Okay, so why not get to work on a basic ethical philosophy for our species? It seems obviously needed, so why are we not all aware of this necessity and engaging in a cooperative, unified effort in behalf of us all? What is the nature of the resistance to doing so?
Well, one answer is that there is an almost universal belief that such is impossible, and if it is impossible, then why even think about doing it? We have better ways of using our time. Note that this is a "vicious circle." We don't do it because we believe it is impossible, and we believe it is impossible because, so far, we don't do it.
(A variation on this pessimism is the belief that, well, such change may be possible, but, if so, it will take thousands or millions of years, making such change irrelevant to ourselves now.)
Yet there are ways in which we actually do work on overcoming many of these difficulties, with indeed a little bit of progress over recent centuries.
Of course, such progress can be (and often is) discounted as insignificant by pointing to all of the many ways in which such improvement has not yet occurred (or by pointing to new problems that have appeared in the place of the old ones). And indeed this method of discounting success (by pointing to other, persisting and new failures) is the almost universal response to any advocacy for such cooperative effort that is accompanied by pointing to signs of beginning success.
(It is also very frequent that the pejorative label "idealistic" will be assigned to the person advocating for increased awareness of this significant improvement. And if that advocating person labels the beliefs involved in the above-described vicious circle as "being pessimistic," he or she will almost inevitably be told that having such beliefs is "just being realistic.")
The need to believe that significant improvement is impossible is quite strong. One important "value" of this pessimistic orientation is that it relieves those who have it of one more thing to worry about or to work on doing something about, and also of the danger of having to revise one's set of beliefs, a problem further described below.
And of course it is indeed easy to overlook the very early development of any exponential change, and therefore to deny the existence of it, because there is as yet so little evidence, and because it seems so "reasonable" to assume that things will always be the way they always have been so far (despite good examples to the contrary, such as the recent development of science and technology, that would have been hard to predict 100 years ago).
So what is the next reason that we do not do on a much grander scale what obviously needs to be done? This next reason will be our most disabling DHR phenomenon, even though not specifically listed above. Again, what we are talking about is the desirability and necessity for arriving at an agreed-upon basic ethical philosophy for our species, and the most problematic part of that goal is that which has to do with "agreement." There is a very, very strong prejudice against "agreement." And why is that?
It is relatively easily observable that the concept of coming to agreement, especially when there has been initial, fairly strong "difference of opinion," is associated to some extent, in many (perhaps most) minds, with submission. This fear of possibly submitting by "agreeing" is manifested by concern lest one be "brainwashed," or be regarded by others as having become a "follower," or "sheep."
The need to be able to demonstrate to others that one has "a mind of one's own" is associated with the fear of being regarded by others as "weak" and therefore a "loser" (easily dominated), and this painful situation is prevented by being oppositional (and even "disagree-able"). And occasionally, an individual may be so committed to being oppositional that he or she will claim to have no beliefs at all, thus implying not being subject to "being influenced," "being controlled," or "being manipulated" (or at least implying not being worried about such possibilities).
The concern lest one become submissive to another or others is further accentuated by a concern that one is being tricked into doing something for someone else, with benefit to that other person at the expense of oneself and contrary to one's own interests. Thus, there is a tendency to be quite mistrustful of anyone who is advocating that others do something, and a strong tendency to avoid "going along with" someone else, unless that other person is well known to oneself and trusted.
And even in the absence of concern about being tricked, there is the concern about being led into an activity that turns out to be a mistake (the concern about making mistakes being addressed below). So any advocacy is generally responded to by some degree of distrust and caution. (And of course such caution is reasonable, considering our awareness of how often humans have joined in with activities that have turned out to be mistakes and even tragedies.)
The next reason for avoiding agreement, that involves a change in one's beliefs, has to do with the DHR phenomenon of "tribalism." What our species has observed so far is a long history of tribalism and tribalistic warfare, from very small group conflict to international conflict. (Tribalism is, of course, part of our basic hominid nature, i.e., observed in other hominids also.) Obviously, these "tribes" (groups of individuals who identify with those groups) have had "differences of opinion" (different beliefs) as to how things should be and what should be done, and maintenance of such beliefs has often been considered a part of loyalty to the tribe (related, for example, to the current phenomenon of "political correctness").
