Category: Opinion

As a noobie libertarian, in the olden days of 2010, I was all about natural law, as a fairly objective way of looking at ethics.  Now I can say that I believe in liberty, which in my view should not need justification, although sadly it does.

Note: Morality and ethics – I never know if the words are interchangeable, not unlike freedom and liberty. So I use them interchangeably.

Thus spake the almighty Wikipedia: “Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.”

When philosophers talk of natural law, they don’t mean how things happen in nature. If you drop a rock, it falls (hopefully not on someone’s head). The hyena eating a cheetah’s kill cares not that the cheetah worked hard for that, although it probably thinks it is getting its fair share. The gazelle tax, if you will. Natural law is about human nature and how humans ought to behave within the constraints of human nature – animals or planetary movement when we talk about natural law. Human nature is not the same as hummingbird nature – nice bird, lovely plumage. But the plumage don’t enter into it.

Natural law theory looks for universal concepts, or as dead, white, possibly slave owning American males – basically shitlords – said, self-evident truths. Without this, you have little more than might makes right – the actual law of the jungle, and you can’t really define morality as might makes right, because there is no need for debate or definitions if simply the strongest gets the stuff.

While I am cautious of moral absolutism, I can’t help but be more wary of excessive moral subjectivism or moral relativism. Some things must be clear cut, otherwise what’s the point of discussing ethics? Can one say that Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot were objectively evil? I believe so. Can there be a moral argument for child rape? Ehm… ! If we admit this, we can determine some general objective rules. Not everything is relative, and you need a paradigm of some sort. Unless we can create an objective standard, we cannot weigh one thing versus another. The scales must be calibrated. Preferably in metric. I fully understand that trying to explain your rights to Genghis Khan would have been tricky. But the Khan was not really moved by morality and I would assume getting slaughtered is objectively bad.

Although ethics differed widely through human history, there is also an abundance of common threads and principles, just inconsistently applied. And the whole point of a principle is consistency; otherwise you can change your views depending on how the wind blows. Principles but– especially the ones which sound good – can often be found in many a culture, and the but is where problems begin. Nobles lorded over indentured peasants but were sensitive about their liberties when the king came a-knocking. I would say that if someone admits a right exists for him, he cannot refuse to extend same to others. Otherwise it can’t be to universal.

But humans rationalize exceptions all the time, when it suits them.  An easy way was to consider some humans inferior to others, maybe even less than human. It was a way for the noble to justify oppressing the inferior peasant, while this not being inconsistent with his rights. Another way was basically my people versus the others, the in-group versus the out-group. Same was extended to gender, race, and whatever the hell else was convenient. But if you want to have a somewhat objective principle, it must be universally applied to all homo sapiens. Otherwise it is not really objective.

You can think of asking a question to a person about himself. How many people would have the same answer? I think if you ask someone, “Do you agree that someone can just come and kill you with no repercussion,” I think the vast majority would say no, so we can agree the murder is bad mkay is universal. So then it should be universally applied to all Homo sapiens. I would say that any moral philosophy needs to have axioms, let’s call them the fundamental principles, the paradigm. No exceptions can be made, lest everything becomes an exception. You can’t have math if 1+1 changes value, the formalism should be constant. And there should be a set of clear and logical steps between axioms and theorems that do not change; higher level should be derived from lower level. There should be some level of consistency, not it’s A when it suits me and B when it doesn’t.

In the previous part, I talked about the basics of human nature and the question of morality. I avoided giving any opinions and just set up things a bit. Now I am going to contribute my 2 satoshi to the debate.

First, I don’t do the religion thing when it comes to morality and do not really see the debate that interesting if one brings the big G into it. What is there to debate if Deus Vult? So I look at things outside the scope of the divine.

Second, I am a believer in objective ethics – as objective as possible would be a better way to phrase it – as it should apply to all humans, and such independent of each person’s subjective opinions.

Third – to clarify the second – I believe there are two spheres for ethics or morality. And these are quite different.

The inner sphere is the personal – what you think is right when it mostly affects you and no other. This is subjective, as the only judge is you. Eating meat or not on a Friday, drinking, drugs come in this sphere. Basically your personal liberty. This can also be fuzzy at parts. Is it OK for one to lie to one’s parents? Well yes, if the car just hit itself with the tree, tricky these cars are.

