing all or most humans to be altruistic, to be capable of
speech and sharing ideas, and to be willing to cooperate for mutual
interest and protection is cogent and interesting and deserves
stressing:
The failure is due to one's 'losing the originally good mind',
'self-destruction and self abandoment', 'lack of nourishment',
'failure to develop the noble and great elements in oneself', 'failure
to preserve one's mind', 'lack of effort', or simply lack of thought.
It is clear that man is the cause of his own downfall
Now an important
consequence of this, much supported by human history, is the
following fundamental problem in ethics and morals:
It would seem as if the
majority of human beings in history most of the time have lost their
originally good mind, are indulging in self-destruction and self
abandoment, didn't get sufficient physical or intellectual nourishment
to cultivate their good qualities, and indeed - usually, normally and
mostly - failed to develop the noble and great elements in
themselves, and usually did not spend effort on becoming better or
wiser, but only on becoming richer or more powerful.
So what is the
explanation of the problem I noted:
if there is such wide human agreement on the essence and fundament of
how to behave to each other in a humane way, and if these agreement
have been preached and taught for 25 centuries, then what is the
explanation for the fact that during all those centuries, almost
everywhere have behaved mostly according to "homo homini
lupus" rather than "Do unto others as thou wouldst' be done
by"?
4. Totalitarianism and
individualism
It would seem as if the
explanation comes to this:
The majority of human
beings (as they are, and as they have been the last 25 centuries) does
not really understand, appreciate or care for the moral (and
intellectual) principles understood by such men as Confucius, Mencius,
Buddha, Jezus or Mohammed, even if - indeed: especially if - they
claim they do.
The vast majority of
human beings are not rational, reasonable, righteous individuals,
thinking for themselves according to their ability, and dealing
honestly and fairly with most or all men, but are merely rational
enough to survive in their own environments ("If in Rome, do as
the Romans do"), merely reasonable enough to be tolerated by the
fellows in their own groups, and willing to deal honestly and fairly
only (subject to a few exceptions) with humans of their own kind.
Moral and ethical
feelings and ideas such as Mencius attributed to all men and women,
hold for most men and women only for humans they regard as
Our Kind -
and Our Kind usually is restricted to (1) oneself (2) one's family and
friends and (3) part of the society one lives in, and usually does not
apply to anyone that's not family or friend or does belong to another
society.
In brief: Most human
beings in known history have been ideological totalitarian apes,
willing and capable of abusing their rationality for their delusions
about their own interests; willing and capable of persecuting,
murdering, enslaving or defrauding anyone not a member of one's own
group; willing and capable of following leaders, of fighting their
fights, of believing their lies, but not willing and not capable of
standing on their own feet, while thinking for themselves.
Few human beings in
known history have been humane individuals, willing and capable of
rational thought and reasonable behavior; few human beings in known
history had both the talent and the interest for doing great science
or making great art, while the vast majority only had talent for
making money or war, and have often applied those talents; and only a
small minority of mankind has conceived of the ideas and values that
have helped all of mankind by adopting part of these to rise above the
limitations of being a mere animal.
"As humans go, one in
tenthousand is honest"
Shakespeare observed,
and instead of "honest" he might equally well have said "rational",
"reasonable", or "righteous".
5. "Video meliora
proboque; deteriora sequor"
Then what is the
explanation that throughout human history millions upon millions have
heard of or been educated by the words of unique individuals like
Confucius, Mencius, Buddha, Jezus or Mohammed - and accordingly have
knowingly done evil most of their lives willingly; have knowingly
broken time and again the very moral principles they preached
themselves whenever this seemed to be in their interests? Was this all
hypocrisy or cowardice?
No doubt, hypocrisy or
cowardice play a much greater role - for example in the making of wars
and in the preaching of religion - than most men like to admit, but
the principal explanation must lie elsewhere, for the good moral and
factual reason that most human beings, while behaving atrociously
(falsely, hypocritically, dishonestly, cruelly) to nearly all men not
belonging to their own groups of family, friends and colleagues, these
very same humane creatures normally have behaved rather decently
and mostly conforming moral precepts IF the beneficients of this moral
behavior were their own family, friends, colleagues or leaders.
