Selfishness and Human Dependence, Part 2 Whence Values?  Whither Values?

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

In Part 1, I claimed that mammals are basically selfish (as in self-sufficient), but that our species has got itself into a situation where individuals are very dependent on others. Think of how many things you do in a day – such as ride in a car or a bus – that you could never have done if others hadn’t assisted.

I say we have “got ourselves into a situation”  — meaning it is not our natural evolved condition. In fact, only a few centuries ago most people grew their own food. They did not depend on others. If course there is an exception for children – they have always needed help until maturity.

I stated in Part 1 that “Neither courage nor skill can help an individual survive if the social arrangement of food-getting breaks down.” You could almost ask “What’s the point of having courage and skill these days?” What we need is something else – some way to deal with our extreme dependence.

One possible way to deal with it – and I do not rule this out – would be to break up into much smaller groups. Yes, we’d still be dependent, but we would be able to negotiate for things face-to-face. Today it seems impossible to do that. Everything is mediated by money. To “get your way,” you pay.

Forget the World-Union Idea

I have elsewhere advocated that any international or global system of societies be abandoned. I think it is a trick of the mind that teaches us to pursue any trajectory to its limit. One thinks: “If it’s beneficial to combine cities or towns into states, and states or provinces into nations, why not go all the way and combine nations into a ‘family of man?’” – or some such nonsense.

At the very least we need to see this mental trick for what it is. Any decision to combine our smaller societies into large ones should be made with an eye to various costs and benefits, not just devotion to a trajectory. Puh-leeze.

Consider how the wonderful nations of Europe got prodded into forming the European Union. This started out with the “Benelux” countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) forming some kind of league. Well, OK, a league is only a league. Then there were step-ups to something that could be justified as a trading entity, such as the Coal and Steel Union, and then, in 1957, the “EEC,” also called the Common Market.

Before you know it, the middle ‘E’ in European Economic Community left the building, and governments were ‘naturally’ seen to give way to a super-state, the EU. In that arrangement, an Italian could not fight out his rights or his wishes with members of his clan, his nation. He had to win over some Danes and some Dutch into the bargain. What a joke.

What Is a Society?

In those animal species that have societies, it is easy enough for a zoologist to know what the society consists of. Indeed she probably has an idea of how many members will constitute the group. Usually the set-up remains constant over generations. The society involves predictable relationships such as leader-to-led, and some division of labor, such as males as hunters.

In insects, society is all the more identifiable. The bees that belong to a particular hive are the members of that society. In ants, two neighboring colonies are not only unlikely to mix and mingle, they are likely to go to war against each other. There is no “family of ant,” shall we say.

Please don’t think I am saying we should take our cue from any other species. I don’t even think that knowing the ‘original’ human arrangement is going to be a firm guide. However, it is safe to assume that our emotions are geared to whatever that original arrangement was. And it was certainly not “the EU.”

The Family

I am eager to go against the tide of current fashion and say that families are a basic and indispensable part of human society. They are the building blocks from which larger clans and tribes formed.  Needless to say, the family is also the source of guidance and education of the young, Plato’s ‘kibbutz’ and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” notwithstanding.

Ask any persons where they got their values. They will say “at home.” So, all right, I would go so far as to say that there’s a basis for describing what human society is: it has to include the family.

(I realize that some young people will think I am off my noodle for saying that. I can only retort that forty years ago if anyone even raised a doubt that families are basic, the audience would have been rolling in the aisles.)

Where Do Values Come From?

In Part 1, I discussed the book by ME Thomas, “Confessions of a Sociopath.” She tells us that her values do not include justice or caring. Her main value is Number One at all times. Where did that come from? I believe it came from Nature, just as the value of justice – for most people – comes from nature.

Our social leaders do not have to get up and preach at us to be selfish, or to lie, steal, or rape. We do that anyway. What I mean is, the point of preaching is to persuade us to hold back on selfishness and do something for society. Like the sociopath, Ms Thomas, we are already equipped to take care of Number One.

Preaching is often quite successful — we apparently have a mind that goes in for imagining idealistic arrangements. Most preachers go an extra step and say that the ideal came from an external source, God. This may make it palatable and indeed may give the whole thing a sacred quality that does not grace a mere proposal based on enlightened self-interest.

Yet, when people are trained into rational ways of thinking, they not only accept a plan based on enlightened self-interest, they would no doubt come up with that suggestion themselves. I think this is because the basic unit is the selfish person, and to get him so do more than he is inclined to do, you show him the mathematics of allocating the burdens fairly to all.

How To Sort Through Human Values?

Here is a laundry-list of values that I have experienced or heard about:

respect for every individual, help for the handicapped, honor for the aged, appreciation for gifts and favors, protection of women and children, honesty, patriotism, the work ethic, fairness, a fair go, education, stewardship of the planet, beauty, recognition of tradition and of the ancestors, modesty in dress, time to rest, a place for artistic creativity – etc.

In simple animals, we can see that their primary value may be sunshine, or moisture, or the company of others. They seek what they need for survival. These things are called, by us, their values. I mean we attach the name ‘value’ to whatever is already existing as their modus vivendi.

I always worry when an English word means two different things. Following from what was just said about animal values, I suppose it would be correct to say that our values include such things as water and light and communication. Basic stuff. But the more common use of the word ‘value’ has to do with what was said earlier about preaching. Let’s stick with that: social values are what we are encouraged to strive for.

Is One Value More Defensible Than Another?

ME Thomas’s book “Confessions of a Sociopath” makes a reasonable case that her values are “OK.” She has ambition and perseverance, even when her goal is to harm someone, or at least defeat them in order that she win the prize. Because she claims she has no way of relating to empathy – she just cannot feel that emotion – she wants us to respect her.

I do not advocate praising the values of a sociopath. Ms Thomas estimates that between 1 and 4 percent of people are like her. That’s quite a problem for the rest of us! Our way of life has to involve sharing. There are no hermits. (I suppose Ms Thomas realizes that her survival depends on the help of many people.)

If everyone signed up for sociopathy, that would reduce us to what has been called “the law of the jungle.”  Oops, that’s a misnomer, as there was never a time when we lived like sociopaths. On the road from earlier primates to hominids to humans, there was always a considerable amount of biological altruism. Every mother has to be altruistic to her offspring and this spills over to other relationships.

What about the Value of Justice?

Don’t forget, too, that our species has a high level of instinctive reciprocal altruism. We do a favor for others and expect it will be returned someday. Any such trait that is emotionally present in us now must have been in the genome as soon as H sapiens made its debut thousands of years ago. Altruism is not under rational control.

Sociobiologist Robert Trivers has suggested that the evolved trait of reciprocal altruism is the explanation for our penchant for justice. I am sure he is right. Consider the fact that the Code of Hammurabi, 3700 years ago, called for an eye for “an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” People who have reciprocity built into them genetically will look for solutions that seem fair.

That law, known as lex talionis, means a legal approval of retaliation. In Anglo-Saxon history, the person was allowed to pay ‘wergild,’ a money compensation for injury. Modern courts may also award punitive damages to a plaintiff.

Punishment is reckoned in a similar way, with justice in mind. A person may receive so many lashes for having caused general harm to society, or merely for having sinned. When have you ever heard anyone say that wrongdoers should not be punished? It is natural. I am sure we will always be on this tack.

Please stay tuned for Part 3 of “Selfishness and Human Dependence.”

Mary W Maxwell is co-author with Dee McLachlan of a new book, “Truth in Journalism.” She can be reached at GumshoeNews.com or at ProsecutionForTreason.com.