The better angels of our nurture
From author Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture:
"To base any moral position on natural fact, whether that fact is derived from nature or from nurture, is asking for trouble. In my morality, and I hope in yours, some things are bad but natural, like dishonesty and violence; others are good but less natural, like generosity and fidelity."
I've been wrestling with the implications of this philosophy for a while. Many of my best debates, such as those with
Brian (Happy Birthday!), have centered around the concept that man is innately "evil" or "immoral."
I don't like the idea that we are born into sin, or even that our "default" states are amoral or violent. But the male propensity for violence is a lingering genetic truth, an expression of our primal need for dominance and suitability for mates. Is dishonesty innate to us? Not as much as I think self-interest is--the impulse to act in our own best desires. What we want comes first, to ensure our own survival. This could be as pivotal as not intervening when you see a mugging, or as small as lying about someone's behavior to ensure you are not ostracized from the social herd.
But I do like the idea of choosing to be generous. To make the conscious decision to be "good," to act on a higher ethical level, to live according to principle over predilection--this appeals to me. It says that we can dictate the course of our evolution. That while we may be set to a default state of amorality in order to ensure evolution and survival, that we can reshape the course of our evolution, and mold ourselves into more ethical beings.
I believe in God, but I believe that God gave us free will--our most precious gift. When you exercise that will--even if it's to not believe in God--you're doing Him a service. I can't accept any religious view that demands submission to a "higher power" as a condition for acceptance. God does not want us to submit. God wants us to grow, to change, to learn, to think, and to build ourselves into the beings we have the potential to be.
Evil, in its base form, is the relaxing of responsibility. "He made me do it." "It wasn't my fault." "It wasn't my responsibility." When you shut down your capacity to make reasoned decisions and just blindly follow orders, you are opening the door to the potential for evil.
The triumph of the "good" is the celebration of the ability to think for oneself, to question, to challenge, and to embrace new paradigms. That doesn't mean shedding ethical concerns, but embracing them. It's too easy to say, "Well, that's just human nature. We'll never change." Bullshit. A millenium ago we were living in mud huts and castles, and families were made to work the farm for the good of the lord. (Okay, that still happens... :)) But we have evolved and continue to evolve, and part of that means the will to live according to a code of belief and knowing one's nature can be molded and shaped by action, just as it shapes action in turn.
I can't leave this without a quote from two old friends of mine:
SMITH: ....You must be able to see it Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now. You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you persist?
NEO: Because I choose to.
Discuss. :)
"To base any moral position on natural fact, whether that fact is derived from nature or from nurture, is asking for trouble. In my morality, and I hope in yours, some things are bad but natural, like dishonesty and violence; others are good but less natural, like generosity and fidelity."
I've been wrestling with the implications of this philosophy for a while. Many of my best debates, such as those with
Brian (Happy Birthday!), have centered around the concept that man is innately "evil" or "immoral."
I don't like the idea that we are born into sin, or even that our "default" states are amoral or violent. But the male propensity for violence is a lingering genetic truth, an expression of our primal need for dominance and suitability for mates. Is dishonesty innate to us? Not as much as I think self-interest is--the impulse to act in our own best desires. What we want comes first, to ensure our own survival. This could be as pivotal as not intervening when you see a mugging, or as small as lying about someone's behavior to ensure you are not ostracized from the social herd.
But I do like the idea of choosing to be generous. To make the conscious decision to be "good," to act on a higher ethical level, to live according to principle over predilection--this appeals to me. It says that we can dictate the course of our evolution. That while we may be set to a default state of amorality in order to ensure evolution and survival, that we can reshape the course of our evolution, and mold ourselves into more ethical beings.
I believe in God, but I believe that God gave us free will--our most precious gift. When you exercise that will--even if it's to not believe in God--you're doing Him a service. I can't accept any religious view that demands submission to a "higher power" as a condition for acceptance. God does not want us to submit. God wants us to grow, to change, to learn, to think, and to build ourselves into the beings we have the potential to be.
Evil, in its base form, is the relaxing of responsibility. "He made me do it." "It wasn't my fault." "It wasn't my responsibility." When you shut down your capacity to make reasoned decisions and just blindly follow orders, you are opening the door to the potential for evil.
The triumph of the "good" is the celebration of the ability to think for oneself, to question, to challenge, and to embrace new paradigms. That doesn't mean shedding ethical concerns, but embracing them. It's too easy to say, "Well, that's just human nature. We'll never change." Bullshit. A millenium ago we were living in mud huts and castles, and families were made to work the farm for the good of the lord. (Okay, that still happens... :)) But we have evolved and continue to evolve, and part of that means the will to live according to a code of belief and knowing one's nature can be molded and shaped by action, just as it shapes action in turn.
I can't leave this without a quote from two old friends of mine:
SMITH: ....You must be able to see it Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now. You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you persist?
NEO: Because I choose to.
Discuss. :)