Before I begin—well done, Barack Obama! Congratulations on becoming President-elect! And congrats to all Democrats, who have won a majority in both the House and the Senate. Now, to business:
We often talk of human nature, using it as an example of something immutable and fixed. We speak of human beings as though they are incapable of changing—but this is far from the case. As George Orwell stated eloquently in his dystopian novel 1984, “Men are infinitely malleable.”
I won’t take his word for it, though—I have many examples to back up this hypothesis. First, consider the oldest and most basic aspect of “human nature”—our reaction to food. For almost all of our history (more than 99%), the human response to seeing a morsel of food was to devour it instantly. This served us well when we were caveman and when agriculture was in its infancy. Today, though (at least in developed areas), things have changed. In the Western world, it is no longer desirable to do so—in fact, it is very undesirable to have that sort of reaction to food. The result? Our environment changed our nature; I am sure most Westerners can look at a plate of food without trying to eat it instantly.
Next, look at the second-oldest piece of human nature: the sex urge. Over time, our attitudes and reactions to sexuality have changed—almost every religion and culture has a different view on it. It would be absurd to think that there is a set “human nature” when it comes to sex—think about the differences between a Puritan community, a polygamy cult, and a pagan clan.
Also, note that human nature does not just change over long periods of time—a perfectly civilized person “trained” not to gobble up food instantly will revert back to the caveman reaction if he has not eaten in a few days. Additionally, think about people live for long periods of time in different countries—often their philosophy, religion, and viewpoint changes entirely.
Similarly, culture is mutable and constantly changing. However, all cultures have some sort of purpose. The primary purpose of all cultures is to survive, even if the creators of a culture did not intend this (if a culture did not try to sustain itself, it would not be around for long). In modern history (circa 5000 years) cultures have been based around some kind of religion or moral system. The purpose of these cultures is to carry out the demands of a religion or belief.
I believe that culture and human nature can be mutated to improve quality of life. How, you may ask, can this be accomplished? The answer, I believe, has to do with the way we create cultures and moral codes, and how this can be improved.
Though all cultures undergo a kind of natural selection that weeds out the “weak” ones, human history is so short we have not really had time to see cultures evolve. Furthermore, all cultures, moral codes, or societies that have been designed with a specific purpose in mind have been designed according to someone’s theory of morals. None have been developed by empirical evidence.
You may not see the problem with this, so I’ll use an example to explain:
Consider a cannon. Cannons have been around since medieval times, when gunpowder was invented, and since then they have been aimed with gunsights. In the past few centuries, the theory of how gravity works (which affects cannonballs) has been changed repeatedly. However, all gunsights were not junked every time the theory of gravity was changed. Why? Because gunsights are based on observable empirical evidence, and changing the theory does not change the fact that cannonballs fly a certain way. This is how we must design a moral system—by basing it around evidence and changing the theory to fit. Thus, such a culture would be flexible, so that it could change if necessary.
How would this be implemented in, say, the United States? Firstly, by finishing the job our Founding Fathers started—creating a total separation of church and state. (It would be naïve to say we have that now—laws prohibiting prostitution, polygamy, pornography, public nudity, and public “swearing” are just a few of the many counterexamples.) The reason for this is simple—morals based on religion do not necessarily create the most happiness possible. As Arthur C. Clarke puts it,
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
Once we have achieved a totally secular society, we can create a new moral system with the aim of creating the most empirical happiness.
Exactly what will this new moral system will include? I will discuss that in part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment