Does homo sapiens have a future?
Of course, except for a worldwide catastrophe, man will have a
future. But we can wonder what kind
of
a
future, will it be an indefinite continuation of his existence as it is
dominated by his animal drives letting them create one catastrophe
after another, or will he cultivate his great
gifts under the guidance of reason, to learn how to live in
freedom? In any case, as a species, he faces enormous risks.
Obvious ones are
the atomic bomb, unchecked population growth and new diseases.
Any of these can lead to social breakdown in anarchy and bloodshed. We
do not yet comprehend how serious the dangers could become in the
future.
On the other hand, in spite of all troubles - we must note
the tremendous progress: in medicine and science, but also in global
coordination and organization which are improving. For this
reason,
the human species could hope to master the global dangers. I am
afraid, however, that these amazing advances have propelled man into a
position where we can be optimistic in the face of
unprecedented dangers only if as a race we somehow
learn to use our
reason more
and
our primitive drives less than up to now. In my earnest opinion this is
the greatest problem man faces: how could we gain the strength
for using reason instead of desire? Unspeakable things have been
done by millions of ordinary
persons on
other people, and we go on with our lives by accepting this without
giving it the daily
attention it would require.
Let us assume that it will be possible to evade the problems mentioned.
But
there are others, less obvious. The late Sir Fred Hoyle, the noted
Astrophysicist [1], added the likely collapse of civilization due to
Energy limitations (perhaps within the next 50 years), which is a modern form
of the old Malthusian death by hunger or disease. Even disease has
assumed a more alarming note as, with our greatly enlarged numbers, we
became aware of the danger of rapid
mutation of the AIDS virus, the flu, or other germs in dense
populations with worldwide travel [2]. Finally, the impact on our globe of
a
huge comet or a small planet, or the arrival of a super strong
Gamma
Ray Burst out of the depth of space (GRB) [3], have been identified as possible causes of our demise. Any one of them has
a
probability that is very small, but it is not negligible.
Even without such disasters and in any case, the species will
mutate and
develop
further; how far, is only a question of the available time. While
civilization has slowed and changed the process, we cannot stop it. The
direction of biological selection has been changed, not necessarily in
a favorable way because what
looks right now as a good humanitarian act, will eventually bring about
future disasters. One cannot cheat nature, and by the time
one of the cosmic disasters will strike, the human species, if it still exists, will most
likely not be anything similar to what it is today. Anyway, in the
farthest
future, almost impossible to behold, the Sun will have grown, the Earth
will lose all water, and life will become impossible. Finally, the
whole
earth will be swallowed by the bloated Sun and everything terrestrial
will end in a cloud of superheated evaporated rock. This is expected to
happen with certainty sometimes during the next several billion years (Sunsfate).
Thus, at the end of our history,
in this fiery gas cloud, in the heat of thousands of degrees, no record
of anything terrestrial can remain.
No other thought is as sobering as this certain, total obliteration of
our beautiful little world. No passion, no suffering, no memory,
and no
exhilaration will mean anything with this ultimate end of the
terrestrial adventure of life. Until then and for a very long time,
life will go on, but in view of this absence of an ultimate future,
perhaps we can hope, with somewhat more
awareness of the precious present, and with more meaningful thinking,
if this is possible for us.
Several questions come to mind. First, I asked myself which of the more
imminent disasters is the most worrisome in the foreseeable future.
Second, is
there any other problem that we do not recognize because of our
pre-occupation with the well publicized threats? And third, in
case no
global catastrophe happens within a few generations, what then can be
expected of our species? What is it going to do with the gift of time?
More comfort, more entertainment, and a longer
life, for everybody on Earth, is this to be hoped for? And if so,
for what purpose? Could
humankind have more in mind than (ideally) an indefinite increase of
the standard of living? Should we not worry about our terrestrial
resources? And what could be even more serious, should we not worry
about our mental fitness to accept rapid change? Would it be possible
to enjoy ever more material
goods, or can they become a burden for an individual anyway, given his
strictly limited lifetime? But what else? Can man learn how
to live well if he is not forced to work, or threatened by the dangers of war? From the experience up
to
now, we must admit that all this seems very difficult and entails great
dangers. Yet we know that a minor part of the human population manages
to live wisely, which proves that it is possible.
Modern people, freed by machines and automation from having to work to
exhaustion,
are in peacetime caught in a self reinforcing cycle of common
experiences: gossip, intrigues, dinners, amours. If you live long
enough it becomes obvious that the exclusive vulgarity of these
occupations prevents experiences that would allow man to advance beyond
his
present state of a creature that must somehow be kept in check. Society
does it with the police, with industrialized amusements and through a
belief system that must be
inculcated in the young - fear will keep them within limits, we hope.
However, this works only marginally and is not an improvement over
what the Romans did (panem et circenses). As much as in Roman
times, good examples cannot easily be noticed in an ocean of mediocrity
when the bad is being promoted
by irresponsible social "leaders", The way to higher human
existence has to be found in a struggle against envy, prejudices, and
to some extent even against the urges of our culture to be stupid
(enjoy now,
pay later!). Envy, etc., come as part of our biological endowment
with our species, but
they are not everywhere and can be overcome by superior persons. We
could also overcome a variety of further problems.
Old superstitions are still parts of modern
institutions and they control the public life in backward cultures.
Unfortunately, not
only in a few countries! They
extract an unbelievable degree of unnecessary deprivation and suffering
from people who could easily enjoy the fruits of modern technology. But
these poor individuals have no opportunity to do so. How can man get
rid of these remnants of a thinking that should be seen as
veritable social poisons? The task for our times is to identify these
poisons and marshal support to control them. The dominating role of the
media is obvious. What then prevents us in the use of objective reason?
From what exactly is man to be liberated? [4].
The Liberation of Thinking
We are enslaved by group think. Most thinking in society is group think that is propagated by the
media. It is astonishing to what degree academics and intellectuals are
thinking in the same terms, the same concepts. However, to be an
individual
would mean that we liberate ourselves and become veritable free
thinkers who can look at a situation and arrive at their own
conclusions. We are far from this and the individuals
themselves have no idea of the degree of their intellectual serfdom.
Such a liberation has been attempted before, but has created
each time
yet other problems when the freedom gained was not controlled by
discipline. To be free requires self
control, as Edmund Burke wrote that Society cannot
exist
unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere,
and the less there is within, the more there must be without.
This problem with freedom has been deliberately ignored
in the past under the delusion that man is by nature good and does
not need to be prepared for freedom in a dense society with countless
harmful seductions. Of course, we have education as a recognized social
need. However, this is understood as preparation for a profession (in
an excessively banausic sense), while the need to be prepared how
to live in our modern complex society is vastly under estimated. The
religious achieve some of what
is needed in the parochial schools, but a major part of the young grow
up without sufficient preparation with a result that can be seen in the shocking
juvenile crimes.
Nevertheless, freedom is certainly desirable - or is it not really necessary for
allowing the full development of
our abilities? To understand the effects of mental straitjackets,
we can envision what a wrong physical theory would have on the design
of a machine. Assume that someone wanted to build a steam
engine while he still believed in the Phlogiston theory of heat (shown
wrong by Robert Boyle in an experiment, and convincingly by Lavoisier
around 1780); the result would be a ridiculous failure. But a
similar
failure, in this case general suffering and terrible living conditions,
prevail in
the global
society where the various intellectual leaders, the writers, and the
"spiritual leaders", are locked into
an obsolete thinking (of various kinds, secular and not secular) that
prevents them from seeing what is wrong and what is needed. If it could
be seen clearly enough, corrective action would follow quickly, we can
be sure of
that. The very great trouble is that people love power and their own
pet ideas more than the truth, which prevents them to even want to see
their situration objectively. But how can the general thinking change
if most people are
so convinced
to be right with their views? I believe that the most urgent
measure for improving things for all would be to demonstrate
convincingly
that objective truth must
have the highest priority, higher than any perceived interests (see Truth).
I am afraid, however, that under present circumstances this is so
difficult that only little progress can be expected. The problem is as
old as the beginnings of history as one can read about the
fate of Socrates in Plato's dialogues. We must recognize that the
greatest obstacle to any improvement of the human fate hinges on the
education of his character. Unless a person's integrity demands his
respect for
objective truth, he cannot hope to make the first step into a better
future because he will fall prey to some ideology.
The cultivation of our culture. A higher state of social culture can only be gained if the individuals
themselves engage in the effort, and it requires discipline.
To allow the full development of the
creative talent of the people necessitates that we de-emphasize (in the
sense that we reduce the amount
of time), but not to suppress the natural functions that we need to
maintain life. The success of this reduction is shown if we let
these functions support, but not interfere with our higher life. The
use
of refined
language, and even more so, the avoidance of coarse speech, is
therefore a rough indicator of the
level of cultural development in a society. This is the reason why we
hold it to be bad manners to use foul expressions in
public, expressions which seem to be a needed emotional relief, but
confer no information. They would be
acceptable perhaps for lumberjacks and soldiers
in battle, but not in a cultivated environment which is based on
personal discipline and not on emotional outbursts. If
persons of influence allow themselves in public the use of coarse
language in the mistaken idea that this shows their manliness, they
reveal their lack of discipline and lack of understanding
that their loose habits hinder the process of refinement and greater
sophistication of
an advancing civilization. An increase in the use of foul
language which we
note during the current decades (beginning with the filthy speech
movement at Berkeley) is not the right way into a better
human future,
but points into depravity. That this was allowed to spread from
the universities, indicates the problem.
We should be fully conscious of the three grades in the scale of our
tone (or style)
used. The common or ordinary style is used naturally and for this
reason is not sufficient to elevate man into higher forms of
existence. Below the ordinary is the baseness, the vileness, the
vulgarity of style, which is
reflected in a deliberate meanness of expression. In the opposite
direction is the high-minded, noble, generous magnanimity in tone and
sentiment. Only by aiming in this direction in sentiment and action can
we advance in our humanity, away from the brute in our core. Of
course, we must never forget that the cultivation of the sentiment is
important, and not the refinement of manners as such, even though, it
really goes both ways. We are supported in this process of cultural
refinement by custom, tradition, and the general tone of of an advanced
society. A helping, but also a corrupting influence of the
intelligentsia is obvious because the are the public voice of society.
With very few exceptions, which we can count on one hand, the tone in
our media is not noble; it is tuned to the ordinary (in the interest of
sales), and slides too often into camouflaged meanness.
The current situation is a discouraging testimony that
our social education could not keep up with the tremendous
changes during the last century. It allowed a slip in a wrong
direction. We
are
simply
too dominated by banausic concerns. Yet the learning
of skills is almost less important for our life than to be
profoundly cautioned
and educated about our weaknesses. We will always have ample
motivation for learning (if we are smart), but have no motivation to
protect us from our dangerous desires unless we understand the
consequences. All
great
writers had this concern. Sophocles in antiquity (5th century
BC), showed in his tragedies how disastrously people lack wisdom.
Shakespeare's fame rests on the masterly demonstration of human folly
in
his plays. But these voices are now known mostly by name, if at all.
Even Truth,
instead of being held in highest esteem, we find everywhere in
collision with ignorance,
delusion, and folly. It seems clear that the idea of Democracy
itself,
to allow a maximum of individual freedom, but without great efforts
to
condition the young for this life in freedom, discipline,
and
responsibility, is utopian !
Therefore, good leadership is extremely important, but why has it been
weakened? (For my example of great persons in the past see here.). In democracy, leadership is
praised
mostly after the fact, but during the crisis, determined action by good
leaders is often perceived by the ignorant multitude, actually by their intellectual leaders, as undemocratic
(it is
an occasion for the media to talk negatively) and
is
opposed by most of the intelligent who feel an urge to do something,
but have no discipline and leadership ability of
their own. We can only hope that this weakness can be compensated
by the exhilarating effects
of freedom on the motivation of the most able!
An even greater
problem
is,
as
I firmly believe, that most individuals cannot stand well
being! Yes,
indeed, and few people
in the West know how fortunate they are because they waste their time
and
resources on frivolous and dangerous schemes. Or, they are bored,
demand "change" and entertain all kinds of crazy schemes, believe in
all kinds of conspiracy theories, because
without real interest, concern, and instruction - their vision and
critical abilities are too
limited and they lack
the
initiative to take up a truly productive activity. The widespread
obesity is typical and indicative of the inner life as well. A great
problem
is so created for a population which was conditioned to
expect ever more luxury without almost any effort. It has all the
aspects of
an
"entitlement"
syndrome. Clearly, I speak here of only a part of the population,
the more public part, because the national systems are maintained,
developed, and defended by
the other part about whom one does not hear so much, although they are
working very hard. The trouble is that the first part is everywhere
growing in numbers (in part due to automation) and the second part is
diminishing slowly. I suspect that
we see here a sort of natural self limiting effect: In a
free
society, motivation is created by competition for the good things. The
inventions have with time increased so spectacularly our
productivity that a tolerable life can now be supported with much less
effort and time, so that a good part of the original motivation is no
longer necessary. Old people used to say that
the trees cannot grow into the sky . . . . .
On top of Mr. Public's mind is apparently a deep-seated insecurity which
keeps him
weak.
It affects everything he does, and it
becomes the source of likely trouble when surplus time is available and
there is less need to worry
about the next day. But this leaves the souls empty, a source of more
insecurity. One is confused without a good concept of himself,
nor of his purposes or values. The insecurity, the inner emptiness,
affects everything that
is being done, primarily the style of acting: Confidently
with energy, or hesitatingly with doubts that make sustained efforts
difficult. Empty minds make people also more susceptible to tempting
but vacuous doctrines, and even lead to substance
use. An empty
mind cannot select, if nothing else is available, it will be
filled
with useless trifles. (Idle
hands are the devil's tools, but even more so are empty minds). Our
mind is
always subject to fleeting ideas which can be directed and
controlled by
the Self, and become coherent by concentration on a goal. Without this
concentration, thinking drifts off, indulges in dreams or is just filled
with trifles. This makes it crucially important to find
something that can interest us intensely.
This is much more urgent today than it has been in the past
when the days had barely enough time to provide the means for a
living. We cannot now ignore the state of our mentally deprived
part of the population (my estimate is about 1/2) because the
government of a state of empty souls cannot survive any stress.
Of
course, I am arguing here also that entertainment, if
it is only passive,
does not solve the serious problem of empty
minds.
On the
contrary, it makes it worse because eventually, the lack of
meaning leads to desperate boredom and substance abuse. When I see the
desolate faces of some of these "lost souls" in our cities I find it scandalous that
human beings ruin their lives by ignoring simple reason
and the guidance of their teachers; it is a sad fact that many parents
do not understand this themselves. If at all, they worry too much about
what the children would get into their stomach, and
ignore what they will get into their mind. Of course, filling the
stomach is a necessary thing to do, but for a human in modern society,
it is not sufficient to live a good life. The problem is made worse by
people, the agitators who are sure they know how to make their fellows
happy and, following
J. J. Rousseau and consorts, they accuse "society", "capitalism", or
whatever, for
the human problems - providing a welcome excuse for inertia. But this
cannot help anyone. Life in society is troubled by a
ubiquitous
congenital human weakness
which we all share and can only be overcome if
it is addressed directly and sufficiently. Contrary to Aristotle,
man
is not a social animal, we have to admit this as a fact. The human
animal
(fortunately with many
exceptions) does not know how to pass his life
without
troubles if the
needs of the day are taken care of. This
problem
is not being sufficiently addressed in early education, but without sufficient
preparation, many people cannot live in a free society
without getting into serious problems. But dependence creates irresponsibility. Efforts to control them later in
life can
only end by using
force, i.e., putting them in jail, like caged animals. America
keeps more people in jail (over 2 million, for many years, many of them
for life) than other
nations, which is a terrible waste. Hsun-tzu (Hsün-tzu , ,)
and Plato recognized the basic social problem most clearly in
antiquity, but
Hsun-tzu was severely criticized for his "misanthropic" views because
instead of being critical and realistic, people already at that time
preferred to think
good about themselves (see by all means the review of Littell's book .
. Littell).
I believe, the only way out
of
this is for the individual person to adopt good habits and learning
something interesting
so that one can combine
the pleasant with the useful. Most people, if they only tried, would
find this an excellent way out of their boredom. In fact, feeling
bored, is a warning sign that precious time is being
wasted and a life is at risk. The entertainment industry,
unless it
pays attention to the
need to use their programs for making useful skills interesting,
misses a great chance.
By ignoring this opportunity, by inundating their clientele over and
over again with cheap and worthless stuff, the industry acts
not very
different
morally from those peddlers of substances who are only interested in
keeping their
clientele dependent. Countless youngsters could, via their
entertainment, become interested in a trade or profession later in
life. In any case, they would be much less in danger of wasting their
life
with crazy ideas, drugs
and alcohol. Of course, we actually have great stimulating programs,
many are
excellent, even outstanding, but their contribution is vastly under
appreciated and they are an inconspicuous
minority - a point where the regulatory agencies could act with much
more
vision!
For aspiring leaders especially, these
problems must be confronted and clarity of the mind achieved, perhaps
best in mid life since at that point we need
most urgently factual ideas about our world, about life and purpose,
ideas that must
be
supported by direct, personal experience. To be effective, these ideas
ought to be part of a practical but scientifically supported
philosophy,
which is today either completely absent, or terribly confused -
and yet, all good decisions require faith and have to spring from a
firm conviction about the world and our place in it, a conviction that
is grounded on, and is not in conflict with, everything we know. Yet
our our cultural support is not very helpful in this and so many people exist as
a kind of sleep walker from one mindless activity to the next.
As a key for further
thoughts, we can take the succession in Western culture of the
various spirits of classicism, romanticism, realism, cynicism. Why the
changes and what is the origin of these fashions? Among other
reasons, it must be the disappointment that the “grand” solutions,
dreamed about in each of these periods, did not work; that wars fought
to end all war, did not end it. That socialism and related ideologies,
once great hopes for the elevation of mankind, did the opposite and
nearly ruined it. Unfortunately, various ideological dangers still
exist, and as I am
trying to show, they arise mainly in the minds of people
who have not found their own goals and purposes. If this is
correct, then the mass entertainment of the modern man is actually a
slowly
acting mild poison, but poison nevertheless.
The idea in Goethe’s Faust (Faust .) was
to show us that the desire for
passive experiences is not enough. The searching Faust is led to a life
full
with activity in the pursuit of new experiences and new projects. This
is Faustian (Western) man's true fate, it fills his time very well, but
in the end, we find that anticipation is the highest experience, not
reality. We
ought to strive and seek the highest possible goal for our
anticipation [5]. And how was progress ever obtained? Only by
individuals
who perfected themselves.
What is progress?
We must
distinguish several kinds: Biological evolution is
extremely slow. A single step of this
“progress” (of a noticeable change due to natural evolution) is
measured in units of one thousand
generations (20,000
years). No species can remain constant in its properties because of
mutation and genetic drift under the influence of the changing
environment which in turn, is the result of the total biological
process including the symbiotic relationships between the various
interacting species. Some species are very stable through one hundred
million years (sharks), others change much more rapidly. Homo
sapiens, the species which we claim is ours, on the basis of a very
large number of archeological findings seems not to have changed much
during the last 20,000 years.
But the change has been very significant during the last 200,000 years,
provoked and presumably greatly accelerated by the development of
language, repeated major climatic changes, and the use of fire. By
going back 2,000,000 years or 100,000 generations, we find our remote
ancestors at the borderline where they could be barely called human
(the Zinjanthropus) with a few primitive tools but without fire - and
with a substantially smaller brain. We can be certain that speech
consisted at this stage only of a few coarse sounds signifying pain,
alarm, joy. And finally, the last common ancestor of the
chimpanzees and man lived about 5 million years ago (250,000
generations) [6]. For us, this is a long time indeed, but the
progress from this common ancestor to man is phenomenal. It was
paid for with the uncounted miseries and disasters that overtook all
those unknowns who perished and could not become our ancestors. We
ought to appreciate the price that was paid for the result that we have
received from nature, these amazing abilities which only few of us know
how to use.
The human brain is the result of this very long and merciless evolution
with very few survivors, those who managed to became our remote
ancestors. Under these extremely trying conditions, where every
individual was almost entirely on his own, the brain has developed greatly
beyond what is now needed for survival in a world which suddenly
(within a mere 400 generations since the stone age) provides an
enormous and totally unprecedented support from society. This created
the paradoxical situation that homo sapiens is the only species that
developed a terrific organ that he now does not know how to use, or
uses only marginally - the brain! But the organ is here and
anxious to go. We cannot just lie down and sleep like dogs when nothing
happens. The brain is such a fantastically complex system that it will,
without being focused on specific practical goals, conceive an
incredible variety of crazy and even murderous ideas. This is why,
without goals and purpose, people become foolish, outright
demented and a social danger of first rate when they fall into the
hands of the most evil seducers - if they do not die of
boredom, and lose all self respect. The journals are full with
examples. Moreover, our technology makes now terrible weapons
available. What I will not tire to point out is that the human race is
not biologically prepared for living in a dense, organized society with
ever more rapid change under a flood of
confusing and tempting "information".
