The
natural world gives human beings
many reasons to undertake certain
activities and avoid others.
Some plants might be nourishing
to eat, others quite deadly.
Some large animals have the capacity
to harm humans and are prudently
avoided. Bones break under certain
stresses, people bleed when cut
and can die. Pain becomes a conscious "reason" to
undertake certain activities
or abstain from others altogether.
Nature constantly reveals her
many dangers to alert and conscious
minds. A prudent person can easily
observe the ability of plants
and animals to inflict harm under
certain conditions and from those
observations make wise choices.
Not
only do individual people want
to avoid pain and suffering,
they want their friends and family
to avoid it as well. A primitive
ethical system naturally evolves
from the simple avoidance of
pain, which has the added benefit
of also promoting the longest
life. When a rule system informally
evolves in a society to assist
choice-making, it is the beginning
of an ethical system. People
survive best when they share
information about the hazards
of the natural world. If generations
of people observe that kicking
tigers is not a healthy undertaking,
this fact becomes known in the
behavioral wisdom that people
share with each other.
Nature
provides information about the
capacity of its creatures to
inflict pain, the capacity of
plants and animals to poison
as well as to nourish the body,
and about the dangers of natural
phenomena such as lightning,
windstorms, high seas, and hurricanes.
Human beings have evolved with
eyes, ears, and an analytic mind.
They have been given the tools
to survive, if they choose to
do so. A person has a choice
to stand up in a hurricane or
seek cover. Choosing between
alternative actions is a part
of the ethical building process.
In the natural world individual
actions inspire consequent reactions
from the environment and from
other people, sometimes in significant
ways, and sometimes not. Societies
remember important things through
the construction of their value
systems, moral systems, and laws.
Human
existence can be very dangerous
under certain circumstances.
Take for example driving a car.
Driving is dangerous under certain
circumstances. If people run
through red lights and stop signs,
their lives will be at risk.
Many people use the same roadways.
Rules are established to allow
multiple use of the highways.
In the same way that we share
highways, we sometimes share
environmental space. In a primitive
setting, where tigers and humans
shared the same space, one of
the rules of tolerable coexistence
would have been to refrain from
provoking tigers. A better strategy
would be to get out of the way
altogether, in the same way a
prudent person today would get
out of the way of a truck barreling
down a highway. Teaching successive
generations such hazards is delegated
to systems of knowledge taught
through laws, customs, ethics,
and manners. People are the products
of biological growth in a natural
setting. People do not emerge
from a factory all identical.
Organic systems tend to diversify
in order to evolve. There is
a diversity of laws and ethical
systems, and this protects the
larger portion of the systems
from failure if there is a serious
defect in any one system.
The
danger of tigers is obvious,
but as life becomes more complex,
life-threatening dangers reveal
themselves in subtler shades.
Danger becomes more difficult
to explain as it becomes more
abstract. As a civilization develops,
the growth of reasoning moves
from the tangible toward the
intangible, or abstract. The
desire for peace is a more abstract
reason to modify behavior than
the desire to run away from a
hungry tiger. In both instances,
however, the goal is essentially
the same, the avoidance of pain
and the promotion of personal
survival in a hostile world.
If pain is known to be an immediate
consequence of an action, there
arises a "reason" in
the conscious mind to avoid it
most of the time.
People
can live about a hundred years.
In a hundred years of life it
is impossible to experience everything
and learn the subtleties of all
the dangers in the natural and
social world. If people perceive
that cooperation diminishes pain
and suffering, "reasons" emerge
to modify social behaviors to
encourage cooperation instead
of conflict. Early ethical systems
were likely built on such perceptions.
Since "reasons" were
remembered in the cultural ethic,
myth, and the like, people did
not have to live a hundred years
to learn many of the dangers
of life.
In
the beginning, formal or written
laws prohibiting murder may not
have existed, but certain environmental
factors would have inhibited
the practice. If there were no
prohibitions against killing,
the common perception might be
that any person could kill any
other person without any need
to justify that action. In an
environment where any person
could kill another, then all
individuals in that environment
would be at risk. Since primitive
man was most likely a creature
of emotions and raw genetic expressions
of behavior, considerable killing
would have been evident in that
early society. With no rules
in place to restrict killing,
life would have been experienced
one tenuous moment at a time.
Kin
would have close and meaningful
bonds that would inhibit them
from killing each other. But
as civilization grew, many different
families would be coming into
closer proximity to one another.
Intense relationships would not
yet have been established so
there would be no personal loss
in killing a person of another
family. If the killing could
be done discreetly, without raising
the suspicions of others, there
would be no consequences. Everyone
in the society would be party
to the same rule of the jungle.
In such an environment, stress
would be high. Peace would be
fragile and easily broken by
the untempered nature of human
emotions to provoke conflict
and start a vicious circle of
killing and retribution. As strangers
became more dependent on each
other for survival, in the same
way that close kin were, the
killing of even strangers would
begin to diminish the quality
of life. There would be a natural
tendency for a rule to emerge
inhibiting the killing of strangers.
More and more people would begin
to realize the many mutually
beneficial relationships that
could be created through tolerance
that would enhance the survival
of all people. The world has
perhaps evolved from kin consciousness,
from there to tribal consciousness,
and on to national and global
consciousness.
There
seem to be mechanisms in the
design of human beings that prevent
them from turning the full force
of their predatory nature upon
each other. In the beginning,
people would have quickly torn
each other apart if rules had
not developed. Humans can sense
meaning in higher forms of experience.
That sense subtly influences
how they behave over long periods
of time. An increase in a spirit
of give-and-take can demonstrably
produce higher forms of cultural
experience. Perhaps violence
and killing gets boring and unexciting
compared to other potentially
enjoyable and safer undertakings.
Like the first taste of some
exotic food, higher forms of
experience inspire a yearning
in the hearts of men and women.
People desire a knowledge of
themselves to fill a void. There
is a yearning to know where they
have come from. Orderly socialization
brings out that meaning in greater
detail. Thus there may be a tendency
for higher forms of socialization
to begin to subordinate more
primitive ways in that epic search
for meaning.
People
do not ordinarily act totally
without reason, and they have
a natural tendency to seek reason
to explain their world. Sense
is many times evident in the
feelings of people but is difficult
to explain logically. If the
restraint of primitive urges
to kill and create mayhem make
the environment a safer and more
meaningful place to live, people
will naturally encourage the
evolution of more sophisticated
behaviors. Yet the higher influences
upon human actions are not strong
forces; they are weak. However,
a weak force persistently working
on the thoughts and feelings
of people over thousands of years
can have a profound influence.
Ethical rule systems evolved
very slowly. They are corrupted,
then refined and enhanced as
each generation takes the controls
of society while trying to bend
their logic toward selfish interests.
But, like a spring, the essential
wisdom of rule systems returns
distorted logic to sensibility.
At
the dawn of civilization people
were probably much more violent
than they are today. Even then,
there must have been behavioral
inhibitors that prevented human
beings' predatory nature from
turning on itself instead of
some other food source such as
plants and animals. For instance,
with no government to enforce
rules, a contemporary person
might imagine that primitive
people could do anything they
pleased, such as kill other people
for the slightest advantage.
However, behavioral inhibitors
would make such behavior more
difficult than it might appear.
Two things would immediately
affect decision-making. First,
primitive people had to concentrate
intently on gathering enough
food simply to survive. Second,
any activity that had the potential
to produce pain was likely avoided.
A person might not be killed
outright, but might be injured
and suffer a slow death. This
would act to prevent a person
from simply walking up to another
person and starting a fight.
Again, the consequence of pain
would informally formulate a
rationale for appropriate behavior.
An
early rule of the jungle perhaps
began to take form as humans
figured out a working relationship
with their environment. A practical
rule of thumb prescribing appropriate
behavior may have been: "If
you do not want to feel pain,
you have to be careful not to
be involved in conflicts that
could hurt you." It would
have been known that ordinarily
placid individuals could suddenly
be provoked into rage intense
enough to kill another person.
The highly unpredictable nature
of a provoked person would change
the balance of power in a social
environment. Even though early
humans may not have been highly
educated, the difference between
a rational and irrational person
would show itself in bursts of
destructive rage. Learning what
circumstances might trigger rage
in a person was probably one
of the early learning experiences
of human beings.
Many
forms of rage probably erupted
over the division of property.
If a hunter killed an animal
and another person tried to take
the animal away, the anger felt
by the hunter would change the
nature of his judgment concerning
pain and injury to himself. The
thief's life would hang in a
precarious balance in the presence
of an armed hunter whose emotions
were powerfully charged. Except
for a few thieves who were skilled
fighters, the thief could not
expect to survive very long stealing
the prey of other hunters. "Unauthorized
taking" in any generation
would demonstrably provoke emotions.
From repeated observation of
human emotions, a cultural wisdom
would naturally evolve confirming
this phenomenon. Such knowledge
could only add weight to the
notion that stealing was morally
wrong. As the moral knowledge
of stealing built upon wizened
observation other fine points
of its wrongness would be revealed.
For instance, unauthorized taking
inspires indignation, but more
importantly it brings to life
irrationality, and irrationality
is very frightening to people.
When a fragile peace is established,
people begin to enjoy life. Opportunities
unfurl and greater prosperity
can follow. But until rules are
set in place to clearly define
property, the same war of emotional
outrage will be fought time and
time again until people do something
about defining property.
Billions
of people have lived in this
world over thousands of years.
Their experiences and social
experimentations have helped
formulate and refine rule systems
and sensible moral attitudes
and beliefs. There is another
incentive for people to formulate
rules in addition to suppressing
outright violence. It is inherently
efficient for a society to adopt
rules against unauthorized taking.
People compete with each other
for scarce resources. Nations
do the same. One of the most
powerful strategies a nation
or person can adopt is the optimization
of energies and resources. For
example, laws against theft free
up energies that can be used
elsewhere because people no longer
need to concentrate on protecting
their possessions every moment
of the day. Those freed-up energies
can easily lead to the development
of advanced weapons or commercial
skills. In earlier times stealing
may have been more accepted than
it is now, but over time the
most socially productive attitude
toward killing would have the
upper hand in effecting a change
in the laws.
The
disruptive effects of emotions
are not the only reason for rules
curbing theft and killing. The
freedom to kill at will is counterbalanced
by a person's desire to enjoy
meaningful relationships. Human
beings all experience a degree
of epistemic loneliness that
makes it a pleasure to be with
other human beings. It is said: "People
find their most meaningful emotions
in other people." Socializing
fills a need almost as essential
as the need for food and water.
Random killing obviously cuts
off a rich source of meaningful
experience.
In
a primitive environment something
prevents people from becoming
too social too fast. There is
a hierarchy of emotions that
commands the behavior of people.
As much as people are rewarded
by social relationships, passions
can drive them to take what is
not theirs if they believe they
can get away with theft. Killing
can be inspired by overpowering
selfishness or a true need to
obtain food to survive.
If
the evolving rule is that you
can kill others for their food,
or take their possessions at
will, then everyone else in the
vicinity can do the same. The
logical result would be an increase
in societal stress and a decrease
in the enjoyment of life. Sensible
people would likely recognize
this relationship even in the
most primitive of circumstances.
Over long periods of social growth,
the first rule tacitly acknowledging
theft would be replaced by a
more productive one restricting
it. If people had the skill and
energy to attack hunters and
steal their prey, they would
also have the energy and skill
to hunt their own. This would
be evident in an evolving community
of people working toward a common
goal. When people work hard for
their possessions, it affects
their attitudes. If such attitudes
endure, they become integrated
into legal and ethical systems.
There is little incentive for
hunters to hunt where there is
a strong possibility someone
will come along and take their
prey. There is an economic disincentive
for people to allow theft, and
an economic incentive to prohibit
it.
There
would be chaos if theft were
permitted through an absence
of rules. Few would choose to
live in a world where there was
endless strife. Certain social
conditions can create endless
strife. When people experience
this, their desire for peace
increases. If people are bound
by a common desire for peace,
they are compelled to recognize
that certain behaviors affect
societal tranquility. Violence
interspersed with times of peace
forces people to think about
their circumstances in an evolving
way. In a rapidly evolving society,
if the recognition of personal
property is what it takes to
diminish conflict, the desire
for peace will lead society to
formalize ownership of property.
At the dawn of civilization,
how could it be otherwise that
a hunter's prey was not his own?
In later societies his prey might
have belonged to his master;
but, it was still his and not
the property of an approaching
stranger. In this cultural setting,
there is likely to be no better
and more efficient rule than
one that gives property rights
to those who have invested time
and energy in tracking down an
animal.
