CXXXVIII
1. When my love swears that she is made of truth,
2. I do believe her though I know she lies,
3. That she might think me some untutored youth,
4. Unlearned in the world’s false subtleties.
5. Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
6. Although she knows my days are past the best,
7. Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue:
8. On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed:
9. But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
10. And wherefore say not I that I am old?
11. O! love’s best habit is in seeming trust,
12. And age in love, loves not to have years told:
A little lower than the angels.
As Dr. de Waal sees it, human morality may be severely limited by having evolved as a way of banding together against adversaries, with moral restraints being observed only toward the in group, not toward outsiders. “The profound irony is that our noblest achievement  morality  has evolutionary ties to our basest behavior  warfare,†he writes. “The sense of community required by the former was provided by the latter.â€Â
But . . .
But human ethics are considerably more complicated than the sympathy Dr. de Waal has described in chimps. “Sympathy is the raw material out of which a more complicated set of ethics may get fashioned,†he said. “In the actual world, we are confronted with different people who might be targets of our sympathy. And the business of ethics is deciding who to help and why and when.â€Â
In other words, since we are all limited beings with limited resources, where best to direct them? This is, in essence the approach of someone like Bjorn Lomborg. I like this approach; it has distinction to do with ratio-cination. I hope Nishizono chimes in.
À la recherche du chiens perdu I’d recall it, too. For a long time.
So…………did you score?
Well, that limit and maybe the loss of telomeres.
Oh wait, you said “morality” not “mortality.”
Oops.
Still, the concept of the collective loss of defining information over generations does still seem to fit in the evaluation of the defining nature of society’s collective personage. In that, as we progress generationally from the initial point of our societal creation we loose the snippets of conceptual identity that once defined the cohesion element of that initial point of a society’s generation. In that sense, we’re living in permutations of an original societal ideology. So any application of our standards on another society are difficult, in that our own society is no longer clearly ideologically defined.
If I can pull this comparison off maybe I can sit at the big kids table, because these little chairs are killing my sciatica.
That’s interesting, Rob. I’m reminded of Eric Havelock’s interesting analysis of Homeric myth and the role of the epic in transmitting cultural values, and it’s critique by Plato (who nevertheless was a great storyteller). But then again, this openness and flexibility–it’s not a suicide pact, right? Or is it?
Some degree of cultural gradualism, I think, is simply going to happen. Whether or not it’s suicidal will probably be born out in future history. I hope not.
What I find interesting is that ethics tries to tie current values to past standards by association, when the actual understanding of the terminology and the cultural ties to certain standards continues to move.
As an example, while I wouldn’t suggest that the founding fathers concept of was without division, would be “Liberty.” It was tied to concepts of freedom of religion or taxation from the state in most papers at that time. Now, when “liberty” is discussed you have people talking about freedoms. They’ll discuss Liberty in the vein of freedom of information, freedom of discrimination, freedoms of sexuality and freedom from relgion, as opposed to “freedom of.” So instead of Liberty being seen as “protection from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority” it has evolved into “the implied ability to exercise civil rights.”
Technology, history and current events move the bar on the definitions of what “Liberty” is and what it should entail. While that isn’t an intentional effect, it is safe to say that the American concept of Liberty is less cohesive that the original concept the founding fathers and their society had. In that, I believe that Dr. de Waal’s premise is also aided in that we are less likely to try to project our own concept of ethics on another culture for the additional factor that our communal ethos continues to fracture over time.
One might argue that in America’s case, this is even more prone to happen quickly in that our country is comprised of immigrants with less communal history to draw upon and no particular push to call for immigants to culturally assimilate to a concept America outside of “freedom and opportunity.”
Soak this up for what it’s worth because I think the 2 synapses I have might overheat and I’ll be back to “blazing saddles” references in no time.
I would argue that, having lived in Italy, Mexico and the Czech Republic, we have more freedom but less liberty than many places.
Don’t buy that, there’s a hell of a lot of shared values and culture in the US. Though perhaps it is fading, with the abandonment of the cowboy as a hero, and the new tradition of treating our historical figures as criminals and identity-politics fodder instead of men to be admired.
When I was a kid, “Benedict Arnold” was still an insult. I doubt it is anymore.
I’d agree, in that the government doesn’t have the same ability to make arbitrary rules that effect the day to day life there, whereas our government regulates so many things that we are unaware that we are being regulated.
Seriously, we live in a country where people are licensed to be able to “cut hair.” Consider that and realize that someone, somewhere actually had the stones to say “We shouldn’t just let anyone be certified to cut hair.” Yet, we protect reproductive freedom so that any fool can be a parent. Now, I’m not advocating restrictions on reproductive rights but isn’t being a crappy parent much worse than being a bad hair stylist?
But we protect one freedom, while giving up the name of “certification for public safety.”
It’s kind of loopy.