Man
has a treasure of gifts and inclinations, but he has to develop the
good ones and get into the habit of controlling the bad ones. We are
not doing either, except marginally. Of course, the sensitive and
perceptive individuals, if weak, are
overwhelmed - a good part of the modern art is shocking testimony of
this (more at Art . . .).
With the conditions today, the power of the
mass media over our “public opinion” has become an obstacle
for the continuing well being of our species [7]. An obvious
problem due to the self reinforcing nature of the media are the
uprisings
of mass hysteria
and mass superstition. This is worse and will cost more lives than
individual
mental disturbances. Humanity as a whole could try to keep
this
under
control, e.g., by having the major powers agree on
standards for the
mass media which emphasize the danger of hate and scandal mongering. An
outright proscription of beliefs that poison the public mental health,
incite hate
and endanger peace would be better, but seems beyond the achievable
today. Actually, we face the prospect of worldwide internecine
warfare with weapons of mass destruction. Given the fanaticism that has
been displayed, the prospect is not remote.
The worldwide conflagrations of the 20th century have been
ideologically ignited, but they had less powerful weapons and were only
a foretaste for what may yet come
in the time of instant global communications.
A second problem in the current Western culture is that a continuing
biological evolution of man into a true social being is impossible. To
this end, society would have to eliminate promptly all individuals
regardless of age who conduct themselves in a socially problematic
way. Fraud, theft, lying, and of course, all murders would fall
into this category. Even under such conditions, it would take at least
several hundred (and perhaps many thousand) generations to have an
effect on the biological endowment of man (see Littell).
Of course, this will never be done as long as hordes of "intellectuals'
can rise to "defend civilization". However, it seems that China
is taking just these measures. Every year they execute about 1500
people for all kinds of social crimes. They take the strictly
biological approach. Ours, I think, is an approach that with the
original emphasis on man's spiritual side (religious or rational), is
more appropriate and dignified - except, it has not worked because we are not serious
about it. Otherwise, we would not send our young into the chaos of a
free society without sufficient preparation. It exposes them to all kinds of seductions, especially in a rich society. All
free and rich societies have been failures for this
reason. Furthermore, our penal system is ineffective and actually
inhuman with its lifelong incarcerations and decade long waiting for
the punishement.
The second kind of human progress is the
collective growth of our knowledge and technical ability. This
progress
is measured now in periods of one generation. This is the time it takes
for an invention to become an accepted and widely used technology. In
the modern age with its accelerated information
exchange, we observe about 25 years between the invention of the steam
engine and its general use in railroads, steamers and the industrial
age of the 19th century; between the invention of radio and its large
scale application; from the invention of the transistor to its vast
impact on electronics; and from the microprocessor to its ubiquitous
application everywhere in industry and business. The new skills can
apparently be used most effectively only by a new human generation.
Nevertheless, civilization has much abbreviated this delay with the
invention of print, and now also with the other information tools, the
Internet, etc. Unfortunately, not all information that is being accumulated and preserved is really useful. Some of it
The third kind of progress is individual. It must be achieved
from
scratch by each person! The time it takes man to become a mature person
used to be 20 years from school age to about 25. However today, most
cannot accomplish this even in their lifetime - we age, reaching 80
years and beyond, but only few can mature, or barely and exceptionally.
Civilization slows maturation because the collective life support
generates conditions which can be compensated only with conscious
individual effort and, without help, only by a minority of the
individuals. On the other hand, living in a higher culture gives
man the opportunity to learn and grow beyond his limits in nature to an
awareness of the world and his life. Confucius and Hsun-tzu in antique
China, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in Greece were the first to
recognize the problem for a society of individuals who are in their
natural state not quite fit for social living. They gave a solution
which is as valid today as it has been in antiquity. The Chinese sages
in particular emphasized the importance of ceremonies, traditions, and
ritual
practices, rules of social behavior, and traditional mores as a
culturally binding force to teach the individuals how to shape their
lives and maintain control. They stressed that man differs from other
creatures in one vital respect: besides his instinctual drives, he also
possesses an intelligence which enables him to learn and keep an
orderly behavior. It seems that our Western world has forgotten this
wisdom over the excitement to have gained individual freedom and great
technological support.
The 19th century was a time when Darwin's findings were widely
discussed and people became drunk in the conviction that progress was
inevitable, only they did not make it clear to themselves which
progress they meant. They implied material and general, vaguely
conceived social progress.
The 20th century demonstrated at exorbitant human cost and beyond doubt
that most of these progressive ideologies of the 19th century have not
only been mere dreams, they were seductive and extremely damaging
mirages.
The 21st century, we hope, will concentrate on leading more of its
people to achieve the third kind of progress. For this to happen, we
need leaders to help and encourage the weaker fellows. It is a
responsibility of individuals, not of the state. Personal progress is
the only
progress that can elevate man beyond his status as an animal with
animal needs - now equipped with powerful technology - to persons who
know who they are, what is really good for them and who are able to
control
themselves.
If a person reaches this level, he has gained a superior life compared
with those who are uncertain of themselves and are driven by the
circumstances from one disaster to the next. But we should envision the
very great difficulties that
we
face with this real advance. A race that needs the police and jails
does not
qualify to
be
called
"homo sapiens".
Finally, to control human procreation is undoubtedly
the
most urgent task. We have seen the evidence in China that it is
possible to bring the population increase to a halt (or at least to
slow it down drastically) in
spite of the great difficulties and the personal
sacrifice it means for many. The subject is
in the West
beyond the understanding of the masses, including most of their
intellectuals.
It is taboo. People worry about how to save energy by using
better light bulbs, but ignore the simple fact that no environmental
conservation will help if our numbers keep increasing. Of course,
by avoiding the subject, we make it ever more urgent and less amenable
to civilized measures.
The thought is simple: do we want more people to enjoy life much less
than we can, with greater problems, scarcity and pains, or can we be
disciplined and allow our successors a much better life? Nature is
absolutely unforgiving and without doing what we can do,
humanity will be forced to do it, in a most unpleasant way, namely wars
of mutual mass destruction, pestilence, crimes . . . - all under the whip of a merciless tyranny!
When the Greek philosopher Antisthenes was asked by his disciples what
would be the most necessary thing to learn, he said: Unlearning the
wrong! Today, his advice is as important than ever. We have to
unlearn all those superficially plausible doctrines, all the gossip,
cant, and nonsense that fills the mind and prevents us from seeing the
world as it is. This includes also the doctrines that prevent the
public discussion of the most important subjects. To follow
Antisthenes’ advice has always been much
harder than it seems because people love their opinions and doctrines,
however
wrongheaded they might be. Nevertheless, if we want to mature, we
need to change and we have to think about how to do it! To
think for yourself is much harder than it seems but,
it is the only way to escape the consequences of being infested with
the idols of the marketplace, and the idols of the theater, terms used
by Francis Bacon (Novum Organum, Aph. I, LIX - LXII) for the
clichés, stereotypes, spurious concepts and fashionable, but
extremely shortsighted ideas of
our current cultural environment.
Conversely, the mediocre intellectual can be recognized by his massive
reliance on the idols in vogue at the time. As an experiment, take any
text in your paper and strike out every common place, vacuous phrase,
and popular idea of the day, and look for what, if anything, remains.
This is a good measure of the intelligence that is reflected in the
text. Characteristically, if we take a current political text, in any
newspaper, the result of our filtering will probably be an empty sheet.
But it is worse than that.
We have to see the news junkies who buy several papers every day!
Not much else is to occupy their minds and they are not aware
of the danger of this addiction. But again, we must worry here not only
about the scarcity of wholesome information ! Much more dangerous are
the
ideologies and rumors of all kinds. The common base of these is the
entirely insufficient and misleading information on which the arguments
depend [7]. Once we understand this, we will also accept that the
poisons of the mind are more
consequential for our progress toward a
superior being and for the future of mankind than
the common poisons which damage only the
individuals. We have to be careful in the use of the media and do it
sparingly. It is true that even a garbage heap can have valuables
hidden, but it is a
question of time and effort to find them. There is no need to worry
about keeping up
to date. In most cases, one needs to read only the headlines (see
Appendix) to have seen enough to know whether to read more, or not.
This selectivity will give us time to take up any one of the
fabulous opportunities that a free modern civilization offers. By being
critically selective, and by deflecting and converting any bad
emotional energy (such as Envy, Hate and Resentment) into productive
energy
in the pursuit of a worthy goal,
we do not need to suffer many of the bad things that are the
unfortunate part of a free civilization in a very dense population. We
may even advance far enough
to earn the designation "sapiens"!
Conclusion
The great problem for man in an advanced society is not material
poverty, but mental inertia and an empty mind that create dependence
on the rubbish that is being
peddled by the mass media - which plays on our emotions and can become
as bad as drug addiction.
This
dependence is contagious, and by preempting with worthless trifles the
higher activities of
the mind, the learning of skills, and the enjoyment of opportunities,
it causes an astounding spiritual and cultural poverty
throughout society. This, of course, is on top of a collective mind
that is to a worrisome degree filled with plain greed to collect
things, mostly gadgets which are worthless a few weeks later;
things and property that are often only marginally used, but acquired
in a single track mindset to get more, and more. All this is helped by
the basic
tendency in
our culture to emphasize quantity, instead of quality. Paradoxically
for an information saturated civilization, this makes it increasingly
difficult for the
individuals to reach a higher level of human life, one that is
available and can be reached by stimulating the right, i.e., creative,
use of our
capabilities. Everyone of us can gain a meaning in our life that is
marvelously
beyond the primitive dim existence that is filled with the
undisciplined, machine like satisfaction of animal needs and vulgar
desires. Today,
every person has opportunities for self realization that are
unprecedented. However, the actual use throughout society is
by no
means commensurate with our potential individual
capabilities.
It is a real shame that so many persons, many highly gifted,
are suffering from a restless boredom, discontent and even hostility!
Every person of some influence has an opportunity to show the way, to
stimulate interest and to enlighten his fellows. Greater individual
learning and improvement of skills will be the most effective way to
combat at the root the
appearance of mass hysteria and mass fanaticism which can only flourish
if too many minds are filled with useless chaff.
Notes, Literature
[1] Fred Hoyle (1977), Ten Faces of the
Universe (Freeman).