The
idea of property soon evolved
to a much higher level of abstraction
in early societies. Since resources
were scarcer, exchanging favors
(that is, time and energy invested
in the expectation of a return)
would have improved the quality
of life. But, like an urge to
steal from the hunter, so might
an urge have arisen in some people
to default ("defect" in
game theory) on their obligations.
If they defaulted, they would
come out ahead of those who did
not. People barter in a world
of scarce resources to optimize
resource sharing, which in turn
increases the prosperity of the
entire society. However, if many
people begin to default on their
obligations, the barter system
breaks down, resources become
scarce again, and everyone suffers.
If a person helping another gather
food in the spring will need
help in the fall to repair a
shelter, a mutually beneficial
relationship exists if labor
is in fact exchanged. However,
if the fall comes and help is
not given in repayment, then
a parasitic relationship exists
instead of a mutually beneficial
one. Obligations are many and
difficult to define, but the
notion of obligation does exist
in the minds of those giving
time and energy to other people.
In
order to share resources under
primitive conditions, trust must
evolve between people. Trusting
another to repay time, energy,
or product increases the number
and kinds of energies and resources
that can be exchanged. More people
who have goods and services can
participate in commerce if a
system of obligations and duties
evolves to keep track of favors.
As more people are able to participate
in an economic system, the more
dynamic and healthy it becomes,
because skills and resources
are employed on a highly productive
level. If trust breaks down,
the rule of commerce becomes "payment
in full" for every transaction.
Consequently, fewer people can
exchange goods and services since
they would have to be exchanged
at the same time. Trading help
in the spring for help in the
fall would become risky business,
and thus impractical.
The
moral rule to honor obligations
is affirmed by the positive effects
that the rule has on the peace,
prosperity, and productivity
of a society. Allowing people
to default on their obligations
returns society to a more primitive
state, only this time in an abstract
sense. Instead of tacitly permitting
the theft of a hunter's prey,
allowing defaults on obligations
results in the theft of a person's
time and energy. In both instances,
the taking of another person's
time and energy is a parasitic
action. When those producing
become afflicted with parasitic
elements, the prosperity of the
entire system suffers. Since
the health of social systems
will suffer, subsequent ethical
rules must evolve to define a
duty to honor obligations. Considerations
of systemic survival incessantly
pervade the course of social
development. It is not likely
an inefficient system can long
endure.
Good
rules create a perceivable social
equilibrium that affirms the
wisdom of good rules. Good rules
endure because they work time
and again. A better rule supplants
an earlier rule tolerant of theft.
The new rule now regards one's
prey as one's property. The new
rule that says "get your
own food" commands others
to be self-reliant rather than
parasitic. It is a practical
and productive wisdom. If a person
bleeds the energies of another
without giving something in return,
the victim will be impoverished.
If enough people are victims
of social parasites, vital energies
necessary for creative social
growth are lost in sustaining
people who do not produce but
could if forced to do so. The
vitality of a nation could be
thought of as a measure of how
many people are maximally contributing
to the nation. Allowing theft
of property, time, and energy
as acceptable social behaviors
would eventually lead society
into poverty. The consequences
of a system running down in this
way are poverty and an inability
to defend itself from more organized
societies. People must make their
own rules and honor them, or
the ensuing disorganization will
lead them into poverty or an
imposition of the rules of a
conquering nation.
If
people could act as parasites
without moral censure, few would
be willing to work, and the entire
society would cease to function.
The idea that people must pay
their fair share must emerge
in a developing society for the
simple reason that the society
must be efficient enough to survive.
Those who harmed or killed other
humans in the process of taking
their food would not have been
highly regarded in an early society.
Thievery that led to killing
would deprive that society of
potentially meaningful relationships.
Allowing the thief to act parasitically
would impoverish the society,
particularly if many people were
doing the same thing. With these
things commonly known, it would
be difficult for predatory people
to survive in an increasingly
hostile society. Their selfish
actions would give a "reason" for
others to act to restrain them,
since it would diminish society's
fear of random killing and allow
their meaningful relationships
to survive. Such ethical reasoning
would encourage hard work by
guaranteeing a state of peace
in which the greatest number
of people would enjoy the greatest
peace, prosperity, and productivity.
Allowing
people to experience reward for
hard work is a powerful strategy
to inspire people to create and
add to civilization. In this
respect, the idea of hard work
integrates into the moral system
as a held value worth rediscovering
and affirming as true in each
successive generation. But if
hard work is to be recognized,
so too would property have to
be recognized. The evolution
of ethical rules delineating
conduct and property rights would
be another benefit of allowing
greater freedom and autonomy.
