(Prague, Czech Republic—23 December 2011)
Anyone who’s observed behavior in the natural world must concede that deception is normal behavior. Animals (and plants) routinely misrepresent themselves in order to survive and flourish. So if judged by the ethical systems we homo sapiens have developed—the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and even many legal codes—plants and animals are chronic liars, cheaters, thieves. And they often get away with it. Justice? There is none in the natural biological world, at least not the kind of justice we imagine.
So why are we so surprised to discover this animal we call homo sapiens is any different, at least in terms of its (that is, our) natural tendencies? It seems apparent that we’re swimming upstream when trying to use ethical systems that are very recent in homo sapien evolution (a few thousand years) to alter deceptive behaviors that proved to have high adaptive value during millions of years of biological evolution.
It’s hard work, swimming upstream. Easier to go with the flow. But that isn’t what civilization does. By definition, civilization is the creation of an alternate universe in which humanly created ethical values hold sway over older biological values. Civilization requires us to go against the flow. But we get lazy. Or lack self-discipline. Or get tired. And some of us don’t learn the alternate rules very well anyhow. So our ancient underlying biological values frequently win out. Result: routine lying, cheating and thievery (not to mention aggression, war and other forms of predation).
Seeing the world in this way is not cynical, in my view. Quite the opposite: It’s smart. Why? Because it helps me feel less dismay (and less despair) when we homo sapiens behave like all other animals instead of the human beings—part beast and part angel—that we aspire to become. After all, we are very new to this project of becoming human beings.
And for those among us who believe that natural biological values should hold dominance—who assume that in a “free unregulated marketplace” the most adaptive behaviors will win out—I offer this cautionary note: While “temporary” adaptive and survival value should never be underestimated in the biological kingdom, it can prove short-sighted when a species holds the technological means to permanently alter its own ecology. In a civilized world, “long-term” adaptive and survival value must become our primary concern if we are to address the more critical challenges confronting us, challenges that we ourselves have created: overpopulation, eco-destruction, pollution, nuclear waste, and climate change. In addressing those challenges, temporary “short-term” responses will likely prove adaptively insufficent and disastrous to our survival.
Good one! I totally agree that we need to think of the long term, in public policy. I may even blog about that myself.
Anyway, welcome to blogging!
Thanks for the welcome, Willie. And for exploring these philosophical musings. I’ll be adding more from my “back list” over time.
Christopher
I am especially fascinated by the entry “The Truth About Lying”. I read through it with such excitement and was truly engrossed in the words. During the second to last paragraph I wanted to read more about human nature and your insights on deception: “Seeing the world in this way is not cynical, in my view. Quite the opposite: It’s smart. Why? Because it helps me feel less dismay (and less despair) when we homo sapiens behave like all other animals instead of the human beings—part beast and part angel—that we aspire to become. After all, we are very new to this project of becoming human beings.”
If you ever have the time, I would love for you to expand on this topic. It is an excellent essay! What a pleasure to read. Thank you.
Thanks for the kind note, Sheri. I agree that this subject (honesty, lying, deception, trickery, cheating, morality, ethics, etc.) is endlessly fascinating. I think about it, and read about it, constantly.
In a superb book I recently read, Edward O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of the Earth, the author makes an important point about the social consequences of cheating (a form of lying). Wilson observes that when competition between members in a group becomes more important than cooperation/collaboration among them, then individuals begin to cheat in order to win (beat the others). Once that tipping point is reached, the overall group becomes more vulnerable to other groups in the competition between groups. Why? Because a group of cooperators/collaborators will consistently beat a group of competitors. This has been shown repeatedly by both history and social science experiments.
So, on the social level (where ethical/unethical behavior matters), not cheating is clearly more beneficial than cheating——and not lying is more beneficial than lying——if a group wants to survive and flourish in a world where it must compete with other groups. I think that observation can be applied to cultures and countries. If they collectively follow civilized values and principles, they are more apt to endure. But as I note in my short essay above, we humans are still learning how to do this, and our progress with the learning sometimes seems agonizingly slow!