There is a very interesting debate on youtube featuring Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault on what constitutes human nature and whether it is possible to reach a more just society based on a common human nature (as Chomsky argues) or even if “justice” and “human nature” exist at all (as Foucault seems to be saying).
Here is the 2 part video, the combined total of which amounts to 12 minutes, which is not too long:
I think it is definitely worth watching, but is not necessary for the 2 questions I would like to ask:
Forgetting current justice systems, which actions do you think would be considered fundamentally wrong by most “reasonable” people?
In thinking about human Justice, I think the Golden Rule is an important topic to talk about. However, there are different variations of the Golden Rule:
Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
I think I can point to various contradictions between these two rules which would perhaps weaken the original moral appeal they have.
I would Like to ask: do *you *think these two variations of the golden rule can lead to conflicts about morality?
Also, please add any thoughts you may have on this debate.
I would start with the basis that arguing that there is no ‘human nature’ is simply false. It’s not a valid point of view. There is clearly a human nature, we have certain physical constraints that tend toward a common normative pattern. That there is some deviation from these norms is irrelevant.
Much of what we consider to be human nature isn’t necessarily human nature. It is not human nature to be greedy. Greed comes from a fear of loss. We hedge our bets because we fear that we will not have enough. People who have enough and have no reason to believe that this will change don’t tend to be greedy. Children when they fight over toys are employing basic mammalian dominance patterns or are dealing with scarcity, two children one toy thus demand exceeds supply. Greed can also manifest in the form of wanting more than what other people have so that one can have power over others, but this is also a form of fear of want. So fear of want is a part of human nature, and greed is a possible reaction to the fear of want, but greed itself is not human nature.
The Golden-Rule is actually not very interesting for moral discussion and mostly gets in the way. Treating someone as you want to be treated is solipsistic. Not everyone has the same needs so acting upon someone else as though they need what you need does no one any good and cannot be claimed to be morally virtuous.
So I’d disagree that the Golden Rule is an important topic to talk about. It’s really rather irrelevant and distracts from understanding morality. It helps when dealing with children who need to be dealt with in binary ways. ‘Don’t hit your sister, would you want her to hit you?’, but for an adult it serves very little utility. The Golden Rule is not Just in any way shape or form. Justice is not concerned with parity. For instance in the Donner party many more men starved than women because they tried to ‘fairly’ distribute their food rations. Giving people of unequal sizes equal portions is neither fair nor just.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
1). I think most reasonable people would consider an action wrong if it violated the boundaries or goals of another sentient creature, assuming that sentient creature was considered valuable to the social unit and had not done anything to threaten the perpetrator, his comrades or his society first.
For example, physically attacking a serial child molester will not get the same response as physically attacking a social worker who is trying to stop a child abuse situation. In the eyes of members of society, one is retribution and the other is injustice, even if the actions are identical.
Despite what we say, for the most part we do not consider an African child or an American cat to have the same value as an American human. And we do not give an American homeless person the same value as an American president. And we do not give a convicted violent felon in America the same value as we give an American philanthropist.
Also, empathy is not automatically a given. We humans are capable of humanizing and dehumanizing each other. The more we dehumanize them (turn them from ‘yous’ into ‘its’) the easier it is to abuse, subjugate and punish them. The more we humanize and empathize with them (turn them from ‘its’ into ‘yous’) the harder it is to abuse, subjugate or punish them w/o feeling bad ourselves.
A ‘you’ had needs, motivations (most of which have nothing to do with how they act towards you), boundaries and value. An ‘it’ is something that has no value or boundaries can be subjugated and used for your own agenda, and/or who can be treated brutally once he stops being of use to society or once he becomes a threat to you or society.
As far as what is good or evil, people who are more useful to society are given more protection. I have seen studies (years ago online) about how parents are more protective of their attractive children then their ugly ones, because the attractive ones have better prospects in life. A senator has better healthcare and police protection than a homeless person.
So how wrong or right an action is depends on how much you’ve humanized/dehumanized the person receiving it, how similar they are to you, whether you feel they deserve it, whether you feel they ‘count’, what authority figures and peer groups are telling you to do and probably other factors.
I would love to get more info on the psychology of humanization/dehumanization, but that website and Daniel Goleman’s book ‘social intelligence’ is all I can really find.
Even nutrition plays a role in morality. Several studies have found that proper nutrition cuts delinquency and violence by 30-50%.
Even the biggest immoral acts in human history seem to begin with the concept that the victims of those acts were either objects keeping the perpetrators from living a better life, or they were actively attacking the perpetrators and their society, and their actions were self defense. The Nazis felt that Jews (and gypsies, and communists, etc) were keeping them from a more secure nation, and that they were destroying the nation from the inside. Pol Pot considered western culture to a corruption.
So its a hard concept. Most ‘reasonable’ people would engage in truly barbaric practices if the situation called for it or if the victims of their barbarism were perceived as being a threat to themselves or the society at large. Read up on Zimbardo or Milgram some time for examples.
At the same time, most barbaric people would become very docile in the right environment too.
So what do reasonable people consider wrong? They consider it wrong when sentient creatures they have humanized, who are similar to them, who are part of the same social unit, who have done nothing wrong to deserve to be punished have their boundaries and goals violated or subjugated.
2). I think the golden rule is a good one, no matter if it is phrased in a positive (do) or a negative way (do not do). However, again, you have to humanize others in order for it to take effect.