human decency
From the foregoing analysis, we have deduced four principles that should form the conceptual framework from which to think about the human condition:
- The evolutionary definition of fairness – that mutual support is mutually beneficial. To be mutually beneficial does not require that all group members have equality in material goods or social status. It does, however, require that such inequalities that arise from the implementation of social rules, do not significantly compromise the reproductive or survivability success of those on the lowest end of the social spectrum as compared to those on the highest. In addition, the equity of work requirements and leisure availability for all segments of society is fundamental to the fairness principle.
- The evolutionary definition of education – that the “hunter/gather survival brain” is “exapted” into a “truth producing survival brain” for all group members. That is, everyone in the group should be provided with the capacity to be in control of their own thinking, and to be cognizant of those situations in which their cognitive intuitions fatally compromise that capacity.
- The recognition of what constitutes truth – truth is objectified information. To objectify information means to achieve a proof that does not rely on any personal or cultural assumptions. Truth is something that is so regardless of how anyone happens to “feel” about it. It is a fact independent of any particular aspiration or inclination, with a standard of verification that convinces at the level of our common humanity. Information can be objectified only through the implementation of the truth-producing methodology.
- The recognition of the value and limitations of insights - they provide the raw material out of which new truths may be discovered. But an insight un-validated under the truth-producing methodology is of personal significance only. However, everyone has a right to his or her un-validated insights and to be free from the imposition of the insights of others.
Use of this conceptual framework provides the foundation from which we can reason to a deepening understanding of what constitutes human decency and, therefore, increases the probability of the survival and success of the human species.
Now, there is a casual consensus (the conventional wisdom) that human decency is thoroughly understood and adequately accommodated by the existing social precepts as expressed in such things as traditional and religious values. But the historical record reveals that this is not the case. No primitive formulation of ethical values (including the 10 commandments and the Gospel injunctions) explicitly prohibits such currently recognized assaults on the human spirit as torture, slavery, sexism, or racism.
For example, all of the Abrahamic religions, as expressed in their foundation documents, are sexist in nature (patriarchal). As a result, the social principle of the subjugation of women has been a persistent feature of these three religions (and the cultures in which they were dominant) until the modern era. What changed in the modern era was the opportunity to consider this issue from the perspective of the truth-producing methodology. That is, what is the objectified information that justifies that subjugation?
Men and women are different in their physiology, which also includes subtle differences in their mental processes. For instance, cognitive research has revealed that, an average, women have superior language skills and men are better in analyzing spatial relationships. But there is considerable overlap. Some men have superior language skills than some women, and some women are better at analyzing spatial relationships than some men – consider Madam Curie and Tolstoy. In any event, ability in language and spatial relationships are both needed to facilitate thinking, with no basis for judging either as the superior ability. Also, because of the overlap issue, there is no basis for making any a priori judgment, based on gender, regarding the suitability of a person for any intellectual endeavor. Finally, we know from the section on Insights that increasing insight variety enhances the probability to get to the truth, which enhances the probability of human survival. The differences in male and female thinking processes increase that variety.
By this type of rational analysis, we can see that principle of the subjugation of women has no objectified information in its support. Quite to the contrary, adherence to the principle is actually injurious to human survival prospects by decreasing insight variety. In consequence, enlightened social organizations are moving to eliminate any sexist implications from their social precepts. In fact, enlightened varieties of the Abrahamic religions have moved in the same direction through a “reinterpretation” of their foundation texts, which allows for conformity in their practice with the objectified evidence. So it’s apparent that this principle of human decency emerged through our deepening understanding of the nature of things as the human condition evolved.
Incidentally, the above analysis is not intended to imply that prior to the availability of the truth-producing methodology, humanity was clueless about the error of sexism. There were many sensitive and perceptive thinkers who had an intuitive understanding it was an error. But they lacked the means to validate their personal perceptions in a way that would provide an effective challenge to the purported will of god or the weight of tradition. The truth-producing methodology provided the means to validate such personal perceptions (insights) as objectified information (truth). It is this ability that substantiated such challenges against un-vetted ideological assumptions.
Of course, any social precept is susceptible to the same type of analysis as has been made for sexism. In consequence, we can conclude that the concept of human decency is not static, being fully understood at any point in time. But that idea is capable of being sharpened and improved as our understanding of the human condition deepens.
All of the manifestations of the human condition are most accurately and rationally described by the evolutionary dynamics as revealed through the modern synthesis of Darwinism. But surprisingly, it is also apparent that the human impulses for values promoting human decency arise from those same dynamics. This is a remarkable turn of events since the casual consensus has been that Darwinism is the implacable enemy of such impulses. But that consensus is wrong and as long as we persist in the error, we deny ourselves access to that path which will allow the further expansion of the effects of these impulses in the human community. Here-to-fore these impulses were sustained only by “insights”, but now our understanding of the evolutionary process allows us to see that violation of these principles jeopardizes our survival as a species. As a consequence, they transcend and trump any precepts with which they may be in conflict, regardless of the source of such conflicting precepts - be it cultural, traditional, religious, ethnic, racial, national, linguistic, etc.
Evolutionary dynamics make it vastly unlikely that established social authorities would ever be inclined to voluntarily adopt this standard of human decency. Therefore, the standard can be efficacious only if individuals adopt it. That is, the required transformation of society is decidedly a “bottom up” rather than a “top down” operation. If each individual uses this standard, as the basis for determining which social rules they will conform to, and which they will work to subvert, the best society will evolve that is achievable.
Incidentally, for my purposes the analysis of human decency has been focused solely on how that concept applies to the assessment of social rules. However, the concept has a wider scope than that focus. We now know, for example, that human decency also prohibits such things as the gratuitous infliction of suffering on any living organism, savaging the environment for short term gain, etc.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution