The Origins of Virtue
Reviving this blog again, I have some more time to think at present.
I have been reading "On Human Nature" by E.O. Wilson, the granddaddy of sociobiology, and the "Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley, a popularisation of recent work on sociobiology, but a good introduction.
Debates on ethics usually come down to one of two positions as to their origins: given by God, or can be rationally deduced by philosophical argument. This debate has been going on for at least two millenia, and both positions are weak. Forget the Koran, the fact that we now would view Joshua's slaughter of the Canaanites as immoral requires either one of two assumptions, to save God's role : that His views have evolved, or that His message has to be doctored to the social capacity of the people at the time: either way morality has evolved through time. More to the point, an awful lot of peoples thought that they were specially chosen and protected by their gods... As to the rational ethical philosophers, they have fundamental disagreements about human nature which are never resolved. Hobbes thought mankind was essentially nasty (with an atheist nod to St Augustine); Rousseau thought mankind was essentially nice, and corrupted by society (with nods to Plato and Pelagius). The first route leads to Social Darwinism and to eventually to eugenics and the gas chambers; the second to the Gulag and to the idiocies of political correctness.
Yet human beings are cooperative, social beings, who at the same time pursue their self interest. If the latter were pure selfishness, then we would be able to supress those instincts, but all idealistic belief systems have a constant problem with corruption of ideals, and they have been trying for so long there is something inherent; on the other hand, it is clear than even capitalism, dedicated to the pursuit of self interest, only works well in strong co-operative societies. How to reconcile the two?
Two recent approaches are interesting. The first is from biology and anthropology. The great problem for natural selection is the selfish gene problem: how on earth could society function, except between relatives? In fact it is only when you get to the brain power of primates, who have the mental capacity to make shifting alliances and learn how who to trust. Primate groups, especially chimpanzees and baboons, are territorial, quite aggressive, and only partly related genetically (dominant males are the main fathers, but they change over quite frequently, and females are often stolen from neighbouring bands. Like humans, chimps are not very nice)
Anthropology has shown that what are regarded as quite modern behaviours - such as long distance trade - go back to prehistory, and did not need a Hobbesian superstate to enforce the rules.
The second, from economics and mathematics with the aid of modern computers, is game theory. One can intuitively see how individual genes might have a better chance of survival in a cohesive group of unrelated individuals. But how can co-operative behaviour between individuals spread, when they are pursuing their individual self interest - how do you get out of the "prisoners' dilemma" of it always pays you to shaft the other guy, especially if he is naively nice? In fact it can be shown mathematically that a variant of the simple "tit for tat" strategy is a winning one, and stable. Be nice to the other guy as a basic assumption, but if he is nasty back (repeatedly - give him one or two chances) then shaft him hard. In a battle between doves and hawks, the hawks win, although they damage themselves in hawks v hawks; but if doves can turn to hawks when needed, they win, because dove v dove is a superior strategy. In the real world, this requires the ability to distinguish cheats from the honest, and human beings are very good at that, and indeed a large part of the evolution of our brain power seems to have come about for this reason.
Sociobiology in its early days, but there are some tentative conclusions:
1. Basic ethics can be fundamentally derived from an empirical base. There is such a thing as human nature, and there is both original sin (selfishness) and original virtue (co-operation), and they can be reconciled. Both the secular left and the religiously inclined dislike this approach, for different reasons.
2. There is a dark side from our primate inheritance: we are hopelessly tribal (all it takes is a football team allegiance). There are some intelligent animals which are not tribal (dolphins, elephants) but not us. Indeed we have refined tribalism, in the form of ideologies and higher religions, to go beyond geographical tribalism. Christianity's track record is as dark as any. All societies punish murderers (kill within the group) and honour soldiers (kill outside the group)
3.Nevertheless it only goes so far, in deriving ethics, after all successful societies had slavery and human sacrifice in the past. I think (not in these books) that the key to the subsequent and purely cultural evolution of ethics, and the belief systems that enforce them, is the widening of human group identity beyond the 150 or so people which individuals can possibly get to know . This is especially so for the anonymity of the large city (e.g early Christianity was essentially urban,as were enlightenment ideologies)
How can we continue to widen our ethical co-operative behaviour, without going against the grain of our nature? The most successful form to date have been trade, especially in its devolved capitalist form. This does however succeed better in societies which are complex and layered, with lots of autonomous groups, as in western Europe, north America and Japan. It does badly if society is too anarchic (small scale tribal, as in Africa or Middle East: OK for the stone age, but has not moved on) or too top down autocratic (Russia, Latin America; and beware the welfare state). China is gradually becoming a complex layered society, as central autocracy devolves, both politically and economically However the relentless pursuit of money brings other problems, as we know.
Comments?
I have been reading "On Human Nature" by E.O. Wilson, the granddaddy of sociobiology, and the "Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley, a popularisation of recent work on sociobiology, but a good introduction.
Debates on ethics usually come down to one of two positions as to their origins: given by God, or can be rationally deduced by philosophical argument. This debate has been going on for at least two millenia, and both positions are weak. Forget the Koran, the fact that we now would view Joshua's slaughter of the Canaanites as immoral requires either one of two assumptions, to save God's role : that His views have evolved, or that His message has to be doctored to the social capacity of the people at the time: either way morality has evolved through time. More to the point, an awful lot of peoples thought that they were specially chosen and protected by their gods... As to the rational ethical philosophers, they have fundamental disagreements about human nature which are never resolved. Hobbes thought mankind was essentially nasty (with an atheist nod to St Augustine); Rousseau thought mankind was essentially nice, and corrupted by society (with nods to Plato and Pelagius). The first route leads to Social Darwinism and to eventually to eugenics and the gas chambers; the second to the Gulag and to the idiocies of political correctness.
Yet human beings are cooperative, social beings, who at the same time pursue their self interest. If the latter were pure selfishness, then we would be able to supress those instincts, but all idealistic belief systems have a constant problem with corruption of ideals, and they have been trying for so long there is something inherent; on the other hand, it is clear than even capitalism, dedicated to the pursuit of self interest, only works well in strong co-operative societies. How to reconcile the two?
Two recent approaches are interesting. The first is from biology and anthropology. The great problem for natural selection is the selfish gene problem: how on earth could society function, except between relatives? In fact it is only when you get to the brain power of primates, who have the mental capacity to make shifting alliances and learn how who to trust. Primate groups, especially chimpanzees and baboons, are territorial, quite aggressive, and only partly related genetically (dominant males are the main fathers, but they change over quite frequently, and females are often stolen from neighbouring bands. Like humans, chimps are not very nice)
Anthropology has shown that what are regarded as quite modern behaviours - such as long distance trade - go back to prehistory, and did not need a Hobbesian superstate to enforce the rules.
The second, from economics and mathematics with the aid of modern computers, is game theory. One can intuitively see how individual genes might have a better chance of survival in a cohesive group of unrelated individuals. But how can co-operative behaviour between individuals spread, when they are pursuing their individual self interest - how do you get out of the "prisoners' dilemma" of it always pays you to shaft the other guy, especially if he is naively nice? In fact it can be shown mathematically that a variant of the simple "tit for tat" strategy is a winning one, and stable. Be nice to the other guy as a basic assumption, but if he is nasty back (repeatedly - give him one or two chances) then shaft him hard. In a battle between doves and hawks, the hawks win, although they damage themselves in hawks v hawks; but if doves can turn to hawks when needed, they win, because dove v dove is a superior strategy. In the real world, this requires the ability to distinguish cheats from the honest, and human beings are very good at that, and indeed a large part of the evolution of our brain power seems to have come about for this reason.
Sociobiology in its early days, but there are some tentative conclusions:
1. Basic ethics can be fundamentally derived from an empirical base. There is such a thing as human nature, and there is both original sin (selfishness) and original virtue (co-operation), and they can be reconciled. Both the secular left and the religiously inclined dislike this approach, for different reasons.
2. There is a dark side from our primate inheritance: we are hopelessly tribal (all it takes is a football team allegiance). There are some intelligent animals which are not tribal (dolphins, elephants) but not us. Indeed we have refined tribalism, in the form of ideologies and higher religions, to go beyond geographical tribalism. Christianity's track record is as dark as any. All societies punish murderers (kill within the group) and honour soldiers (kill outside the group)
3.Nevertheless it only goes so far, in deriving ethics, after all successful societies had slavery and human sacrifice in the past. I think (not in these books) that the key to the subsequent and purely cultural evolution of ethics, and the belief systems that enforce them, is the widening of human group identity beyond the 150 or so people which individuals can possibly get to know . This is especially so for the anonymity of the large city (e.g early Christianity was essentially urban,as were enlightenment ideologies)
How can we continue to widen our ethical co-operative behaviour, without going against the grain of our nature? The most successful form to date have been trade, especially in its devolved capitalist form. This does however succeed better in societies which are complex and layered, with lots of autonomous groups, as in western Europe, north America and Japan. It does badly if society is too anarchic (small scale tribal, as in Africa or Middle East: OK for the stone age, but has not moved on) or too top down autocratic (Russia, Latin America; and beware the welfare state). China is gradually becoming a complex layered society, as central autocracy devolves, both politically and economically However the relentless pursuit of money brings other problems, as we know.
Comments?
Labels: Philosophy
posted by Total Issues at 2:12 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home