Chapter 10 of this outstanding book presents a scenario that should
give us pause. It is clear
beyond the shadow of doubt that uncontrolled population growth, while
insidious and slow, is the greatest present danger for mankind and the
ultimate cause for the environmental problems. One reason why this is
not more widely recognized is the insistence by some believers of old
dogma that the danger has not yet become evident in spite of many
warnings. It
is then claimed that these warnings have therefore been unjustified and
no limitation of population is necessary. As ludicrous as this argument
is, it is apparently sufficient to pacify the public. One example out
of many is Stephen Moore's "Body Count" (National Review, 1999 Oct. 25,
pp. 45-52).
Hoyle is also one of those who, after years of study and wide
experience, arrive at the conclusion that "there will never be any
long-term purpose for our species other than understanding of the
universe. If this purpose does not prove sufficient for us, if we are
impelled to invent all manner of nonsensical substitutes, then very
likely we shall not survive as the dominant animal on the Earth for
very much longer" (p. 8). As I am certain, he meant by
universe, the universe as total nature and our position in it, with all
phenomena and parts. This opinion goes back to Aristotle. But, of
course, it cannot be expected that the great majority of the people,
who have more mundane and immediate interests and worries, will be much
interested in
Hoyle's lofty subjects. Nevertheless, the expenditures of the
advanced countries for research in particle physics and in Astronomy
(excluding the applied sciences) have increased dramatically
since WWII and have produced an influx of millions of persons into
science who would in the past have become something very different. It
seems reasonable to assume that their present occupation can use their
abilities much batter than uninspiring work.
[2] World Health Organization (WHO) Pamphlet on Epidemic
and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR).
See at
www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/pandemic/en
An Institute for The Future
of Humanity is active in Oxford. It offers a considerable amount
of information. Of great interest in the present context is the article
on file http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
which is
an
excellent detailed analysis of chances and risks for humanity. The
institute
address is: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk
I am impressed by the amazing number and quality of papers,
reports, etc. of
this institute, under director Dr. NICK
BOSTROM. All of it seems of very great importance. Regarding
chances of survival of the human
race into a super technological phase, which is a major theme of the
institute,
I am skeptical and believe that one can show that a total
destruction of our biosphere is almost inevitable when the technical
capability reaches the necessary level. I mean a willful, deliberate
destruction, independent of environmental problems as discussed
in [1]. I doubt that the human race can even last longer in its present
condition more than a few hundred years, unless further technological
progress and population growth is slowed drastically. We face an
unprecedented situation with
acute global and human limitations. A stop or slow down could
happen through a collapse of the Western
civilization for a variety of reasons, a global catastrophe, shortages
or a global ungovernable chaos as we see it in Somalia. This would
cause a most drastic, but disastrous reduction ot the total human
population. The danger of collapse or
destruction as consequence of undisciplined use of technology
would
arise probably for any super advanced civilization of beings that have
evolved through
Darwinian selection and survival. It is possible to
recognize this in time and progress deliberately slowed although I am
afraid, this
and
population control seem to require a ruthless global
totalitarian
control. (For an early foreboding see Samuel Butler's Erewhon).
In any case, this makes our "window of communication" with other
civilizations exceedingly short (Essay #5).
What all of this means is that we must change our attitude. It seems
that what ever is possible, is being done. This must change
so that only what is necessary will be done. Technology as such is not
the evil that we must combat, and I am not preaching against well
being, but the blind human greed that tends to
excess, is the source of the problems. And most of all, we must
find ways to limit our numbers. Life on Earth would present very
few problems for the human race and for the globe, if we had only about
1 billion on the globe. Not numbers, but quality ought therefore to be
our ideal. Of course, this is not new by any means, but is it
crazy to hope that our
terrific information network will help to make these into accepted
principles
by persuasion to save us from the terror that is otherwise unavoidable?
[3] J. K. Beatty (1999), Gauging the Impact Threat, Sky
and
Telescope, October pp. 32 - 33. For more detail see John S.
Lewis (1999), Comet and
Asteroid Impact Hazards on a Populated Earth, Academic
Press). See also
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/clark/ncar.html and
http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/ for more current information.
Leonard & Bonnell, (1998), Gamma-ray bursts of doom,
Sky & Telescope, Feb. pp. 28-34. See also
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html and
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~ejb/faq.html
[4] Herbert Marcuse (1969), An Essay on Liberation.
It has come so far in our culture that this book has to be cited as a
prime example for thinking from which we have to be protected, or
liberated, and not for what the title suggests. Marcuse
understands words differently from their generally accepted
sense, but he does not say so clearly. For him it is important that we
be "liberated" into a system,
where liberty is
understood as being free from
the need to compete. But in order to be in this state we need to be in
a "progressive" (communist) dictatorship where all economic decisions
are made by the authorities! For Marcuse our
competition is so terrible that
one must destroy this system and
accept loss of our freedoms, and the poverty which
total socialism has
produced in the past. This noted professor completely forgets, or
ignores, that with the powerful motivation of competition, free people
work with great interest in their work (just as sportsmen - and women -
do because they are powerfully motivated by competition). We humans
work much better in free competition than in a system
where this motivation must be replaced with threats of a concentration
camp term. But why argue? America with its competition is so
attractive that people enter it often at greatest risk, more than a
million of them per year. Marcuse himself had come here from Germany,
presumably to improve his life. A problem arises only because of
Marcuse and
many people who have never lived under other conditions and do not know
what they are talking about, agitate to
change our system into one where people want to get out. It is a
real human tragedy that these "activists" cannot see that their
activity goes counter to their own noble goal, which we share,
i.e., a
better society. For more about this see the essay Democracy.
A different example for a thinking that we must avoid is in the book by
Jean Ziegler. By
holding
on to false ideas, real human progress is delayed and more misery
caused until the consequences of the error become overwhelming. But
even this may not be enough. The downfall of the Soviet regime happened
around 1990. Today, not even twenty years later, the lesson has been
forgotten, at least by academics who continue to tell the old story.
Without bringing this up to our clear public awareness, we will
continue to repeat the errors of the past. An excellent way to remember
is the little book by Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West.
I recommend it
highly. Of course, we have real problems that threaten our higher
civilizations - the most important are the effects of the excessive
population growth. For more see population.
[5] Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1919)
used Faust to characterize man in the modern Western civilization.
This was a seminal idea that was used later by many
thinkers. A star among them is Gunther S. Stent in
Paradoxes
of
Progress (1978, Freeman), where he examines
the modern cultural situation in the light of advanced scientific
findings. He brings up a wealth of thought
provoking
ideas that arise if the little paragraph above is to be followed into
details.
Stent's meritorious and demanding work is a great example for
philosophy that comes today from an accomplished scientist. I think,
however, that several
of
his conclusions are not compelling, and they are too dogmatic, if not
simply wrong, at least for my
empiricist leaning mind.
I cannot see any difficulty in principle that a more competent
reasoning could not
overcome. E. g., I know of no problem between science and
ethics that one cannot resolve, as I am trying to show in the essay "
Ethics", the third of this set. Other related issues are to be covered
in Essay 12 ("Challenges"), and more clearly at the end of the
essay on truth, in the discussion (Truth . .).
An annoying problem in Stent's
work is his practice to
use "Contradictions" as explanation. This use of a logical concept in a
causative role in the objective domain is confusing
(which is a major
fault of Marx and Hegel). On the other hand, Stent does not accept
systemic considerations as capable of producing a scientific
explanation (p 202), i.e., he is in this regard an extreme
reductionist. Nevertheless,
the book is pertinent to our theme and highly recommended.
[6] Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (2000), Genes,
Peoples, and
Languages (University of California). A highly
recommended little book by a leading expert to widen our views beyond
Genesis.
[7] How bad the situation has become is admitted by
prominent
Journalists. The noted Carl Bernstein, of the Woodward &
Bernstein who uncovered the Nixon scandal, was very forthright in his
recent interview in La Stampa ("Giornalismo malato di gossip"
13/4/2008 (8:45)) of Turin (Italy) -
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/cultura/200804articoli/31838girata.asp
-
where he
explained
very clearly the principles of good journalism. It is to find the Truth
and recognize what is important
by sustained effort (see also my essay 1). To some degree it is
unavoidable in all professions that their quality would decline with greatly increased numbers. During the court
proceedings of the notorious Michael Jackson in California, nothing
much happened for weeks and yet, there were thousands of reporters
waiting for visible changes at the court house. In their near despair,
they interviewed each other!
The media
are the main and often only source of information on which the public
can form an opinion. This opinion about the most important events and
our actions based on these opinions ought
not to be affected by the media being "sick with gossip". Worse
than the gossip and the superficial reporting by incompetent reporters,
and
dangerous for the public to boot, is the group think with the notorious
"spinning" of news
by the commentators. By shifting the emphasis to less important
aspects and downplaying or ignoring the important ones, without
mentioning the necessary scale of precedence, the meaning of what is
happening can be turned
into the opposite of what a truthful presentation would produce. It is,
therefore, quite justified to state that our politics are now strongly
influenced by the media, which gives them a role that is not what the
Constitution envisioned.
Copyright © 2003, Gernot M. R. Winkler
Latest
Corrections and augmented, 10/29/2009.
From the Internet I collected an amusing example why one cannot
gain by reading most articles beyond their titles:
THE YEAR'S BEST HEADLINES OF 2002
Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says
Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus?
Prostitutes Appeal to Pope
Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over
Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
Miners Refuse to Work after Death
Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant
War Dims Hope for Peace
If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile
Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures
Enfield (London) Couple Slain; Police Suspect
Homicide
Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges
Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead
Man Struck By Lightning Faces Battery Charge
New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group
Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft
Kids Make Nutritious Snacks
Chef Throws His Heart into Helping
Feed Needy
Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half
Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors
Note:
None of the above has been found in the Wall Street Journal, or a very
few other leading papers in the world. The important point is that we
can find remarkable exceptions to what I said about the media.
But we must deliberately look for these exceptions, and we must use
high standards. Additional aspects are discussed in the essays “The
State of Social Maturity” and "What is Truth".
------------------------------
Value and Purpose
Prospects for a Global Culture.
by
Gernot
Winkler
Matthew Arnold, in his "Hebraism and Hellenism", identifies them as
basic driving forces in Western culture, particularly British culture.
Indeed, reading Arnold, and transposing oneself into his environment of
the nineteenth century, one can see his point. The aim of both forces
is man's perfection, but their emphasis and cultural effect is very
different. As Arnold articulates, in Hellenism the highest idea is to
see things as they really are; the uppermost idea with Hebraism is
conduct and obedience. "The Greek quarrel with the body and its desires
is, that they hinder right thinking; the Hebrew quarrel with them is,
that they hinder right acting". While the Hebrew ideal is the Law
as a network of prescriptions that enwrap the whole life, the Hellenic
ideal is the clearness of the mind and right thinking as the basis of
the right measure. While there is much that one could argue which of
the two forces was the more appropriate, more important, more powerful,
or more basic in the history of our civilization, this civilization
felt attracted by both, but more by one or the other at different times
and at different places.
