TT's Lost in Tokyo

A recent post on the Mises Daily pages on the "Religious Roots of Liberty" by the late Congregationalist minister Rev. Edmund Optiz (1914-2006) (originially published in The Freeman, February 1955) provides an opportunity to restate and discuss some of the thoughts I`ve been working though on evolution, group dynamics, religion and on the assertions of some that there is an "objective moral order".

It seems like quite a bit to chew, I know, but I dared (with the modesty and boldness of the inexpert, of course) to venture a few thoughts.

I copy below some of my comments and related dialogue on the comment thread (minor edits):

• TokyoTom

• I see I`m late to this discussion, but I`ll note I was thinking related thoughts and just put up a blog post on the subject of evolution, group dynamics, religion and an "objective moral order" of the type that Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy assert but won`t trouble themselves to spell out; it`s here for those interested:
  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/28/fun-with-self-deception-those-who-espouse-an-quot-objective-quot-moral-order-act-refuse-to-elucidate-or-act-as-if-there-is-none.aspx

  Briefly as to this piece by Rev. Optiz: while religion has undeniably played a crucial historical role in organizing Western society, and still plays an important role in the voluntary organization of society and, at times, in opposing state tyranny, we should try to understand the roots of religions, how they have been employed to organize us and how they have been abused to control us and to lead us into conquering and/or slaughtering rival groups, whether "heathen" or merely of a different sect.

  Organized religions sprang from less-organized tribal faiths, and, like those faiths, served to improve group cooperation and cohesion. Groups successful in intergroup conflicts - largely by ruthlessly putting to sword those with different gods - brought their religions with them. This was certainly the case of the Hebrews; Christianity spread because an opportunistic Constantine found in it a useful way to enhance his power and to improve the cohesion of his troops and empire. Mohammed likewise saw in his visions and his experience with "people of the Book" a way to expand his own power and to unite Arabs (later Caliphs took this further to build empires).

  Rev. Optiz is clearly right that, within religious societies, "the Book" served as a check on unwary secular leaders, who nevertheless always strove to coopt religious leaders. But modern secular society and the US political system are both far away from the Book, whether Biblical prescription or the Constitution. This leaves us vulnerable to the continued growth of the state, and to potential conflict as people look for group protection, inevitably in some in groups that preach exclusion rather than inclusion.

• Published: August 28, 2009 11:23 AM

• TokyoTom

• "tyranny is always a denial — or a misunderstanding — of the mandates of an authority or law higher than man himself." [a quote from Rev.　Optiz]

  Sorry, but while I believe in the laws of physics and am aware of the deep evolutionary roots of our need for various but mutually contradictory faiths, I see no "law" higher than man.

  Rather, there has always been a tension between the individual, his needs for groups, and the restrictions and demands that others - including the leaders of the groups - wish to impose on him. What we call "tyranny" is simply the condition when individuals (and sub-groups) find the demands of the larger group (and those who marshall force) to be intolerable.

• Published: August 28, 2009 11:33 AM

• fundamentalistf

• TT: " But modern secular society and the US political system are both far away from the Book, whether Biblical prescription or the Constitution. This leaves us vulnerable to the continued growth of the state..."

  Very true. That's why we have witnessed the growth of the state correlating with the decline of traditional Christianity in the West. Unfortunately, atheists and agnostics are not siding with freedom; they are overwhelmingly socialist. So far, atheists and agnostics have faile miserably since the enlightenment at establishing freedom.

  TT: “While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation…”

  So what you’re saying is that random mutations occurred that gave some individuals a moral code which in turn gave them a survival advantage. However, if you want to be scientific about it, you have to have some kind of evidence. Has anyone found the “morality” gene? Where is the evidence that morality has certain groups an advantge over those without the “morality” gene? It seems to me you are swallowing a great deal on pure faith.
  But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re correct that morals are nothing but a random mutation that gave some humans an edge in surviving. Why are we bound to follow today such accidents that gave humans that advantage millions of years ago? That doesn’t mean they’ll give us an advantage today.

  Besides, there has been some variation in morality over the centuries. Genghis Khan took great pride in slaughtering every person in a city he conquered and making mountains out of their skulls. Of course, there was the morality of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Is it possible that several different genetic mutations occurred and caused these differing views on morality? If so, that means that our genes can’t claim that Hitler’s genes were immoral; they were just different.

  As you can see, claiming genetic status for morality does not help escape the problems involved in moral relativity. If morality isn’t transcendant, that is, doesn’t come from some one with greater authority than man (or in your case an accident inside of man), then everyone is free to choose his own morality, even one that elevate murder to a sacred act.

• Published: August 28, 2009 1:37 PM

• fundamentalistf

• PS,
  TT, you'll find the answers to the questions you posted on your blog in the works of natural law philosophers. A good intro is "Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume" by Stephen Buckle.

• Published: August 28, 2009 1:40 PM

• TokyoTom

• Roger, thanks for your comments.

  That's why we have witnessed the growth of the state correlating with the decline of traditional Christianity in the West.