So the incorrect, poorly recognized conclusion has been that a difference of opinion is a likely occasion for "warfare," often referred to (in its smallest version) as "argument" (using the meaning of "hostile discussion"). In other words, we have acquired an almost automatic assumption that difference of opinion, if discussed, must involve anger and hostile (verbal and nonverbal) behavior. Indeed, discussion in which difference of opinion appears is often characterized by DHR behavior, such as interrupting, talking too long, shouting down, nonverbal assertive and aggressive behavior, use of pejorative adjectives, and, in general, being "disagree-able."
There are many manifestations of this association between expression of difference of opinion and behavior that portrays anger, or at least pseudo-anger. Aggressive speech (loudness, expletives, pejorative adjectives) is assumed, often correctly, to add "weight" to the argument. Also, there is widespread belief in the value of anger, and the expectation of its presence as part of "standing up for one's beliefs." Outrage is considered evidence of one's goodness ("...with our fists and guns raised high..."). Many of us probably have to some extent a belief that "if he or she feels that strongly, then he or she must be right" (or at least better not be disagreed with). All of this is exemplary of difference of opinion being the occasion for "feeling" associated with the struggle for dominance, as opposed to rationality and the effort to achieve wisdom and agreement. (Again, this association of expression of opinion with dominance behavior increases the tendency to view agreement as submission.)
And this (hostile) behavior obviously is often a source of suffering, whatever else it might involve or produce. Some of that suffering may consist of the prolonged, painful awareness of resulting disapproval by others (with their irritation or anger toward oneself), that disapproval being manifested sometimes by behavior that is on a continuum that varies from the mild distancing of others all the way to expulsion from the "tribe," and even murder or execution, but at least stressful worry about one's "standing" within one's group or "tribe." So, coming to agreement about certain things may at times represent disagreement with, and therefore disloyalty to, one's "tribe." Agreement and obedience (conformity) become highly associated. Tribalism is a prominent part of our basic hominid nature.
This fear of agreement with disapproved of belief can be reduced or eliminated by having a way of believing that what is being agreed to actually makes one superior to (able to "look down upon") those who do not agree, such as being able to say that one is therefore a member of a group that is superior to, or more correct than, those outside that group. (And this of course allows for the development of religious or other groups that are actually dangerous to outsiders, that is, to those who are not members of one's "tribe.") So concern about being disloyal to one "tribe" can be ameliorated by simultaneous identification with another "tribe," and it is now fairly common that an individual is indeed a member of more than just one "tribe," since now we humans live in enormously large groups that consist of many smaller subgroups, several of which an individual may be a member, that may indeed be in disagreement, and even conflict, with one another.
(One method of "fighting" with another person regarding a difference of opinion is to proclaim to that person's "tribe" that the person has shifted loyalty to an enemy "tribe," perhaps, for instance, assigning a label to the person that stands for a member of that enemy "tribe," e.g., "Nazi".)
An example of this interference of tribalism in coming to agreement, or even participating in an effort to do so, specifically related to this website, is that a fair number of people currently will have nothing to do with Humanianity because it is labeled "Religion," while another set of people will have nothing to do with it because it is an effort to be ethical that is not based upon the wishes of a God. Each of these sets of people are concerned about being disloyal to their group, each group tending to have a culture that requires "staying away from" the members of the other group (at least avoiding in-depth discussion with them to acquire a good understanding of why they believe as they do).
But even during childhood, we become acutely aware of the apparent fact that difference of opinion (belief) readily leads to at least some degree of suffering. Children often learn that they are likely to be punished to some extent for expressing a difference of opinion, and they certainly can see the discomfort produced in the parent if such disagreement is expressed. It is not unusual for children to be told, "Listen to me! Don't talk back." (Again, note the apparent connection between agreement and obedience.) And when, because of punitive child rearing, the child becomes oppositional, rejection of parental beliefs may be such a manifestation, bringing about suffering on the part of the parent(s) and escalating parent-child relationship breakdown.