Christianity, as a heresy of Hebraism, changed little in the basic aim
of the Hebraic spirit, putting believing over doing, and both far above
knowing [1]. The major effect of this Hebraic version was that it
exported the Hebraic spirit to vast areas which the original Hebraism
would never have been able to touch. Hellenism, also, was exported
politically into the same lands where, from now on, both forces
interacted. We can find Arnold particularly interesting at this
time, almost one and one half centuries after he wrote, because
eventually, after a delay of two thousand years, this interaction is
creating a new situation, quite different from the one that Arnold saw.
While Hellenism celebrated a splendid triumph during the Renaissance in
Italy, the reaction to it, the Reformation, re-invigorated Hebraism.
Paradoxically, the Reformation has been mostly a Germanic concern that
produced a powerful return to the purer spirit of Hebraism. This
created a contrast with the Catholicism of the Latin countries because
Catholicism is the least Hebraic of all these offshoots. Indeed,
Catholicism had absorbed and preserved so much of the classical
Hellenic Latin heritage, taking on even some polytheistic appearances
(in the adoration of the Saints and of Maria), that it became
vulnerable to the counter currents of the Reformation. In sharp
contrast with the Latin spirit of Catholicism is the instinctive
identification of a large part of the Protestant world, particularly
the English speaking world, with Judaism. This is surprising and
it goes so far that Bertrand Russell once remarked that there is almost
no cultural difference between Judaism and Protestantism, they are
nearly indistinguishable [2].
A regional cultural preference for one spirit over the other is quite
obvious, and sometimes to an astounding degree when these preferences
affect world politics [3]. While Arnold could still argue that both
forces have been, more or less, evenly and happily balanced in his
(British) world, today the situation is quite different. Regional
differences developed first in the relative workings of the two spirits
in the major European subcultures, the Celtic, the Germanic, the Latin,
and the Slavonic, and these differences now influence profoundly more
than one half of the world.
How subtle this influence can be! Of what are we reminded when we
read Marx' famous statement that it is not important to interpret
(understand) the world, because we have to change it? It is
certainly not the Hellenic spirit to neglect understanding in favor
of action. And why was the Italian Renaissance, without doubt
humanity's cultural summit, unable to control the vicious tempers of
the very princes that were the generous sponsors of the most beautiful
artistic, and the most seminal scientific achievements? Because
it was the Hellenic spirit that was driven to an extreme that forgot
the original purpose of seeing the world as it really is for the sole
purpose of acting right. It forgot the right action over the desire to
know by following Lucifer's temptations without restraints. Four
hundred years later the two spirits are still alive, but they seem to
have gone as far as they were destined to go and, in the process, they
have now revealed their problematic aspects. They now appear as the types of the Man of Reason, as opposed to the Man of Faith, as Rationalism as opposed to Existentialism (see the excellent work of Wm. Barrett, Irrational Man). As it seems today that it
will be the fate of both of these approaches to be doomed - unless we can muster the strength of
spirit to reform them.
We are, indeed, at a turning point of culture. While the public
debates, as usual, center on the obvious and ephemeral problems of the
day, the long range fate of our culture and of the whole world, is
being decided by effects that are insidious and not obvious at
all. The crucial decisions are certainly caused by the total
economic, political, military power situation at the moment. But
these factors themselves are slowly changing as a result of the subtle
changes in the thinking and customs of the people of the world as an
aspect of the interaction of their cultures. Actions are the
direct result of the values that govern the life of the people. Today,
these values are in a most confused state, if there is anything that
goes beyond simple hedonistic drives. Many of the young grow up as real
barbarians who see nothing wrong in their evil behavior as long as they
gain advantages. Even those who are not estranged from their religion,
would need to have more guidance than what they now have, as their anti
social speech and egotistical actions prove only too well.
Existing teachings that are based on the Hebraic spirit do not provide
sufficient guidance for modern man in many of his situations, judging
from the low state of our public morality, not only of public figures
but of the majority of the people as well. Most of these people,
including church members and their leaders, have no firm idea of what
is right or wrong (e.g., the pitiful performance of many of the
“spiritual leaders” in the face of the most serious moral slips of high
public officials, such as perjury as a witness). It is true, there are
no prohibitions in the Decalogue about details of accounting or how to
decide social issues. But what can we expect if the two pillars of
Western culture are so weakened and confused? To the extent that
this is true, some ideas about the dynamics and the needs of the
present historical development can be developed by using the model
sketched by Arnold.
But first, we must correct a strange oversight by Arnold. It does not
affect the overall importance of his views, but it does put a different
light on the valuation of the spirits. He lost out of sight the
capital fact that the principal voices of the Greek culture, Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus, stressed over and over again that we
have to know in order to act right and not just for knowledge's
sake. Right acting is, therefore, the ultimate goal in the
highest expressions of Hellenic culture. It is only by the way
how to achieve this, that the two spirits differ fundamentally. The
motivation for good action is right perception in Hellenism, in
contrast to obedience to a law, the origin of which is hidden in myths.
Most unfortunately, this ultimate purpose in the Hellenic spirit has
been forgotten by the Western culture, and that is the reason why
Arnold's omission did not become immediately obvious. Indeed, one
of Socrates' main ideas has been that if one clearly knew what is good
for him, he could not avoid doing what is truly good for him. This
leaves no doubt why the original thinkers of Hellenism stressed so much
the importance of right thinking, i.e., of seeing things as they really
are.
It is true, of course, that the main body of the Hellenic spirit
became dominated by aestheticism and intellectualism, but we must not
forget the original total picture, the desire for harmony through right
acting on the basis of right thinking. In total contrast to this
we see the utter chaos that appears to us as the prevalent cultural
situation. There is still a remnant of the old spirits around, albeit
in their distorted form. And it is in this distorted, degenerated
form, that both of these remnants have by now become not only a burden,
but even a deadly danger for the global society.
The remnant of the misunderstood Hellenic spirit has become the driving
force in a gigantic technological - science establishment that is
fueled by the reckless pursuit of projects, not any longer for the sake
of right acting through knowledge (used sometimes only as effective
justification to obtain funding), but for immediate application in
efforts to make life ever more prosperous, luxurious and frivolous - if
it is not, for the main players, science as an immensely profitable
game, as ironic science in the sense of Horgan (The End of
Science). Only a part of this enterprise can be seen as being
beneficial as it helps to remove suffering. But even that is
often short-sighted, if not misguided in its narrow vision when it
creates more suffering later.
And the remnants of the Hebraic spirit? They are embodied in the
bloody, merciless and hateful struggle between the feuding monotheistic
religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all three afflicted by the
same hereditary fault. This despicable war since centuries, that is
becoming brutally hot and barbaric in more and more places, has not
been stopped by the religious leaders who, we must assume, are either
incapable or unwilling to do so. With this, the three great religions,
Judaism, Christianity, and particularly the Islam, all three adhered to
nominally by one half of mankind, are totally discrediting themselves.
They display the lack of realism of their beliefs, that has long been
obvious to the secular. They are clashing everywhere with a modern
culture that is wholly based on science. They suffer for the failure
and scandalous corruption of their leaders, and by the blind hate and
fanaticism of the true believers. With these conspicuous failures of
the highest human concerns, which as it is claimed, only they can
represent, they destroy the regard for all higher aims, even for the
possibility of gaining a higher meaning in life. They leave in their
wake a disgust and a spiritual vacuum that is filled with the crassest
forms of egoism and primitive hedonism.
Furthermore, all of the various travesties of the once noble spirits
are now ominously united in the reckless exploitation of the limited
terrestrial resources in their blind disregard of the inescapable
effects of overpopulation. To see the Christian and the
Moslem leaders united to inhibit limitations to the population growth,
is a strange sight indeed! They all, having forgotten the basis
and real aim of true religion, are leading their flock into the misery
of overpopulation with ever more conflict. How can mankind hope
to escape the doom if its leaders refuse to see it? How can
mankind hope to gain higher perspectives if its intellectuals are
blinded by old superstitions, baseless dogma, greed, and remain
occupied with narrow minded partisan politics? Could we ever hope
to resurrect the two great spirits to their original pristine
state? Or must we abandon them and look for alternatives?
Could we, perhaps, do without the old ideals? Could mankind ever live
on autopilot? Quasi automatically without deeper thought and principles?
One thing is obvious: we must uphold the ideal of right acting. But,
right acting on the basis of what, and for which ultimate
purpose? True insight in the facts as they really are, or blind
obedience grounded on blind beliefs, these are still the choices. To
these, civilization has now brought about an effective third basis for
action, the democratic consensus built up in a system of unprecedented
communication fueled mostly by advertising. Now this is in effect
nothing but turning from reason, or from the dictates of a law, to
short term greed with accidental changes of a fickle public opinion
which is devoid of long-term reason. We have seen how much this opinion
is susceptible to erratic emotions to a degree that it becomes as much
a source of deadly danger as we have experienced from the corruption of
the two old spirits.
If obedience is to be the source of action, then obedience to
what? Which authority is available today to be followed by all of
mankind? Clearly, this cannot be a claim and prescription of a
particular religion if the major religions fight furiously about the
most important details, which they claim are divine revelations. And if
it is to be insight, then insight guided and aided by what? Must
we, regarding this insight, in order to avoid the aberrations
experienced before, must we not totally proscribe intelligence in the
pursuit of material gains? But anyway, without a believable
authority, there would be no way to proscribe anything.
Further
questions arise: The old divine authority that was to be obeyed
has not only failed in the modern world, it turns out to be a
danger. How else could one explain that by far the most
“religiously committed” nation in the West, the United States, has also
by far the largest incidence of hard criminality? According to a
survey [4], over 90% of the population of the United States
profess a belief in God, and are somehow affiliated with an organized
religion. This is the highest percentage of religious people in any
Western nation. But the crime figures are also very high compared
with other nations. This, of course, is not to suggest that crime is
aided by religion, but that religion is not now an effective
agent to prevent or reduce it. We must emphasize the NOW, because the
kind of dominant religion that we have in America has undoubtedly
suffered since colonial times because the souls have become more
superficial and more materialistic. If people really take it serious,
it is a powerful and by and large beneficent force in the life of the
believers. Until the mass migration from the country into the large
cities has changed this.
