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.