Good and Evil As A Cultural Innovation

[Leo Volont]

Good and Evil As A Cultural Innovation Modern Civilization, the conventions and constructions of language, cultural traditions and social assumptions all would lead us to suppose that the distinction between Good and Evil have always existed. Indeed, in philosophical circles we even hear from time to time about a “natural morality”, that supposes that a civilized Morality hardly needs explaining, and that it should be taken for granted that even among the most ignorant and uneducated of people, it should be assumed that if they behave with evil, that they would have some consciousness of guilt. As optimistic as it may seem, the notion that Human Beings have a ‘Natural’ Morality, I suspect that the working effects of such a doctrine are to justify the vindictive moral retributions and punishments which the Greater Society would impose upon its predatory proletariat, which, though cutoff and disenfranchised in almost every way from the benefits and educational resources of that Society, by the Theory of ‘Natural’ Morality it can be asserted that these malefactors should know better and should regret it when they attack Society – breaking rules that they are supposed to know by some kind of instinct. And yet the few Philosophers who insist upon a Natural Morality are drowned out by those others who loudly propose the Doctrine of Deterrence whereby it is thought the best way to teach the Masses about the important distinctions between Good and Evil is to severely punish any unpleasant and unwanted infraction against accepted Moral Standards, supposing that the unpleasant consequences would generate an all pervading kind of ‘word of mouth’ against evil, one instance of crime at a time. The unfortunate Logic there, though, would be that people can hardly be expected to know something is wrong until they are punished for it. So it is that much contemporary Social Theory insists that there be an effective and universal attempt at public Education, which understands the importance of a Universal Social Indoctrination – that it is only fair that before Society punishes people, that they should be made aware of the Rules that they are to follow. But Education is only as effective as the Curriculum that each Society establishes, and as we find it, Education often sends mixed messages, as, for instance, we find Education teaching the doctrines of Natural Morality with one breath while explaining about Original Sin with the other – that people are both naturally good, and, then again, naturally bad. Then we have other Societies, born in rebellion, that seem to misunderstand the point of Education for securing Social Adhesion. Here, we have the example of American’s teaching the glories of their 2nd Constitutional Amendment which sets forth the principle that Common People should be armed so that they can assassinate politicians with whom they may disagree. And so we have it, upon the broad view, that notions of Good and Evil are by no means monolithic and held entirely by unanimous acclaim, but that Morality is still a matter for civilized discussion. If there is any rationale for supposing there to be a Natural Morality, it would be by the universal example of Mother-Infant Bond. Generally speaking, even very selfish women become loving care-givers to their own babies. Such selfless giving is lesson most every individual would receive from his or her own mother, and everybody has a mother. The First Generation of Civilizations were in fact the Goddess Civilizations, and their social institutions were largely Matriarchal. Goodness was seen as largely feminine. But the very success of these Civilizations served to work against them, as, during the Iron Age, Nomadic Pastoral Patriarchs, armed with cheap metal weapons, would attack the Feminine Dynasties on every side, and would effectively make Barbarism the New Civilization. Of course, Barbarism is not sustainable. So we had attempts at stabilizing the new Patriarchal Civilizations with Rules and Laws. Here we have instances of the Hammurabi Code, the 10 Commandments, and the Traditions of Chinese Legalism. Modern Secular Legalism is not much different and hopes to maintain Civilization along much the same Model. But here we need to understand that Good and Evil are not exactly the same as Legal and Illegal. The problem with purely legal distinctions is that they require a great social commitment to violent enforcement. Those who violate legal codes must be coerced into compliance. A great amount of society’s resources must be spent maintaining a ubiquitous police force, and any purely legalistic society must be a Police State. Here, one is reminded of America’s new Department of Homeland Security and its Administrations claim that Law Enforcement’s Reach can now go anywhere and without any review. But such Legalistic Police States can only survive as long as they can plow more resources into their coercive enforcements than the private sector can commit to their suppression, subversion and eventual overthrow. Here we are reminded that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not able to sustain law and order when its dissident elements were able to entice a Foreign Power into invading and then to destroy every institution that had any effect at sustaining a National cohesion. It has been said that People get the Governments that they deserve, and those who overthrow Law and Order do indeed, eventually, get what they deserve. Anyway, such Legalistic Patriarchal Civilizations did in fact intuit the weakness of a purely legalistic approach, and there were some mixed attempts at introducing Moral Codes, that is, to indoctrinate the People toward having culturally and traditionally accepted standards for behavior regarding social relationships. First taught with overwhelming heat and enthusiasm to a receptive populace, and then passed to succeeding generations from the crib, such Moral Codes would be internalized and would be largely beyond reasoned reflection – beyond considerations of belief or disbelief, but accepted as a cultural artifact. Here, Religions have done the best at inculcating such Moral Codes. Historically, Zoroastrianism, though not largely represented in the Modern Religious Communities, was the most widely influential of the Ancient Religions for its Moral Innovations. Indeed, the very concepts of Good and Evil come down to us from Zoroastrianism. We can discern from Primitive Patriarchal Behaviors and Pre-Zoroastrian Documents and Epics that beyond such admirable traits as ‘loyalty’ or ‘honor’ being lauded, very little else that we would understand as ‘good’ entered in to impede Barbaric behavior, and all of that general rapine. Zoroastrian would give Civilization its Golden Rule (both positively and negatively expressed: either “One should do to others as one would have them do to one”, or, “One should not do to others what one would not want them to do to one”. But more than the consciousness and the Teachings of Morality, which would moralize the traditions and customary behaviors of entire Peoples, perhaps the greatest influence of Religion is toward addressing the root causes of what it had discerned as ‘Evil’, and that is egotistical selfishness. Here, the most effective Religions have opposed the inclination to Selfish Evil by instructions and motivations toward Mysticism with its emphasis toward Unity, Oneness and Collectivity. Not just as a moral imperative – doing what is right as some painful duty – but by demonstrating that as one melds one’s individuality into the Universal and the Collective, one actually experiences a joy, a bliss, an actual ecstatic rapture. By Mysticism we have the moral innovation whereby the most Good are seen as being the most Happy. One can discern the results of the Decline in Religion as the Popular Mind again reverts to seeing the Most Happiness in being Selfish, and where mystical notions of collectivism are ridiculed, as modern liberal concerns for charity and social welfare are now ridiculed and attacked as being obstructive of what is now thought to be Civilized Progress, but which we will eventually find to be only the most recent historical instance of a general return to Barbarism as yet another generation of Civilizations fall into collapse. Conservative and Capitalistic Selfishness are the new Huns, the new Barbarians, intent upon destroying anything as long as when their day is done, they can carry off a Golden Candlestick or two. They confuse their success at looting Wealth with all of the institutions which go toward Society’s ability to peacefully sustain the necessary surplus wealth without which no Civilization can survive. And yet, as we look around the World, the Conservatives have only the slimmest plurality in their favor – if they are 51%, then the Mystics and the Good are at a not insignificant 49. Perhaps Civilization’s best hope now, is that in the natural oscillation of social behavior, the Pendulum of Popular Moral Behavior will return back toward Goodness. Of course, it is to be wondered where the requisite impetus would source from, as, ordinarily such dynamics would require a great popular Religious Enthusiasm. Most Modern Religions are in actual decline, and even the successful Religions are experiencing only incremental growth. So, if Civilization is to be saved, one would expect that a New Revelation would have to occur. And in this regards we should remember that anything that has happened before is therefore not impossible and may well happen again. But, yes, it does not seem too likely, and if one could possibly benefit from such a wager, I would bet that we are rather on the verge of a new Dark Ages as the great success of some Wealthy Few to concentrate all Wealth to themselves will impoverish everybody else and result in a all consuming disorder and collapse. Well, maybe then, from the ashes of absolute despair, will rise the Phoenix of Religious Moral Reconstruction.

