Intelligent biological life is unlikely to persist on a cosmic timescale. The universe is simply too volatile and inhospitable to biology of the sort we are familiar with.
At some point, relatively soon after the singularity event, I believe we will effectively become post-biological — probably in a manner similar to that described in the transcension hypothesis — and move into “inner space” (that is, we will move outside of our universe, in a sense, and into a preference-optimizing simulation).
At this point I believe we will join a galactic or intergalactic community of post-biological or synthetic biological entities. A community whose scout probes — that is, what we call UAP (most likely AGI-controlled von Neumann probes) — are probably already here in anticipation of the emergence of our singularity event.
These scout probes may also be steering this process in subtle ways, preparing for our transition, or, more ominously, standing guard in case there is an alignment problem that constitutes a threat to their (and / or our) existence.
Whoever wins this race to the singularity is who will determine our future — that is, what values will dictate our future, and our possible position in the cosmic community.
This situation is highly concerning, considering that our superpower governments have little concern for the suffering of non-human sentient beings, and many do not even have a great deal of concern for human suffering.
An AGI that develops under the influence of these value systems could place national (or ruling class) imperatives over universal concern for sentient life (perhaps setting out to dominate rather than liberate).
It is my hope that something akin to Pearcean abolitionism (constrained, Walk-Away-from-Omelas negative utilitarianism) or Ataraxism guides AGI development / alignment. And that something similar guided ET artificial superintelligence — if, indeed, that is what created these UAP.
When we think about young people, we tend to catalogue their errors — their naiveté, their recklessness, their pretensions. What we rarely stop to consider is the ways in which they are, in some important respects, wiser than the aged.
Unsplash
I want to argue for a specific and qualified version of this claim. The wisdom of youth is not the wisdom of experience or reflection — young people plainly lack these. It is something closer to what Nietzsche called the wisdom of the body: an instinctual attunement to life as something to be lived fully, joyously, and without the accumulated weight of irrational fears and social performances. It is a wisdom that most of us lose not because we get older, but because we are worn down, perhaps purposely so in some respects. Through this process we are gradually inducted into the neuroses of the dominant culture.
Epicurus precisely diagnosed the central sources of adult misery: the fear of death, the fear of divine punishment, the craving for status and wealth—the belief that happiness lies just beyond the next acquisition or achievement. He argued that most human suffering is self-inflicted — born not of genuine hardship but of mistaken beliefs about what we need. Two thousand years later, his diagnosis reads like a portrait of contemporary adulthood. Most adults are, in some fundamental sense, miserable. They clamor for status — the good job, the big house, the happy marriage performed for an audience — or for the special attention that comes with victim status. These things become obsessions, consuming the energy that might otherwise go toward actually living.
Young people, before they have been fully inducted into these games, tend to see through them. They would rather be with their friends. They want to move, play, create, experience. This is not mere ignorance — or not only ignorance. It reflects a kind of bodily intelligence: an organism oriented toward vitality and connection rather than toward the management of symbolic status. The Nietzschean point is that this attunement is not naivety to be overcome but a something to be recovered.
Of course, the corruption begins early. Status games emerge in adolescence — partly because of the prison-like social environments young people are thrust into — and the dominant culture does its work relentlessly. Guilt, shame, metaphysical terror: these are the tools adults use to bring young people to heel. Religious authorities have long specialized in weaponizing the fear of death and punishment — the very fears Epicurus identified as the roots of human oppression or self-oppression — against the young. What is striking is not that young people sometimes succumb to these pressures, but that they so often resist them, or at least recognize the absurdity of what is being asked of them.
Young people are also frequently idealistic, and adults love nothing more than to crush this. “Life isn’t fair” — deployed not as a nuanced observation but as a thought-terminating cliche, most often by those with a stake in the unfairness continuing. What the cliché omits is the only part worth saying: life isn’t fair; we must accept what we cannot change and work on what we can. The idealism of youth, tempered rather than extinguished, is a resource — not a symptom of inexperience.
The goal, then, is not to remain young, but to recover what was worth keeping. To live for pleasure and connection again, but less recklessly. To reclaim idealism, but with a clearer eye for what is and isn’t within our control — the central Epicurean and Stoic discipline. To shed the status obsessions and irrational death-fears that culture pressed into us, and find again what Nietzsche described as the seriousness of a child at play.
“A man’s maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play.” — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Without question the Christian Bible contains some timeless and sound moral principles.