Moreover, what can we say if the divine authority is invoked to justify
mass
murder on the large scale, of children and adults alike? Does this not
destroy such an authority? As we
said, it seems completely out of the question to hope that a Divine
authority could ever be respected by the totality of mankind on
the basis of the claimed revelations of a single creed. On the other
hand, man's intelligence for finding the right action was also not good
enough because it could not even preserve the idea that the right
purpose of thinking must be kept in mind! The undisciplined human
intelligence has turned out to have lethal consequences, perhaps more
threatening than the effects of the menacing overpopulation. It is now
clear beyond any doubt that intelligence without earned authority,
insight, and discipline has been used for the most despicable and
abhorrent purposes and is still serving several tyrants.
It is possible that the two spirits failed because they have each been
too pre-occupied with fending off each other instead of uniting aims
and forces in the all-important task of guiding mankind. Should we not
try to see whether the two fundamental ideas could work in peaceful
combination? It is the only hope because there is no real
authority available for mankind in its totality - except one which must
be made much more obvious to everybody: insight in the cold
necessity
of fate acting in the world through the laws of nature, but influenced
and released by disciplined human action.
This implies a total human responsibility because the necessity is
impersonal and stone deaf to sacrifices or prayer; it can only be
preempted by foresight and restraint. The spirit of obedience must act
in obedience, not to a myth and uncertain beliefs, but to wisdom as
included in the generally accepted code! Of course, as long as
zealotry rules the minds this will not work. But, we should hope to
have the search for wisdom do just that, seeking wisdom with
discipline, instead of being blinded by temptations of greed, and
irresponsible in the hope of forgiveness! The prospects for this
are not promising before a total change of outlook will be imposed on
mankind by a worldwide cataclysmic event in the breakdown of our
civilization; in chaos with resulting worldwide suffering and
starvation of billions of people! We have seen how much change in our
complex and delicate civilization was inflicted by the criminal
destruction of two buildings!
Conclusion.
Despair must not be our last word! Definitely not,
because we
should follow Kant's prescription that the chances of success must not
influence our decision to do the right thing. The only way in which
civilization can be strengthened is that each person do the right
thing. This is the more true because success in our aim does not
require universal agreement on a course of action. This would be
hopeless, indeed. However, it is highly effective if only those who
understand, do the right thing, requiring that we agree on a
criterion for what is right - which is absolutely necessary and
requires an agreed upon set of common human values. Individual human
intelligence
is far too weak to be depended upon without
such guidance and a code is indispensable. Of course, if we want the
multi-cultural society to accept a civil 'code' then this code must be
clearly based on the necessities of social life and free from specific
religious content. Only then can it be universally respected and
obeyed. Actually, it must be specific guidance for our modern
world rather than a detailed
code and none of it
in opposition to any of the old respected codes of mankind. It has to
say nothing else than what has been said by all
wise, inspired people who ever lived, only now in a more understandable
way and more directly applicable in our world to augment and support
what has come down to us from antiquity [5].
Notes.
[1] We must not forget that the arch sin, the hereditary sin in
the Hebrew myth, came from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
The deep truth in this story has become clearer with the breathtaking
progress of science and technology. Voltaire still wondered why it
should be a sin knowing "good" and "evil" (as the serpent told the
first couple you will be like God, knowing good and evil). Such a
knowledge ought to be one of the most useful gifts for man. But
Lucifer, the carrier of light and lucidity, has always acted as the
great seducer. This, of course, strikes anyone who is filled with the
Hellenic spirit as downright nonsensical. But as it will become
more and more obvious, as our technological civilization runs its
course, unchecked intelligence is, indeed, a deadly danger. But what
can check intelligence? Well, it can only be the trained and
disciplined will, exerted by a good character. Clearly this is exactly
the challenge of our times. We are brought back to the problem of
education, now more urgent than ever. Humans must be prepared and
conditioned to be able to live in a free society. The current system is
oriented too much toward skills and utility; it cannot do this
conditioning. It seems also certain the we cannot succeed with
illogical teachings that require blind obedience when these teachings
are in glaring opposition to common sense and modern science. That
this blind belief has failed as a socially controlling element is the
bitter
lesson to be learned from the countless bloody wars between the creeds
and the
persecutions of "non-believers" which have been going on for millennia.
It happens whenever the Hebraic spirit runs amok and, by claiming to
execute God's will, tries to destroy its own different incarnations
with inhuman ferocity. Blind beliefs entail blind fanaticism. What is
needed is understanding, restraint, and insight.
Or plainly, a little bite from the apple was not enough! Should we not
teach people how to eat more of this fruit in order to gain wisdom? Or
is the “Divine prohibition” really necessary? Would it be hopeless
because man has been created with an innate weakness? In this case, God
would be responsible. However, we do not know and better find out by
trying much harder. Not to try would be utterly defeatist and leave the
blasphemous accusation standing as true.
[2] It happens from time to time that some naive evangelical splinter
group tries to emigrate to Israel to settle as Jews where, of course,
they are not accepted and are sent back quickly.
[3] It seems that the untiring American defense of Israel, irrespective
of any Israeli lack of wisdom and restraint, and the serious problems
that this support produces for the American global standing, is
grounded on the powerful Protestant spirit that is still dominant in
the United States.
[4] Survey by Gerald Goldhaber of the State University of New York at
Buffalo. (see also Washington Times July 27, 1996, p. A12).
Excellent is the Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
- The numbers change from one source to the next, but it is
beyond question that America is much devoted to religion.
[5] A Code of Ethics together with a scale of Precedence has been
justified on the basis of a single principle in my book What We Need.
See also the abbreviated text in my article Ethics for the Modern
World (next).
Copyright © 2003 Gernot M. R.
Winkler, Last Correction 07/10/2009.
------------------------------------
Ethics for the Modern World
by
Gernot Winkler
Introduction.
It is often argued that man has no guidance for his
behavior except by
divine commands and public laws. Indeed, when religiosity decreased in
the wake of scientific progress and the temptations of city living,
moral behavior declined. As the number of crimes increased, it was only
natural to call for more laws. But criminality continued to
increase. Obviously, life in society suffers when morality decreases
and it is widely felt that one should advance to a better social life
by a return to religion and further increase in the number of laws.
This is, indeed, the belief of many Conservatives. We share their
concern; however we must realize that two of the basic assumptions are
fallacious. Concerning the first assumption, it is simply not true that
moral guidance can only come from Divine revelations because morality
exists in many places outside the Mosaic religions. These have been
adopted only by one half of mankind, and it is unlikely that the other
half will accept them peacefully.
Neither Confucianism, nor Taoism base their morality upon a belief in
God or in divine revelations. These are not part of their systems,
which served China for millennia. Buddha always refused to talk about
such metaphysical beliefs as superfluous and harmful for the
achievement of his goals. These cases are not unique; the idea that
supernatural revelations and commands are necessary for morality can be
believed only in disregard of the Chinese, the European, or the Indian
classical past. Reading any pertinent work, written before Christianity
appeared in European antiquity, such as Cicero’s De finibus,
proves the
point. In the many stories which are being mentioned, and in the
discussion of what is to be seen as desirable and noble, a picture
emerges of a higher ideal of humanity than what we hold today!
It is claimed that this old culture could only exist on the backs of
slaves who provided the material basis for the high culture. This
argument plays well on emotions, but it is wrong. Slavery existed
everywhere, as did other bad features, but this is no reason why today,
with technology giving us manifold more material support without human
labor, we must fall back into barbarity. In fact, the antique social
situation was the opposite. The reliance on slave labor was the
ultimate cause for the downfall of the old culture. As Max Weber [1]
shows, this reliance caused a gradual dilution of the urban culture, as
it is evident in the stoppage of the literature, two centuries before
the political collapse.
The claim that morality needs a supernatural basis is not only invalid;
it is also a detraction. It is the reason why anything that concerns
morality can be discredited and ridiculed by the non believers.
Morality is usually conceived as exclusively sexual morality in the
Victorian sense, while no other rules of behavior seem to be so
important. On the other side, people in the “cultural elite” like to be
seen as “sophisticated,” implying amorality, in the confused belief
that this is a superior intellectual position that supposedly shows how
much they are avant-garde.
The state should not force a return to religion; this would be counter
to our principle of separation of religion and state. A sole reliance
on religion to restore a fading morality would also be unwise.
Religion, as beneficial as it is for bringing a much needed faith
(i.e., confidence, trust, [2]) to the believer, it does get easily out
of control and fanatical extremes are a serious danger for humanity. In
any case, the force of the state must not promote a particular religion
after it has weakened. We must uphold the above principle, the more so
since we live in the midst of different religions that are feuding with
each other. It is hypocritical to teach tolerance if you favor one
party over all others.
Concerning the second assumption; it is impossible to regulate all
human action by case specific laws - as it is equally impossible to
legalize a socially beneficial attitude of behavior. One can't
replace morality with laws. It would require a vast increase in their
number and the result would be a legal jungle; people could not know
all the pertinent laws. Moreover, a legal scale of precedence would
also be required as guidance for the frequent cases when one law
conflicts in its application with another one. Clearly, this creates
not only a legalism with excessive complexity; it would generate
intolerable injustice (summum ius, summa iniuria!). Man needs guidance,
not an accumulation of obscure law.
A Morality for Our Times
For a
real advance in our culture a
recognized Code of behavior, i.e., a
formal moral standard, would be most beneficial. This would be a Code
that is supportive
of, and not in opposition to, the prescriptions of the major
religions. It is to consist of the core of existing but unwritten rules
of behavior that reflects the essential values of
the modern multi-cultural society. Such a code, neutral in respect to
religion and based on the implicit civic morality of a healthy society,
could then serve as an easily understandable guidance in social life.
This
should meet little opposition if it does not conflict with religious
teachings. Actually, it must support them in the essentials.
Such a code must take into account the modern requirements and it can
be taught as part of a political introduction to life. This can also be
seen as augmenting the respective work by the religious authorities.
But a formal civic
code is urgently needed for a multicultural, global human society to
give guidance for those who are
estranged from religious teachings. Many young individuals grow up
today
as real barbarians who see nothing wrong in their wicked behavior as
long as they gain advantages or thrills. Even those who are not so
estranged, need to have more guidance than they now have, as their
frequent anti social actions prove only too well. The religious ought
not to object to this because the absence of a generally recognized
standard of civic morality is the main cause of attacks on religion and
the social chaos which exists in large parts of the present society.