[The Blue Meanie]

(Okay, I didn;t read anything you said, but...) I LOVE YOU LEO!!!!! Glad to have ya back.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie (Okay, I didn;t read anything you said, but...) I LOVE YOU LEO!!!!! Glad to have ya back. Hmmmmm... maybe if I found an illustrator, and bound up my Philosophies in Comic Books, then perhaps people would take the 15 minutes to read what I have to say. Indeed, I heard that the Army Department was not having any luck with soldiers reading the official manuals regarding equipment maintenance and proper supply procurements, and so they worked the material into actual Department of the Army Comic Books, featuring a busty and attractive female Sergeant illustrated with a pointer and a chalk board who walked the entire enlisted Army through what ordinarily were tiresome and boring procedures. But the habit was so strong, among so many soldiers, of paging through Comic Books, that within a years set of Publications, there had never been an Army more expert in the details of maintenance or supply, and never before in the History of the World did more soldiers actually know what they were doing. yes, I will have to create a Leo Volont Comic Book Series. Hmmmm. I wonder what color cape would be most becoming.

[sasha]

I highly recommend The Origins of Satan by Elaine Pagels. She studies the early history of Christianity. In this book, she discusses the origins of the concept of Satan and the emergence of evil within Judaism and then Christianity. It makes a solid historical argument for the development of evil as a historically contingent concept.

[wombing]

i read "the orgins of satan" a few years ago as well...very interesting and enlightening if i recall correctly. gotta love Pagels..