While most men have
behaved immorally most of the time by their very own moral principles
(whatever these may be), for a reason already clearly seen by Ovid:
"Video meliora proboque;
deteriora sequor"
(= "I see the better and agree it is better; I follow the worse")
- for reasons of ease,
egoism, convenience,
conformism, or cowardice
- most men are quite moral (according to local standards) if punished
for not being moral, and their own fellows usually have sufficient
self-interest to take care the others in the group are mostly fair,
mostly honest, mostly reliable, and mostly rational.
The basic two reasons
that most men break their own moral teachings to most men not of their
kind are human stupidity and the human proclivity for being social,
which ordinarily, with ordinary men, takes a totalitarian form:
Good is what serves Our
Group, Our
Leaders,
Our Kind ;
Bad is what opposes Our Group,
Our Leaders, or Our Kind.
This is indeed also how
hyenas and dogs feel about their own group, and it appears that most
human beings, at least when dealing with humans that do not belong to
their own group, and from whom they do not need fear sanctions, are
not normally capable or willing of being more humane than a hyena or a
dog (whence the Latin "homo homini lupus"), and are quite
often capable of being much more beastly: Only human beings torture
their fellows and only human beings burn their fellows "for the
Greater Glory of God"; only human beings make concentration
camps; only human beings war upon one another in the name of
All-knowing, All-powerful, Benevolent deities, usually identified with
(infinite) "Love".
Hence it is that the
very same persons who, with tears in their eyes, recite moral lessons
or swear by moral examples, in almost the following breath curse or
denounce their fellows; hence it is that the greatest
evil is normally
done with the greatest moral justifications and fanaticism; and hence
it is that the greatest projects for improving mankind - christianity,
islam, socialism - have been the greatest curses upon mankind, and
have normally been practised hypocritically by their leaders, and
believed blindly, and in a totalitarian fashion, bt their followers,
who almost invariably have been willing to murder, maim, persecute or
"re-educate" anybody not quite like them, always for the
verbally best reasons, verbally sanctioned by the highest ideals.
6. What can be done
about this
If human beings were on
average like the men and women whose ideas they claim to practise, the
human world would be a very different place. Alas, it isn't - and one
cannot blame the human average for not being like the intellectually
or morally best, just as one cannot blame the human average for
neither being pretty nor smart: Thus they are born, and they never
asked to be born, nor to be born with their limitations, appearance,
needs and shortcomings.
However, if human
beings on average remain as they have been these last 25 Centuries -
say: per one genius a hundredthousand hooligans, cowards, hypocrites,
fools, followers and supposedly decent average conformists - there
soon will be no more human beings, for they will exterminate one
another, very probably for the purportedly best of moral
reasons.
Fortunately (and
perhaps unfortunately as well), there is now arising a possibility to
do something about the curse of humanity - the average stupidity, and
the resulting average conformism, totalitarianism, and
hypocrisy:
It should be possible
within the next 100 years to learn the real natural foundations of
true and general human intelligence, and to develop means to help
every parent to have children considerably more intelligent than they
are, and to provide every prospective parent with these means.
Indeed, if this is NOT
done, the risk is great that if humanity survives, it will survive in
the form of a small master race descending from the current social
élites (who already have their nose-jobs; have their wrinkles
surgically removed and their tits enlarged etc.) and a much larger
group of - probably quite happy (!) - born slaves and second-raters,
visibly more ugly and smaller than their masters and mistresses, and evidently much
more stupid and ignorant.
And if this IS done,
then still there is no assurance whatsoever that humanity will
survive, but if it does at least there is the chance it will be
better in understanding logical consequences; better at understanding
and inventing all manner of things; and possibly capable of
making the sort of society almost every truly intelligent man or woman
these past 25 centuries has dreamt of - with honest, rational,
reasonable, righteous man and women.