So we have had to find a way to deal with "difference of opinion" that could spare us this consequent suffering. We have actually found several ways.
One obvious method is that of simply stopping such discussion, or of making sure that it does not even begin. In other words, we have learned that some subjects should just not be discussed unless the conditions are just right, meaning that there is some way of being able to predict the absence of significant difference of opinion. As long as we can agree, we can eagerly discuss something ("Ain't it awful that..."), but if we disagree, then we should ignore that fact and perhaps just change the subject. And of course we can, if necessary, simply keep our distance from those who disagree.
But we have discovered that this is not the "best" we can do. We have come up with an even "better" solution, most frequently referred to as "postmodernism." The basic idea is that, since there is (apparently or presumably) no such thing as "Absolute Truth," there is simply the situation in which "what may be true for you may not be true for me." Thus, we can simply learn to "agree to disagree," and go do something else. We can share our opinions with each other, and if there is not immediate agreement, or at least agreement after some discussion (especially if anger appears), then we can "agree to disagree" and realize that further discussion will be "nonproductive."
Or, we can even set up situations (e.g., discussion groups) in which the understanding is that this is a time in which what we are actually wanting to do is to hear all the differences of opinion, which are therefore welcome, and in which there is no expectation that anyone will change his or her mind. What probably happens the most in such situations is that when an opinion is heard that sounds the same as one's own, one nods with approval and feels even more confident about being correct, and when one hears an opinion different than one's own, that just goes to show how wrong people can be and not know it, especially if they are not as capable of understanding as one's self is (all of this being more likely in such groups because of apparent disagreement based however upon poor understanding of each other due to ambiguous, metaphoric speech). And if a member of such a group proposes too strongly that attention be given to precision, consistency, and accuracy, by, for instance, advocating for agreed-upon definitions of terms, such an individual is often regarded as obstructing the activity of the group. Coming to agreement is simply not the purpose or expectation of such a group (one purpose being the demonstration of prowess, by demonstration either of knowledge, of skilled word usage, or of skillfully aggressive speech).
And the now widely accepted expectation of inability to agree is extended even further by promoting the ethical value of "tolerance," a current cultural example being "interfaith" activities. The goal, recognized as difficult, is achievement or maintenance of peaceful coexistence and cooperation despite difference of belief.
And there is at least one more very important and understandable reason for agreement not to occur in an initial situation of disagreement. It is the significant difficulty in "changing one's mind."
In the first place, the particular belief that is under consideration for possible change is connected most likely with a large number of other beliefs, all related as a part of a "belief system" (set of logically interconnected beliefs). So to change one particular belief in such a system could imply that the whole system in some ways might be faulty and in need of revision. This would disturb the confidence that one would have in the correctness of all of these other beliefs (a disturbance referred to sometimes as "cognitive dissonance").
Not only that, but the particular belief under consideration, and/or other beliefs in the belief system, may be important, for various reasons, in maintaining one's self-esteem (an important DHR phenomenon), and perhaps in maintaining confidence in some important (for self-esteem) undertakings in one's life.
One very important other reason for such connection to self-esteem is that, due to the standard model of child-rearing, in which the belief is strong that punishing the child for mistakes will be optimal in preventing those mistakes in the future, individuals raised in this manner (almost everyone) will subject themselves to internalized self-punishment in response to the recognition of having made a mistake. In other words, it can be very painful to conclude that one's self has been wrong. (That's why everyone knows that one has to take special care in calling a mistake to someone's attention, often utilizing special "tactfulness" lest the person "feel attacked," this tactfulness being an extremely pervasive DHR phenomenon.) And note that the word "wrong" has the double meaning of "incorrect" and "bad," as is further shown by the concept of having been "wronged."
So, presented here has been an effort at a fairly comprehensive explanation as to why we resist doing that which we obviously should do in order to achieve enormous benefits and perhaps even save our species from self-destruction, namely, working on coming to agreement about a basic ethical philosophy for our species. The ways of responding to difference of opinion, or belief, have so far been largely non-optimal, even at times tragic.
But if we can overcome our resistance to doing what is needed, what is it that is needed? What do we need to do?
|