[Levi1057]

I was thinking about this post today as I was driving and a thought popped into my head. "What of nature vs nurture." Lets say for an instance that everyone is born with a sence of basic morality, though I'm not sure quite yet how I feel about "Natural Morality". This sence is with us until it is replaced with what could be effectively called a form of social morality. This social morality being the morals that the subject is currently surrounded by and interacts with. For instance, in a capitalistic state one would feel no guilt for obtaining a great deal more wealth than one needs to survive and live comfortably. But in some ideals people put in the same position would feel a sence of guilt and want to give away or chose all together not to pursue positions of great wealth. I then entertained the idea of "Could different people be born with different basic morals?" First off to even entertain the idea in your own mind you must first believe that a person is born with certain personality traits already associated to them. In fact I guess you would have to entertain the idea in order to relate to my whole post. But anyways, if human personalities can be categorized under certain archetypes then why cant morals, a defining part of who a person is, be categorized the same way. And if we are indeed born with a certain basic personality that falls into an archetype then why cant we be born with an archetype of morality as well? I'm sorry this isn't very informative and extremely speculative, but I would have felt an inkling of guilt not having posted it.

[gameover]

Good post. Personally, I ignore peoples assumed moralities. Good and Evil is just another meaningless dualism. Like Pride and Shame...the ultimate tool for control. Nothing is inherently good and nothing is inherently bad.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by gameover Good post. Personally, I ignore peoples assumed moralities. Good and Evil is just another meaningless dualism. Like Pride and Shame...the ultimate tool for control. Nothing is inherently good and nothing is inherently bad. I hope that right before somebody steals your car, they fuck you up your ass. Then a good bitch-slap might drive home the point that you might prefer a conventional Goodness to what has always been deplored as Conventional evil. God, it is difficult to believe how stupid some people are.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Levi1057 I was thinking about this post today as I was driving and a thought popped into my head. "What of nature vs nurture." Lets say for an instance that everyone is born with a sence of basic morality, though I'm not sure quite yet how I feel about "Natural Morality". This sence is with us until it is replaced with what could be effectively called a form of social morality. This social morality being the morals that the subject is currently surrounded by and interacts with. For instance, in a capitalistic state one would feel no guilt for obtaining a great deal more wealth than one needs to survive and live comfortably. But in some ideals people put in the same position would feel a sence of guilt and want to give away or chose all together not to pursue positions of great wealth. I then entertained the idea of "Could different people be born with different basic morals?" First off to even entertain the idea in your own mind you must first believe that a person is born with certain personality traits already associated to them. In fact I guess you would have to entertain the idea in order to relate to my whole post. But anyways, if human personalities can be categorized under certain archetypes then why cant morals, a defining part of who a person is, be categorized the same way. And if we are indeed born with a certain basic personality that falls into an archetype then why cant we be born with an archetype of morality as well? I'm sorry this isn't very informative and extremely speculative, but I would have felt an inkling of guilt not having posted it. Good points which lead us toward the notion of a Relative Morality, however, I really suppose that the Longevity of any Civilization depends upon getting their Morality just right. For instance, China has a fairly decent inventory of Moral Codes, but typically their Dynastys cycle to collapse in just a few hundred years. But Catholic Civilization was able to sustain for almost a thousand years (and that it ended at all, I blame Paulist Doctrines, the Weeds in the Wheat of Christianity).

[gameover]

Originally posted by Leo Volont I hope that right before somebody steals your car, they fuck you up your ass. Then a good bitch-slap might drive home the point that you might prefer a conventional Goodness to what has always been deplored as Conventional evil. God, it is difficult to believe how stupid some people are. Have you been raped or had your car stolen? You sound bitter. Attacking peoples intelligence is not nessecary. Is it that hard to accept that people don't think like you? Do you really feel that superior? And anyways you're missing my point entirely. I never said anything about positive and negative stimuli. There's painfull and there's pleasant, which we all react to. Good and evil is a concept created by man, not something inherent in the fabric of ones self. I make descisions based on stimuli, not morals. Having a car stolen or getting raped would be unpleasant, and of course I prefer not to have this happen. But this has nothing to do with morals or good and evil. If someone rapes me I do not think they are evil. They are, like me, reacting to stimuli. It is the concept created by man that I choose to ignore, not my basic, human physiology.

[icedawg]

Originally posted by Leo Volont I hope that right before somebody steals your car, they fuck you up your ass. Then a good bitch-slap might drive home the point that you might prefer a conventional Goodness to what has always been deplored as Conventional evil. God, it is difficult to believe how stupid some people are. We simply won't put up with crap like this from you Leo; your next ban will be permanent.