Morality in the modern society cannot be the exclusive domain of
religions because it concerns everybody of whatever beliefs. Otherwise,
people
without religion could assume, as many indeed do, that morality is not
their concern. It must be said that the failure to admit this clearly
in our free society, is an
important factor in the present state of the culture. The Decalogue of
more than three millennia ago, venerable as it is; or the prescriptions
of any old major religion do not provide
sufficient guidance for the situations in a modern society. The result
is the pathetic state of public morality, not only of public figures,
but of the majority of the people! Many of them, including even
clerics, have no firm idea of what is right or wrong if it is not
specifically mentioned in existing standards - see the pitiful
performance of some “spiritual leaders” in the face of the
most serious moral slips of high public officials, such as perjury. The
vague thinking that is revealed by confused statements of these
officials that one has heard must be the result of ignorance of values,
their scale, and of the need for a priority
in their application.
Furthermore, the Mosaic code is not respected by
the secular part of the Western world because the stories of miracles
as
source of the code have become a cause for disbelief, if not
ridicule - a liability instead of a proof. In any case, a miraculous
origin for rules of civic behavior is neither needed, nor is it
desirable. Even in the most primitive tribes, such rules are recognized
as a necessity. The idea of good and evil came about not because acts
were good or evil for the individual (such as prescribed by hygiene),
but for the tribe as a whole. Even higher animals show the beginnings
of ethical behavior (pre human ethics) out of instinct, which could
also be
taken as a form of divine guidance. (Scripture is silent on
this). In any case, morality is perfectly natural and indispensable in
any livable society.
How bad the moral situation really is in Western society can be
estimated from news reports about public scandals, and in a variety of
other ways, probably best by the response of the public to the ethics
scandals in and out of government. These show that in a specific case
of the past, almost two thirds (!) of
the population, which includes a major part of the religious, could not
care less about principles as long as the scandals do not affect their
own personal well-being. But in this, they are sadly mistaken.
Corruption is like a cancer that after a while, begins to affect
everything. Many morally uneducated - which includes also many who use
the
Decalogue as the sole source of commands for behavior - accept that
bribery is "lobbying" and the bribes are mere "consultant fees.” Even
plain perjury is now explained away as a case of “semantic
triviality,” if it is not “a terminological inexactitude” (as Churchill
had said, but he spoke in jest). Moreover, some people seem to believe
that
bribes are OK as long as they are disclosed. Stealing, bribing, and
telling lies are not "leveraging" or "technicalities,” and deception is
not a sales trick, actions that are ok as long as they bring about a
desired end and are not against a specific law.
The “Enron” scandal of 2002 and quite a few more of the same kind are a
sure sign of a rotten top management of some huge corporations.
It exposes a serious social problem which we try, again, to correct
with more specific laws. This cannot help everywhere because the most
serious social troubles are in the family. A large percentage of the
children lack responsible parents and grow up in a problem family, if
they have any at all. This way, the faults of one generation get
magnified into the next as it shows up in the crime statistics and in
the shocking numbers of juvenile delinquency. Furthermore, in a recent
study of corruption in various countries, America was on 16th place,
down from Denmark as the country with least corruption [3]. No
cause for pride here! In order to recognize and admit the problem, we
need the support of the media which is essential. Without their
critical examination of moral problems, social health cannot be
preserved nor restored.
The idea of a civic code is not new. Previous proposals for such a
code, all of which have failed, have suffered from the unwise idea to
copy from established religion by making the belief in God part of the
proposed civic “religion.” This is a cardinal mistake, it makes the
code into one more religion, but inauthentic and unacceptable to both
sides, the religious and the secular (we think of Rousseau,
Robespierre, Comte). The common fault in these attempts was that people
did not understand the need to separate the social requirements from
what the person should do in his own interest, or in other terms, they
did not see a difference between ethical and hygienic (in the widest
sense) standards.
Below we give an example that can serve as "minimum.” Of course, we
expect that it will be ridiculed as far too demanding, even naive, if
not utopian for our modern society. This criticism would only show how
right our assessment of the need for such a code is and how far we have
to go to achieve a genuine advance in culture and restoration of social
health. Those who find our goals too demanding, must realize that
high goals and standards are indispensable. Presently, the public has
no generally recognized secular guidance for good behavior, not even
for the leaders, and it assumes that, as long as there is no law
against objectionable behavior, it must be ok.
We also do not need to worry about another possible objection, that
people who adhere to such a code, will be overwhelmed by those who do
not follow it, on the grounds that the code is too noble which puts its
adherents at a disadvantage. This could have been true one thousand
years ago. Today, we can advance from a regulated society which has
achieved some order, although the results are not very good.
Objection
will also be made that this code is not complete and not sufficiently
specific, but a Code such as this is not a law, it should give only a
guidance and not details. Moreover, for public use we must not try to
replace specific religious prescriptions with new commandments - rather
we must design the code with broad guidance which matches the
temptations in the modern world that create problems for society.
Therefore, the individual for his own use must not stop here. He is
free, even encouraged, to go further in efforts to gain personal faith
and strength. The state can only deal with minimum guidelines to be
accepted by everyone in the sole interest of a more harmonious social
life.
Nevertheless and as an aside, it would be a benefit for everyone to
return to a more spiritually oriented way of life. By spiritual we mean
without a material purpose, i.e., we take the sense of spirituality as
opposed to a materiality that means a strictly utilitarian (egoistic)
orientation. Spirituality does not imply a specific belief, even
though, the majority of the spiritually oriented individuals of today
will be religious in the traditional sense. It is also sadly true that
religious people are not necessarily spiritual!
A change away from a materialistic way of life will be beneficial
because otherwise, it is much harder for people in an urban mass
society to structure their life in a more meaningful way. Without
spirituality and remote from nature, there are too many pressures and
seductions, and the revelation that many people face in the presence of
death is chiefly the pointlessness of the way they have lived. Without
it, it is also nearly impossible for highly intelligent minds to avoid
the destructive pitfall of arrogance and pride - Lucifer's old
temptation!
Religious matters must be a personal issue. If this principle is not
respected, a progressive clash between the religions with their
different world views is unavoidable and make a peaceful society
impossible. This is why we must not connect our code with a specific
metaphysical basis or with supernatural revelations, which could be
interpreted as religious. The absence of a religious content,
combined with the rational basis should insure that the code is not in
violation of the First Amendment to the American Constitution and can
be sanctioned by government as useful for the social life of all. For
public purposes, it is necessary and sufficient to take the individual
items as a consequence of practical reason, leading to a code of
behavior that is good if, by general acceptance, a desirable society
would result. As Kant has it: "Act only on that maxim through which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This
covers a range of actions that is larger than the very old rule “quod
tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris”, also known as the Golden
Rule.
This rule only limits the acts and is silent about what ought to be
done.
One should use the pragmatic test, i.e., ask whether wide acceptance of
the code would help create a better society. Or, should the improvement
of our life be left to ever more laws and rules issued by the
government? If you think a reliance on others is better, then the
Code will be of little use to you, and you would fare well in a
totalitarian society where you will be told what to do and forced to
rely on others who, if they feel as you do, will fail you. As explained
before, the religious should be at an advantage because a truly
religious person with faith will not need much of this. It is the
secular and superficially religious who need it very much.
A Scale of Precedence
overcomes conflicts of rules.
The
need for
a code arises because of the unavoidable conflict of individual
interests. Unfortunately in real life, we often have to choose
between violating one or the other of mutually opposing rules. This
does not mean that for this reason, we cannot follow such rules at all,
which could be a most convenient excuse for the rascals. It merely
means that, in addition, we need a scale of precedence
(importance). In this scale we must give highest priority to the
saving of life, avoidance of harm, telling the truth and to actions
that affect a large number of people. Do not hurt! (if hurting is
inescapable, hurt the fewest) must be the top prescription. An example
would be if, by telling the truth, we cause great harm to others. This
case is quite frequent and even Jesus told an untruth deliberately
(John, 7, 8ff).
The avoidance of harm will have to take precedence over truthfulness
depending on the degree of harm although, this does not remove
accountability for lying which is a most serious offense (except lying
under unavoidable duress, which is also covered by the rule just
mentioned). In any case, it would have been better to look ahead and
avoid the need for lying in the first place (see Relative Ethics).
Most importantly, truth must always get a higher priority than justice
and any other consideration except harm. This is necessary because
without truth we cannot rely on anything and social life is severely
degraded. A lower precedence must be given to actions that are
beneficial to the social system and still lower to actions of purely
personal importance in the measure of additional factors, however with
the following qualification. Throughout Western history, the individual
was ranked above the abstract idea of the Collective. The origin of
this principle goes back to Greece and the Hebrews. Christianity has
strengthened it and it is the major difference to primitive societies
which see the individual predominantly in its role as part of the
Collective which, therefore, in these societies has precedence. It is
in my opinion a sign of degeneration of the culture in the West that
this old, time-honored principle is in danger. The change has been
signaled by Hegel's philosophy which saw in the state the highest aim
and purpose of social life. Karl Marx and Marxism (as well as the
fascist heresies of socialism) have taken this over and we could see
the effect in the shameful conditions of all countries that became
victims of this ideology. The difference in this fundamental principle
is still a problem in the struggle of the West with socialism and its
various forms. It is a sad fact that many shortsighted people fall prey
to the treacherous idea that the collective can give them a form of
salvation when in fact, it is the end of true humanity to seek human
goals in a serfdom to the collective instead of in personal
improvement. This has been clearly recognized by the major
representatives of Existentialism (William Barrett, Irrational Man, 7.3, p.167).
In the use of precedence, good judgment is, of course, indispensable.
This can be improved in regular case studies with emphasis on criteria
and rules, best done if it is received by people before the age of
twenty. We see many with strong egos and fanatics who are notoriously
incompetent in the making of rational judgments who do not know about
the most elementary principles of social behavior and the making of
sound decisions. They don't seem to know the need for knowledge and for
self restraint, and they tend to drive every rule ad absurdum.
They do not use rules of precedence (see 4.) in a rational procedure in
the making of important decisions. These immature types can be found
everywhere and also among the followers of great men where they ruin
the teachings of their masters with their mindless extremism and lack
of insight. They may be “brilliant”, have great memory and a facility
for abstract reasoning, but little personal judgment. They have not
been sufficiently conditioned for life in a free society.
These are the people who, in their moral fervor, overdo everything [4],
and in the interest of saving lives, as they say, they shoot doctors.