The second sphere, the outer one, the one where humans interact and where your actions affect others. As others are involved, I believe this is much less subjective. This is, or in my view should be, the main topic of debate.

Fourth, I am for deontological ethics and against utilitarian, because I believe in fundamental principles, a paradigm, a foundation if you will.

Utilitarian ethics I find to be flawed in several respects. They can go down the road of the ends justify the means, and they cannot be anything but subjective, as desired ends differ between people. Of course, inside each human there is a bit of utilitarianism, as many deontologists believe that a good foundation leads to a solid building, good results. Few if any want to live in the world of Mad Max. I mean the cars are cool, but it seems very hot, especially given the leather clothes and lack of showers. That is a recipe for chafing.

On what do I base my so called objective belief in liberty? The fact that humans are unique, autonomous creatures, endowed with free will (I wrote a post on that). I believe only an individual can act, decide the actions, and bear their consequences. Your actions are the one thing that is in your control and the thing you should be judged on. Also, as I can not control others actions directly, I should not be too much affected by them as there is nothing I can do about it, nothing I can change or improve. Due to this I am an individualist.  Society is a general term describing groups of humans, it has no substance, one cannot say it exist in the way a rock (or The Rock, for that matter) exists. Societies cannot act, only individuals composing them can. Similarly societies can’t have rights or responsibilities, only individuals can. Human societies are not like ant colonies or other eusocial creatures – like the mighty naked mole rat, which is not, in fact, a mole or a rat-, where individuals are practically indistinguishable from one another and the colony works almost as a single organism. I find these things pretty objective.

I will leave you with some words of C S Lewis as food for though, which I may or may not fully agree.

“If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the Babylonian Hymn to Samos, from the Laws of Manu, the Book of the Dead, the Analects, the Stoics, the Platonists, from Australian aborigines and Redskins, he will collect the same triumphantly monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery, and falsehood, the same injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty. He may be a little surprised (I certainly was) to find that precepts of mercy are more frequent than precepts of justice; but he will no longer doubt that there is such a thing as the Law of Nature. There are, of course, differences. There is even blindness in particular cultures – just as there are savages who cannot count up to twenty. But the pretence that we are presented with a mere chaos – that no outline of universally accepted value shows through – is simply false and should be contradicted in season and out of season wherever it is met. Far from finding a chaos, we find exactly what we should expect if good is indeed something objective and reason the organ whereby it is apprehended – that is, a substantial agreement with considerable local differences of emphasis and, perhaps, no one code that includes everything.”

“Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.” – Walter Sobchack

Throughout history, among the various Big Questions of Philosophy – of Life, the Universe and Everything – were the Questions of ethics, morality and human nature. These may or may not have been supplanted by the query “are traps gay” in present, more enlightened times. But ehm… let’s focus on the older questions. What’s all this then?

There once was a saying, in some old language no one cares about anymore, “Homo homini lupus est”, which either had to do with aspects of human nature or was a warning against having wolves as pets. Either way, it gave me ideas for the title of this post.

What is human nature? What is wolf nature? How similar are the two? Is human nature  immutable or does it evolve in time – if so, in which time-frame? Can it be change at will – just one gulag away from the New Man? Do some things never change? How many questions in a row can I ask before it gets annoying?  How much wood would a woodchuck… Hell, if I knew all that, I’d be teaching at Oxford or Cambridge – whichever one is cooler and with hotter students. In the meantime, here we are.

The debate of how static human nature is revolves around the never-ending discussion of nature versus nurture in human development. Trying to fully answer this would achieve little, as it is as old as philosophy and yet to be resolved. Long story short, it’s a combination of both, and how much of each varies from person to person, society to society, time to time, in unknowable ways. Sociologists will investigate this further –whether we want them to or not – although, being sociologists, they are highly unlikely to find anything worthwhile. Also Steven Pinker and Nassim Taleb had a spat about it over the Better Angels of our Nature book. At least it keeps them occupied.

I am not a social constructionist, so I believe there are strong elements of human nature that are clearly innate, genetic. They may change over long periods of time, with the evolution of man and maybe human society; they may be softened by education or experience. But they are forever lurking in the shadows of the human mind. This is the nature part. Frankly I find the notion that human behavior has no significant genetic component ridiculous. Everything about humans has genetic influence – height, the color of various external components (and implicitly whether you have a soul or not), or liking coriander (or is it cilantro… anyway I sort of like it, but I don’t love it). Everything, it seems, except the brain. What amuses me is that people who claim that nurture is everything are also people who claim to believe in evolution and mock religious creationists. There is no way, after all, that evolution shaped behaviour.

By human nature, of course, I do not mean characteristics of a certain individual, but general characteristics of most humans. But can we truly know which parts of humans are nature? While there are differences between brains of humans, there are also similarities. This is to do with what the immutable part of human nature is, basic facts like response to incentives, wishing to increase satisfaction and decrease unease, wanting to achieve goals, needing friends and family, sex, drugs and rock n roll (since caveman time people have gotten high and created art, often at the same time).

Some things about human nature can be positive, others decidedly not so. This should be understood and fought against by each of us – the darkness within. Fighting it is hard and often useless, but fight we must. You will not eliminate these things, try as you might. Can you truly change your nature? Well, it depends on what nature is. An alcoholic can stop drinking, but is human nature to be an alcoholic? Probably not.

The ridiculous thing is that the Old left understood this on some level. They wanted to create the New Man, the Socialist man. Bigger, better, sexier, more obedient.  They realized that the nature of the Old Man was not what they wanted. But did they truly believe they could do this, or was it demagoguery? Probably a bit of both.

Of course there are elements which greatly differ between individuals and which are also biologically determined – height, athleticism, intelligence, personality, socializing. They are, of course, a clear combination of nature and nurture, meaning they can be influenced and shaped by nurture, but not completely. In basketball you are either an explosive athlete or you are not, no amount of training will make old Pie into Russell Westbrook.

One should not be afraid to admit there both human nature and some difference between individuals. It is just that morality should not be based on such difference.

Now, assuming human nature exists, can we get a coherent system of ethics out of it, especially given subjectivity is inherent in human nature?  We can at least try, which is precisely what I plan on doing.

Now in regards to ethics the million silver dollar (screw inflation) question is – can a universal, objective system of ethics be derived directly from human nature? Not an easy question – this depends on where one stands in investigating the classics, like Hume’s is–ought problem or Moore naturalistic fallacy – writing tip: randomly name calling past philosophers makes you seem smart and well read. I sort of agree with C. S. Lewis on this on, that nature is about what is and ethics about what ought to be. But maybe you can use some solid facts as a starting point.

One thing is certain: ethic systems are generally based on a first premise – some basic axioms – which, cannot be easily claimed as universal. Not without extremly well though out arguments. This should be obvious by simply analyzing human civilization and finding wildly different systems.

The fact that there are different systems of ethics does not mean they are all equally valid. Is it that ethics is subjective, or that some people are just plain wrong? Are all systems equal, or are some better than others? The tendency is to say that, obviously, some are better – expecially the one the person holds, if we believe something we think it is correct.

Some axioms will be better than others, more rational, logically consistent and easier to apply universally and leading to better results, but in the end some things have to be asserted.

Ethics systems have changed. Has human nature evolved in time? Or did it reflect a changing world. I don’t think it changed substantially, and me it seems to me that systems who tried to change some very basic facts of human nature have failed to take hold. Humans have the need to eat and to do that they hunted, but after some time they learned how to satisfy hunger through agriculture – though some still claim we were better off as hunter gatherers. This often made humans much less nomadic then they were as hunter-gatherers – can this be considered a change in human nature? I think not.

As society evolves, some types of violence tend to decrease, but not disappear – is violence human nature or is it just one of several means to an end? Some people are inherently aggressive and that does not change, but as society evolves that aggression can be channeled differently or kept in check by isolation. Culture matters obviously, children learn from parents, society or religion affects people, and these evolve faster than the human creature.

A strong influence in modern times is availability of information. When people lived isolated in small town and villages, they didn’t know much about foreigners, so it was easy to view different as dangerous or evil, but as people learn that the inhabitants of other lands are people just like them, they may be inclined to more tolerance of The Others.

So the conclusion thus far: Humans have various views on morality, some better than others, and the views change in time. I will more clearly present my personal views in a future installment (should it be published).

Now, I feel every glib saying to itself, this is a pretty pointless article. Does not say much really. Which is true. But this here is a blog post, not a scholarly work, so the point is to basically do a survey of the audience. The question being “what is human nature” and how does it balance with nurture (50/50 60/40 that sort of thing). Discuss …