Many things that would have never
been created are brought into
the world when a certain degree
of personal freedom prevails
and a state of peace can be guaranteed.
The early idea that a man's prey
was his own property or the property
of his tribe reasonably evolves
not only from reasoned actions,
but also from the joy an increased
state of civilization equally
brings to all people.
The
larger the moral ecosystem grew
in early society, the more evident
it would have become that imprudent
actions could eventually boomerang
on a person and afflict them
with unexpected suffering. As
more people crowded into smaller
spaces, people would have a need
to cultivate their image. They
also would have to be more sensitive
about exhibiting imprudent behavior
that could tarnish that image
and inspire retaliation. Cultivating
a good image would be helpful
in maximizing cooperation from
other people. The desire to have
a good image thus acted to inhibit
behaviors that would frighten
or push people away. This is
productive, since more opportunities
for mutual benefit exist in a
state of closeness. People who
were left out of the loop of
intimacy, or who were frightened
by people they did not know,
could rationalize a "reason" to
retaliate when it assisted their
schemes to survive politically
or economically. There is a strong
incentive in a developing world
for people to protect their image.
Defaulting on obligations repeatedly
would tarnish that image and
morally stigmatize those people
as unreliable. This would deny
them lucrative relationships
with a broad spectrum of other
people. Ethical systems in a
society tend to categorize people
in terms of their mutually beneficial
characteristics. In knowing the
rules, and following them, society
would soon see what sorts of
people were parasitic or tended
to prematurely retaliate for
imagined grievances.
Since
people cannot be in two places
at once, their property and unguarded
families would be at risk while
they were away. Crops could be
destroyed and houses burned.
People therefore had an interest
in not provoking others. A way
of systematically avoiding such
incidents had to evolve. This
inspired the emergence of manners
in finer and finer detail. Being
courteous evolved as a way of
making sure one is not misunderstood
to be predatory and aggressive.
To act provoked or enraged is
one of the oldest tricks of the
jungle. Intense emotion tends
to intimidate others into ceding
property or resources. It is
a double bind, since not ceding
and calling the aggressor's bluff
would give the aggressor a "reason" to
retaliate. The most effective
method of breaking the bind of
intimidation has been the adoption
of courteous ways to deny others
an easy excuse for retaliation.
Systems of ethics and manners
informed people of what constituted
default on obligations, and so
in effect informed them of who
to avoid. It also inspired methods
of professionally coping with
predatory attempts to extort
resources. In this way, the higher
evolution of thinking has slowly
put primitive emotions at a distance.
Natural
selection over a very long period
of time favors prudent behaviors
rather than hazardous behaviors.
The excessively brazen who ignore
good sense represent, perhaps,
genetic combinations headed for
extinction, as natural selection
has likely favored the survival
of intelligent and sensible humans
rather than predatory, self-interested
ones. A reasoning species would
evolve where other types failed
simply because it was able to
assess its survival capabilities
clearly and realistically.
At
the birth of a civilization,
several events would immediately
occur to stabilize the tendency
of human emotions to thwart cultural
growth. Murder and mayhem would
spontaneously arise, inspiring
a vicious circle of killing.
As the chaos intensified, the
societal desire for peace would
also increase since early humans
would begin to recognize that
they were killing off their own
species. The desire for peace
would prompt a disposition in
people to find a way to settle
their conflicts. Three things
would likely satisfy the conditions
for peace in the primitive world:
first, rules prohibiting certain
types of killing; second, the
definition of property rights;
and third, the emergence of a
strong leader to enforce the
peace. The need for peace inspires
the evolution of a hierarchy
of authority. With that authority
in place, a delineation of work
and resources would follow. Once
the idea of property was recognized
and affirmed, and murder without
reason suppressed, creative ventures
and commerce could grow. Relationships
would suddenly take a quantum
leap in complexity, and an ethical
system would soon become more
assertive in an attempt to hold
in check a growing web of obligations.
As
the first ethical and legal systems
came to life, several events
should have occurred simultaneously.
First, strong impulses to kill
or harm others would have become
counterbalanced by a strong desire
of people to be together for
mutual benefit. Second, more "reasons" to
act or not to act would thrust
themselves consciously into the
mind. Pain, starvation, suffering,
and fear powerfully affect thinking
and sometimes bring people's
minds to consciousness. Third,
as more and more people crowded
closer together, there would
be more instances in which crucial
behavioral decisions would have
to be made. With more people,
possibilities for pain and violence
would increase. The increase
in conflicts and potential conflicts
would force a quanta of evolutionary
growth to hold the violence in
check. Fourth, the increasing
complexity would culminate in
the development of formal and
informal rules to allow people
to live in closer spaces without
violence. The rules would evolve
from the knowledge that human
nature goes awry under certain
circumstances. The new rules,
based on good sense, would in
effect act as a memorial to future
generations of the problems of
the prior generation. Once a
system of remembering "reason" was
established, societal intelligence
would increase, providing greater
peace and security for the following
generations. Peace would increase
the possibility of the human
species surviving much longer
than it would if it existed at
an evolutionary level of being
subject to no social laws. At
the genetic level or at the human
level, a system of distinguishing
good actions from bad ones is
essential for survival.
In
early times, human civilization,
with very little at its disposal,
bootstrapped itself toward a
semblance of intelligence by
observing, developing a memory
of what was observed, and using
the memory of that observation
to forecast future events. The
emergence of social and environmental
consciousness in early times
must have been facilitated by
a growing array of important
memories. Initially, kinship
memories would probably have
been strongest, along with recognition
of the difference between food
and non-food objects. Following
natural selection's sharpening
of the capacity of early humans
to remember would have come the
dawn of social consciousness,
the recognition by individuals
that an environment existed independent
of them. Aided by sharpened memory
skills, this consciousness was
probably marked by the realization
that there was a relationship
between the availability of food
and the seasons. The ability
to recognize kin, food, and seasonal
changes that could affect the
availability of food, all relate
to early humans' ability not
only to survive, but to evolve.
With an enhanced capacity to
remember, there would evolve
an information base to predict
other relationships in nature
that could affect early humans'
well-being and ultimate survival.
Keeping
track of "reasons" to
take action or to repress behaviors
serves as a positive feedback
to society. As society keeps
track of more and more significant
events, in finer and finer detail,
the energy of its intelligence
correspondingly increases. If
a society does not have to repeat
its past mistakes, it has more
energy and resources to creatively
grow. As the quality and potency
of intelligence bootstraps to
higher and higher levels, distinct
categories of knowledge naturally
emerge. A wide variety of academic
disciplines has evolved from
the refinements of experience,
thought, and experimentation.
The evolution of ethical systems
is a natural part of civilization
defining a secure position so
that it can survive in a world
occupied by many other types
of organisms competing for the
same scarce resources.
As
society matures it refines its
rules of conduct and sharpens
its memory of the difference
between a good choice and a bad
one. In not having to be condemned
to repeat its past mistakes,
while thriving upon the peace
that follows good choices, a
society remembers the many dangers
and pitfalls of life by encouraging
the development of systems, morals,
manners, and laws. With time,
a civilization becomes increasingly
complex, and there is less time
for individuals to learn all
the hazardous facets of life
by direct experience. In a fast-paced,
competitive world, reliable models
of behavior must be sought out
to serve as examples of how good
decision-making can fend off
potential trouble. Behavioral
information handed down through
generations becomes subtly entwined
in the cultural ethic. Seemingly
innocuous aphorisms such as "patience
is a virtue" can have a
powerful influence on the life
of an intelligent person. After
all, people have been around
for thousands of years and have
observed the productive effects
of patience.
To
be bound by rules, in one sense,
is the same as being legal and
moral. But equally important,
it should be remembered that
to be legal and moral is to be
relatively efficient in one's
actions. The long-term survival
of an individual or a society
is served better by orderly behavior
guided by refined rule sets than
it is by living without them.
Individuals must compete with
other individuals, nations must
compete with other nations, and
the human species must compete
with a whole array of other organisms
for scarce resources. Between
systems of equal size and resources,
the tactical advantage will lie
with the more efficient system.
To survive is the mandate of
the species. This mandate imposes
restraints upon individuals and
those restraints naturally evolve
as ethical systems in response
to the greater need of the whole
of humanity.
Ethical
systems account for what it is
to be human, developing from
the knowledge of the many ways
life can be hard and uncertain.
Desperation leads to the rationalization
of illegal or immoral actions.
When times are hard, people attempt
to make their problems someone
else's. The fluid nature of morals,
manners, and laws sense this
about people, and so inspire
rules to guide desperate people
towards more original motifs
of reason. If people manage their
money badly, they begin to try
to maximize taking from other
people instead of sharing with
them. Being short of money becomes
an excuse to break the law or
default on obligations to others.
People who suddenly find themselves
in desperate circumstances act
differently than those who live
a secure life. Given these factors,
formal laws and informal moral
traditions serve society by regulating
the excesses of disruption that
can arise from economic dislocations.
The more this chaotic arena of
human success and despair is
regulated in a productive way,
the more everyone will prosper.
There will be fewer long-term
disruptions that will dissipate
people's wealth and emotional
resources.
Ethical
systems take into account the
frailty of human emotions. If
passions rule the laws of the
land, life again becomes tenuous
and prosperity is threatened.
Many people yield to sexual passions
that can disrupt society if they
are not stigmatized and regulated.
For instance, if child molesting
evolves as an acceptable behavior,
the situation benefits the short-term
needs of the molester while disrupting
the victims' entire lives. Consistency
of reasoning in deriving laws
is a factor in how much they
will be respected. Disproportionate
distribution of short-term pleasure
and long-term emotional harm
is less than reasonable. If parents
are always concerned for the
safety of their children because
laws do not exist to protect
them, then the society loses
the resources those parents have
to offer because much of their
time will then be spent in protecting
their children. If they raise
children and invest considerable
time and money in their upbringing,
and that investment is destroyed
for the sake of some person's
short-term pleasure, there are
wasted resources and damaged
emotions that do not foster the
growth of that society. Attitudes
toward exploitative sex thus
will naturally evolve in a complex
society.
A
prime mover giving people cause
to "reason" in early
civilization may have arisen
from the tragic circumstances
they experienced. Tragedy entwined
in grief powerfully raises the
human consciousness. In an environment
where death and injury repeatedly
occur, people begin to realize
that some of the tragic circumstances
could have been avoided by planning,
patience, and better communication.
As life becomes more organized,
the chances that tragedy will
occur diminish. With more organization
and better communication, fewer
misunderstandings leading to
violence occur.
If
a society promotes the idea of
reasoned behaviors rather than "felt" behaviors,
suffering can be reduced. If
there is even a semblance of
a reason involved in a death,
people can cope much better.
But if death, destruction, and
injury are the result of arbitrary
actions, people are stimulated
to seek reasons. Arbitrary actions
generally emerge when people
are not thinking; they simply
feel like doing something that
later leads to tragedy. Feeling
that "something should be
done" leads to more misunderstandings
and possible retribution than
do actions that are analytically
reasoned. As more people pack
into smaller areas, social order
is better served by people whose
actions are the result of reason
rather than feeling. Biologically
speaking, natural selection may
favor a reasoning species as
opposed to a sentient species.
In early social formations, emotional
and impulsive humans perhaps
killed themselves off more often
than cool-headed, analytically
reasoning people, moving the
genetic development of humans
to higher and higher levels of
order.
When
people are killed in retribution
for actions no one can remember,
generations of people may kill
each other for reasons that in
the beginning were quite trivial.
Small transgressions of morals,
manners, or law can escalate
into civil warfare. As social
thinking becomes more advanced,
there is a tendency to write
finer and finer details into
law. Small behavioral problems
are significant because they
can lead to much greater problems.
This means that violations of
rules, both significant and insignificant,
must be vigorously pursued.
Ethical
systems evolve to warn people
that certain behaviors can lead
to larger problems. For instance,
many people ignore moral sentiments
to avoid gambling. What may start
as gambling for fun can lead
to an addiction that drives a
person into poverty.
The
idea of dangerous circumstances
influencing the direction of
law can be seen in traffic laws.
The evolution of traffic laws
is not unlike the evolution of
a broad spectrum of statutory
laws and moral systems. When
cars first were introduced to
society, they were few in number.
Therefore, a tight regulatory
system was not necessary. But
as society became more dependent
on cars for its prosperity, attitudes
toward regulation changed. Rapid,
versatile transportation has
become inextricably linked with
commerce. Public transportation
that runs on time maximizes the
flow of goods and services. If
transportation is interrupted
by repeated congestion due to
lack of regulations, there will
be a natural tendency for more
and more laws to evolve to make
the traffic system more efficient.
If better laws minimize accidents,
deaths, and injuries on the highways,
there will be a gradual evolution
of better laws. With increased
transit safety, there is an increase
in the predictability of traffic.
With increased predictability,
motorists can move faster over
more miles than was formerly
possible. Good rules are beneficial
to all. Nevertheless, people
who might want to believe they
could drive as they wished would
be put at risk because of the
highly unpredictable nature of
highway traffic. The evolution
of good motor vehicle laws would
benefit them as well as the rest
of the society. What started
as fairly simple traffic codes
later became a profusion of regulations
filling hundreds of pages of
text. Most of the rules have
reasons for their existence.
These reasons are often decided
by experience, pain, grief, and
later, in the writing of laws,
by calculation and engineering.
The rules have evolved to maximize
the chances of survival on the
roads, and they regulate the
flow of traffic to the highest
theoretical limit of efficiency
thus benefiting both the motorists
and their nation. Tragedy is
thus diminished by good rule-making.
Formal and informal rule systems
exist for the same productive
reasons traffic laws exist. They
allow more people to intermingle
with fewer problems and with
maximum benefit to all.
There
is a quirk of perception that
leads human beings to believe
there would be more freedom in
the world without the existence
of rules. If people could move
about in the world and do what
they wanted unimpeded, the social
world could not have evolved
to its present form. In restricting
some of the unlimited freedom
the primitive setting appears
to give, people receive in return
a more meaningful existence.
This in turn gives them the intellectual
means to better appreciate the
freedoms they retain as well
as to know the rewards of an
expanded world. When people are
married and have children, they
knowingly restrict their own
freedom by taking on obligations
to tend to other people's needs,
but in return they often derive
a greater satisfaction in living
than they had as single people.
There
is an inherent resistance in
ignorant people to abide by rules
of any kind because rules are
often experienced as tools of
repression. This defect of logic
leads people to reject all the
rules because some rules are
bad. But bad rules will always
be evident in any society where
there is a hierarchy of power.
Politically powerful people will
always be able to impose their
self-serving beliefs on a society,
whether it is through formal
laws or by subterfuge in the
moral system. Simply because
short-term and self-serving rules
are spliced into a system of
rules that have evolved for centuries
does not destroy the integrity
of moral or legal systems.
There
appears to be a common thread
of knowledge that runs through
the development of ethics, laws,
and manners that suggests some
actions are better than others.
Rule systems function as models
to guide willing minds toward
productive rather than destructive
choices. Ethical commands that
are a form of advice are different
from legal commands. They are
not perfect or free of self-serving
interest. They are best viewed
as statistically accurate advisory
perspectives of behaviors. They
define strategies that best serve
every person's desire to achieve
and become an accepted member
of society. As difficult as it
may be, ethics must be divorced
from the notion of being a part
of religion in order to facilitate
an understanding of how ethical
systems evolved in a developing
world to stabilize it and contribute
to the survival of the species.
An
interesting facet of the growth
of ethical systems is their power
to enhance human existence. This
is to say that there is a direct
relationship between the growth
of complex rule systems and the
quality of life. As the quality
of life improves, people are
more willing to give up primitive
impulses in favor of a much more
rewarding acceptance by their
society, allowing them to be
a functioning part of it. But
in theory, it may not be desirable
that human beings give up all
their predatory habits to build
the most survivable society.
Small transgressions of the cultural
ethic give life charm and depth
as well as an intriguing sense
of the world of danger and anarchy
whence civilization emerged thousands
of years ago. As the elegance
of the ethical system deoptimizes
slightly (in the short term),
it gives rule systems a "plasticity," thus
humanizing ethics and giving
flexibility to their commands.
This plasticity allows for greater
cultural experimentation that
in the end serves to optimize
the overall aims of the species
to survive over long periods
of time. While all people may
not have the capacity to cooperate,
it cannot escape their attention
how tolerant a developing ethical
world is toward their predatory
presence. Sustaining that tolerance
itself may well inspire a degree
of cooperation even among the
most hardened and predatory souls.
People cannot help but cooperate.
It would seem that in the design
of humanity, the missing parts
in people's lives lie in the
lives of others on whom they
come to depend.