Or those who, driven by ardent humanitarianism, in order to improve
society, seek first to destroy it - at any cost. Or those who, by
citing humanitarian reasons, refuse to effectively protect humanity
from villains that have killed, and have shown their intent to kill
indiscriminately. These are the people who argue that the Constitution
requires us to do something stupid and dangerous. These are the
pseudo intellectuals who worry about imagined causes of human
catastrophes and engage in endless debates and speculations instead of
supporting the steps necessary so that the catastrophes do not happen.
Many of these individuals with limited vision have been - in the famous
bon mot - educated into positions beyond their capability. We find them
everywhere, even at high level as “spiritual leaders” (Bishops!), as
presidents of huge corporations, even of countries.
The only way to improve this situation is obvious and has been already
proposed by Plato. He envisioned a conditioning of the young so that
they can act more rationally as a matter of habit after growing up. We
can do this - but it is difficult and cannot be perfect. It is
surprising that this has not been attempted before in a systematic way,
society wide. I believe it was the absence of a generally accepted
civic code as basis for repeated discussions in all sorts of
applications. Any success would have inestimable benefits for all.
The code proposed here as an example is deliberately kept broad as a
sort of policy guidance for action as needed in various circumstances.
It has to be broad otherwise it would not be guidance but another law
and it would not be simple and understandable. As it is given here, it
speaks to the personal sentiment. An excellent and
unpretentious example for specific guidance for good citizenship
(that is in perfect conformance with our code) is the little book by
Jennifer McKnight-Trontz, The Good Citizen's Handbook (Chronicle
Books). We recommend looking at our code or looking into this little
book as a self test. If your reaction is a temptation to snicker, you
do not really comprehend the grave seriousness of today's situation in
our relatively free society.
THE CODE
1. Be humble in the world of which you are a totally insignificant and
fleeting part. Yet be confident, strong, and responsible because much
depends on you.
2. Work for the peaceful advance of your country. You support it by
doing your duty, working as well as you can in your job, in whatever
station. It is an effective way to confirm your patriotism.
3. Preserve resources. Do not waste, it will deprive those who come
after you.
4. Show a high sense of public duty and avoid actions that are harmful
to the public.
5. Respect and protect your fellow humans, their feelings and property.
Behave with tact, tolerance and understanding. Do not harm anyone,
except in measured self-defense. Be generous with others.
6. Live up to your responsibilities to those who depend on you; be
humane to animals and protect them from cruelties.
7. Do your share for a healthy family life; be an example for
your children.
8. Be honest and truthful; be modest in your life. Do not seek unearned
benefits.
9. Be uncompromising to injustice, parasitism, and dishonesty, but
oppose laws in trifles and for personal purposes. A society can only be
free if it has few codes and these laws will only be respected if they
deal with matters of general importance.
10. Avoid racial, national, and other personal prejudices. Membership
in whatever group cannot confer personal merit, only behavior does.
Therefore everybody must be given the same chances and rights.
The foundation of ethics.
In discussions of secular ethics we are forced, as
much as elsewhere, to sift the sound and essential from a mountain of
verbiage. By doing this, we will find that there are basically two
useful foundations: a Personal and a Political (systemic) basis. For
very deep reasons, they produce the same result. The first is based on
insight: it recognizes a motivation in us to do the right thing because
of an instinctive identification with the other person. It is the
identity aspect of all being which is experienced with an intensity
that ranges for different individuals from a very strong insight that
can lead to self-sacrifice in the saving of others, all the way to
nothing, even to the limitless brutality of antisocial perverts. The
undeniable presence of this normal instinctive disposition in man, that
appears as our conscience, has been taken by Arthur Schopenhauer as the
basis for his theory of ethics. It reveals ethical relativism as a
serious mistake that goes against the most elementary facts of life. We
are all part of one species with the same problems. We are multiply
related biologically even in the case of complete strangers and people
from other countries and races, as it is obvious through DNA research.
This is universal throughout humanity as a single species, even if
people might confuse customs with basic morality because different
regional customs are found in the different religions, of which many
thousands exist.
The second foundation is constructive and abstract: we agree with
rules of behavior because they are evidently needed for a livable
community and the basis of this morality is the desire to live in
social harmony. This political - systemic foundation follows Confucius
and Kant. It is based on the single principle that social harmony is
desirable. This is a great and useful idea. However, it is easy in this
to go too far. Kant even considers an action only good if it has been
done because it was a duty to follow a rationally established code.
From this idea which we find surprisingly odd (Kant embraced purely
formal reasons), it is only a small step to arrive at what Tertullian
said somewhere that one has to do the good not because it is good but
because God (through his church) orders us to do it. We think that this
is totally misguided because it puts the artificial, the command, over
the natural, regardless whether we believe in God or not. An ethics
that is based solely on commands and threatened punishments, is really
no ethics at all.
The above Code, or something like it, is necessary, but perhaps not
sufficient. This brings up the so-called Utilitarianism which is a
derivative of, but not identical with, the political basis that we
mentioned. It runs into problems when it is developed beyond the
elementary level; it becomes unavoidably materialistic. Lastly, we
recognize that the need for a moral code is immensely strengthened by
Kenneth Arrow's theorem [5] about the inevitable irrationality in
social settings. This makes striving for social harmony a necessity,
beyond a mere desire for it. Only by voluntary self-restraint and some
self-denial can we hope to avoid irrational situations which otherwise
lead to struggle, hostility, and even war. This need is too poorly
explained and poorly justified in utilitarianism.
One might find the following work relevant and challenging in its
superior academic style: P, W. Bridgman (1959), The Way Things Are.
Harvard University Press. B, a physicist and Nobel laureate, was
motivated to this work because he recognized that there is a
fundamental ineptness in the use of our own minds and that the most
revolutionary implications of modern science for the fundamental
limitations of our mind are not appreciated by most scientists (hence
the most unwise discussions about Darwinism, Creationism, Cosmology,
etc.). B. discusses the subject of Codes extensively, including
the problem of juvenile delinquency. However, our Code is not in his
book. Considerable discussion of the relationship of modern advanced
science to the problem of morality is found in many places. But again,
the simpler the reasoning, the more realistic it will be. We must not
over rationalize what we know, what we want, and what we value.
Relative Ethics?
Max Weber (Soziologie, Politik. Alfred Kröner, Stuttgart, Vol.
229, Chapter: Der Beruf zur Politik) explains that ethics become much
more complex as one accepts responsibility for others. He distinguishes
two ethics, the ethics of conviction (CE) and the ethics of
responsibility (RE). This distinction is advisable in view of the
intrinsic irrationality of a world in which best intentions can produce
evil results and conversely, evil actions might be necessary to have
beneficial results (or we must decide between two evils). In other
words, the only way to remain free of all sin, would be to abstain from
all action! We must accept this fact and deal with it, as we said
above, by the use of precedence on the basis of very basic values.
Unavoidably however, our action will then depend on the expected result
of our action. This dependency could be confused with Situational
Ethics, since it depends on the occasion. However, this would be a
misleading idea and many arguments supporting the concept of a result
dependency of ethics are simply wrong because we must hold on to the
values that are implicit in our CE and if we do not, we become
culpable! Hence, people who do not understand the need to violate their
most precious convictions are unfit for responsible positions because
their inflexibility causes great harm. If they understand and have
sensitivity, they might break down under the need to violate their
convictions - or if they do not violate them, under the knowledge that
they cause much greater harm than would otherwise be necessary.
It requires a true hero to knowingly accept culpability for the benefit
of a much greater good, or the prevention of a much greater harm.
Nevertheless, the hero who acts this way, becomes guilty by saving many
others. His guilt is not removed by the benefits of his action, but
must be accepted by him. On the other hand, knowing this, he will be
extremely cautious and cannot depend on fancy ideologies in his
expectation of what will or should come about as the result of his
actions. The rulers in totalitarian regimes who caused untold harm to
their citizens have not been heroes, but irresponsible tyrants because
their expectations have been specious, while they violated their CE
morality. Genuine leadership requires sacrifices. It is the deep reason
why we must allow all individuals the greatest possible degree of
freedom to make them responsible for their own actions and, this way,
ease the burden of the leader. We find here another reason why a simple
and inflexible belief in the Decalogue, or in any other inflexible
specific rule, is not sufficient as the sole guidance necessary in
life, especially for leaders. It is clear why a sole reliance on any
abstract system will, unavoidably, lead into serious trouble while on
the other hand, simple minds can find the right action
much better if they listen to their own heart.
Finally, this is the reason why the appointment of leaders is such an
extremely delicate matter. In the last analysis, the leader depends on
his character when he has to decide critical actions which determine
the fate of others. Only his past performance can give clues how he
will be able to do in the future.
-----------------------------
Notes and References
[1] See Max Weber, Soziologie, etc., (Kröner, Volume
229).
W. makes it abundantly clear why the Roman culture declined with
the use of slaves after the free peasants were decimated in the Punic
wars and increasingly thereafter.
[2] To the fearful disciples who had asked him to save them, Jesus
said: Τι δειλοι
’εστε,
’ολιγοπιστοι
(Matth. 8, 26). Why fearful are
ye,
O
(ye) little-trusting? In the various translations, with time,
the word for trust gained the implication of a belief. But, this is
confusing;
beliefs as such will not be of use, while confidence is needed and
helps in all cases. These are distinct concepts: Creed and Faith!
The creed, or ideology, is a vehicle for bringing faith. (A leader
conveys faith to the disciples mainly through his charisma - what he
says is less important). With religion institutionalized, abstract
creed becomes the main thing, more and more irrational as it is slowly
modified. However, this entails a high price because an ideology can
easily incite people to fanatic hostility, while faith is indispensable
for leading a good life. The less ideology we need for sustaining our
faith, the better. We can speak of political beliefs, but a
political faith would be absurd. We meet many creeds, but one faith.
[3] The study was published by Transparency International &
Göttingen Univ., Germany, with more information available from
Frank Vogl, Vice-Chairman, Transparency International. Phone USA
202-331-8183, FAX 202-331-8187. Internet page:
http://www.transparency.org/
[4] Paracelsus recognized that sola dosis facit venenum,
only the
amount makes the poison. In other words, even the best thing, the best
action, is poisonous if overdone. Of course, this wisdom is
supposed to be known by everybody (the economists have their Law
of Diminishing Returns), but in fact, society suffers from uncounted
cases of an idiotic overdoing of good and necessary things.
[5] Kenneth Arrow in his Social Choice and Individual (1951),
demonstrated how irrationality is intrinsic in society. It is
unavoidable because the individually different valuation of things and
actions creates the conflicts which can be regulated and suppressed by
laws but can only be avoided and overcome by voluntary restraint,
education, and compromises.
Copyright © 2003, Gernot M. R.
Winkler
Last Correction 10/28/2009