  While I agree about the vulnerability, I wouldn`t lay that as a principal cause for the growth of the Western state, for which I would simply point to a loss of control by Rome and greater technological means for coercion and influence. See Hayek.

  atheists and agnostics are not siding with freedom; they are overwhelmingly socialist.

  An interesting thought, but who supported all of nonsense of the Bush administrations? And certainly the vast majority of voters wouldn`t touch an atheist with a 10-foot pole. Anyway, what brings you to your conclusion?

  So what you’re saying is that random mutations occurred that gave some individuals a moral code which in turn gave them a survival advantage. However, if you want to be scientific about it, you have to have some kind of evidence.

  It doesn`t seem you`ve looked at my links; Yandle might make the most agreeable start.

  Obviously things are more nuanced than your statement; we are close cousins of highly social animals (bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas) that are highly socialable and display much of the same reciprocal behavior, including the means of enforcing it, and the disparate treatment of those less closely related or familiar and of those entirely outside the group (viz., the other or "enemies").

  I`m merely postulating that human groups that proved better at internal cooperation were more likely to be successful when faced with environmental challenges and opportunities, and to pass their genes along, which gave rise to our innate sense of "fairness" and to tribal rules and religions. We clearly have much greater inherent abilities to cooperate; indeed, the relatively longer infancy and childhood of our species requires such cooperation. We are good not only at reading faces and the intentions of others, but signalling our own via various clues - including being unique among mammals in having white sclera, the better to show others what we`re thinking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13tomasello.html. The fact that we give so much away is a strong indicating that doing so was to our advantage; viz., that we benefit from cooperation.

  More proof of course can be easily seen in the fact that societies groups with greater internal cohesion tend to do well in inter-group competion. Such cohesion was foster by religions (which also fostered the formation of larger societies that were better able to engage in specialization), as well as by more basic tribal reactions that put group pressure on dissenting individuals.

  Why are we bound to follow today such accidents that gave humans that advantage millions of years ago? That doesn’t mean they’ll give us an advantage today.

  We can`t change human nature, but we can be aware of it, and we do, via culture (and formal/informal institutions, such as property) try to channel it productively and to dampen socially costly excesses. Much of this has not been a deliberate process, but simply a process of the survival of successful societies.

  there has been some variation in morality over the centuries. Genghis Khan took great pride in slaughtering every person in a city he conquered and making mountains out of their skulls. Of course, there was the morality of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

  A close look at what you call variation in morality seems to me to be purely a cultural advance as societies extends their boundaries by created wider, more inclusive bonds, both through religion and law. But we have ALWAYS treated outsiders differently from insiders; moral codes were group codes that created few if any rights to or responsibilities towards outsiders. Few societies have blinked an eye at the slaughter of those considered to be outsiders; the same can still be seen in our blase lack of concern for the deaths of Iraqis generated by our toppling of Saddam (which has surely been orders of magnitude greater than ours), or for "collateral damage" in our pursuit of those whom we sometimes called "freedom fighters".

  Has there been a continued evolution of man in the past few thousand years? Surely; we can see it the spread of lactose tolerance, for example. But as cultural standards are so important to morality, it is impossible for now to tease out a biological evolution in morality.

  If so, that means that our genes can’t claim that Hitler’s genes were immoral; they were just different.

  This is confused; we all have different genes, and the expressing of those genes (phenotype) is strongly influenced by culture, up-bringing and experience. But we do see generalizable differences in male and female behavior, for example; females had the job of raising children and protecting the hearth, while men and less to risk in struggles for power and more to gain in confronting out-groups.

  Thus our societies have always had different moral codes for men and women, and our cold, mass-murdering marauders have always been men.

  claiming genetic status for morality does not help escape the problems involved in moral relativity.

  Agreed!

  If morality isn’t transcendant, that is, doesn’t come from some one with greater authority than man (or in your case an accident inside of man), then everyone is free to choose his own morality, even one that elevate murder to a sacred act.

  First, our undeniable reliance on communities for support is not an "accident", but is something that proved powerfully advantageous, just as it remains part of our genetic make up.

  Second, certainly in many (if not most), killing outsiders (what we even today loathe to call "murder") has been sanctioned, perhaps even "sanctified" (an certainly the slaughter of outsiders has been frequently blessed by in-group moral/religious authorities) - which of course implies a group ethic and not a purely personal choice.

  But of course, the looser societies are, the weaker the formal and informal group sanctions and more individuals are left to their own decisions. Thus, as the state has coopted and supplanted voluntary society, the more "immoral", licentious and selfish behavior that we see.

  Finally, in my view morality has never truly been "transcendent", but is derived from a shared inheritance of strong interpersonal cooperation, further shaped by the groups within which we "grow up", which groups all have their own (and mutually contradictory) "sacred postulates".

  TT

  PS: Thanks for pointing to Buckle; my quick question would be whether "natural law" is something that applies to the behavior of all life forms, or simply man (and would blink out of existence if man were to).

Link to this post.