HS #68 2021.3.11
Are humans good?
Are humans good? Seems like a good-hearted assumption, but this idea, advanced in two books I’m presently reading, is contrary to my Christian upbringing. Perhaps you too were taught that humans were made good but now fallen, at war with self (Romans 7), even good works are dirty rags, and in need of a new nature.
There is certainly a case to be made for a fallen nature. Consider the “terrible twos.” As soon as a child gets a will, trouble begins. Children must be patiently taught to be polite, to express appreciation, to share their toys, to bend to authority of parents. Most of us were successfully socialized, but what about our inner self? “Schadenfreude” is the German word for that (scientifically confirmed) inner pleasure we sometimes feel upon hearing of the misfortune of others. What better evidence for an evil nature!
When C.S. Lewis wrote “Screwtape Letters” theologians praised him for the research he ostensibly put into understanding the human condition. Lewis laughed it off. He explained that all he had to do was to look inside himself. Interestingly, Raymond Smullyan (“The Tao is Silent”) did the same – looked inside himself - but he came to the opposite conclusion. Then generalizing to others, as did Lewis, he concluded that others must also be basically good.
Smullyan does not claim to be faultless. He just observes that his deep wish is to do good and to be good. The fact that he doesn’t always live up to his aspirations only shows that other things get in the way. But he takes his desire for goodness to be indicative of “his real self.” Indeed, if you, like me, sometimes experience Schadenfreude, then you may also, like me, experience shame at feeling it. So at our core, perhaps we are good.
The Apostle Paul made a similar, but different, argument in chapter 7 of Romans. He claimed that “his members” were at war not with his basic good human nature, but with his new nature in Christ. That seems presumptuous. Did Paul think that those without “the new nature” do not have similar conflicts? Did Paul not have the same conflicts before his conversion? Of course he did.
But perhaps the conflict is not between a new/good nature and an evil nature, but instead is simply a conflict between two Darwinian drives. If we are wired both for self-preservation and preservation of our group/species, then the conflict that arises between these drives may be what we interpret as good versus evil.
Let me explain: Notice that the drive to preserve oneself leads to behaviors we condemn as bad/sinful: selfishness, cheating, lying, stealing, coveting, hoarding, promiscuity, materialism. These are actions and tendencies that serve the individual at the expense of the community.
On the other hand, our drive to preserve our species leads to behaviors we praise as desirable/good: charity, recycling, volunteering, kindness, self-sacrificial giving, honesty (so others can trust you), caring for the earth and wild animals (for the benefit of future generations).
If our behavior results from competing genetic drives, how did we come to condemn one set of behaviors as “bad” while praising the other as “good”? Perhaps we are just selfishly encouraging others to behave in a way that benefits us, so we label their self-centered behavior as bad because it doesn’t benefit us. How ironic! We selfishly encourage others to be unselfish.
Do humans in fact sacrifice their own happiness for that of others, or do we just gain happiness from helping others? Also, is this inner struggle between drives uniquely a human phenomenon? My father once observed that no guilt-stricken dog ever returned a stolen steak back to a butcher.
Patricia Churchland’s, “Conscience: The Origins of Moral Intuition” provides helpful insight to these questions. She observes that only some animals – mammals in particular – have this double devotion to themselves AND to their group. Why? The warm-bloodedness of mammals provides advantages such as moving at night and greater territory to live. But there are significant disadvantage too. In particular, it takes ten times as much energy (i.e., food) to live. Acquiring that food requires greater intelligence – hence a larger brain. And a larger brain means that infants must be born more premature – thus requiring the care of a mother and often a group. It takes a village.
Hence many mammals, primates in particular, are wired to preserve both the individual and the group giving rise to the conflicting urges we label as evil and good. How interesting!