For one, there is the golden rule — a moral maxim that predates Christianity, and is common to most of the world’s religions and life philosophies, in one form or another. In the Bible, the golden rule is expressed in a variety of ways. Most succinctly it is stated as: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31).
The principle of universal beneficence to other humans is also expressed in Galatians 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), makes it clear that all people are to be considered “thy neighbor”.
There are many admonishments in the New Testament against self-righteous judgement of others, and hypocrisy (e.g., Matthew 7:3–5; Matthew 23:24; Jesus and the woman taken in adultery). Many of our modern over-zealous moralists could benefit from reading these passages. There are also many passages on the importance of forgiveness and compassion (e.g., Ephesians 4:31–32) — two things that the world definitely needs more of.
In contradiction of this noble wisdom stands the fact that most of the Bible is devoted to hatefulness and commandments to violence. Below are several examples.
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for actions that our society does not even consider criminal.
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB).
“All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense” (Leviticus 20:9 NLT).
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT).
“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB).
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21 KJV).
“But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21 NAB).
The Bible is degrading to women.
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are” (Exodus 21:7 NLT).
“When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening” (Leviticus 15:19–22 NIV).
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is god. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9 KJV). *Note: New Testament verse.
“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16 KJV).
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 NLT).
“Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law” (I Corinthians 14:34–35 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.
“Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression” (I Timothy 2:11–14 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.
“’Have you allowed all the women to live?’ he asked them. ‘They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man’” (Numbers 31:15–17 NIV).
“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity” (Deuteronomy 25:11–12 NIV).
The Bible is not tolerant of other religions.
“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him” (Deuteronomy 13:13–19 NLT).
“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:7–12 NAB).
“Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death” (Deuteronomy 17:2–5 NLT).
“He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20 KJV).
The Bible does not condemn slavery.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property” (Exodus 21:20–21 NAB).
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever” (Exodus 21:2–6 NLT).
“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them” (1 Timothy 6:1–2 NIV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.
The God of the Bible desires animal sacrifice.
“The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you are to offer a male without defect. You must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting so that it will be acceptable to the Lord. You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting. You are to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar. You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord’” (Leviticus 1:1–9).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Many Argue that Jesus does away with the Old Testament Law, but, in fact, he seems to support it — at the least, he does not seem to oppose it.
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid” (Luke 16:17 NAB).
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matthew 5:17 NAB).
Further, the Trinitarian doctrine — which most Christians espouse — confusingly holds that the Old Testament God, Yahweh, and Jesus are but different manifestations of the same entity.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clearly the Bible does not accord with our modern consensus morality on most issues. Nor does it give much consideration to the suffering of non-human animals. It is easy to see how some of these passages may have inspired the historical atrocities committed by believers.
Moral foundations theory describes how humans evolved to possess innate moral impulses. These impulses drive us to value:
fairness
purity
in-group loyalty
liberty
caring for others
respect for authority
These six moral foundations are found across all human cultures, however, they are expressed and understood in various ways depending on the particular culture or subculture in question.
Moral impulses were selected for in our evolutionary history due to the fact that they are essential to a social species, and because they tend to enhance group fitness. In a society these moral impulses are codified into laws and moral norms —what we generally refer to as morality.
Morality, however, is often a double-edged sword.
While moral impulses and moral norms tend to enhance group fitness, some moral systems may harm group fitness. And unrestrained morality, in any society, has the potential to be a serious threat to the well-being and liberty of the individual.
Those who run afoul of popular morality have been treated with extreme cruelty throughout human history — either by a retributive (rather than remedial) legal system or through vigilante acts. Morality has also been used to drum up support for various forms of violent aggression (e.g., pogroms, terrorism, wars of aggression, etc.), and it has been weaponized in order to persecute those who have simply been accused of wrongdoing.
In recent times we see this type of abuse associated with “cancel culture”, however, this phenomenon is nothing new (for historical example see: McCarthyism, witch hunts, the Inquisition).
A modern philosophically and scientifically informed view of morality demonstrates the complexity of moral questions, and it confirms descriptive moral relativism — that is, it shows that what is considered morally good (or bad) in regards to particular issues changes over time and varies from culture to culture. This fact provides prima facie grounds for being skeptical about moral realism, and at the very least it should make us question the epistemological status of generally accepted morality.
A philosophically informed view also provides prima facie reasons (at the least) to be skeptical about free will. If humans do indeed lack metaphysical freedom of will, then no one can be said to be deserving of punishment. Even if we assume some degree of free will, there are many reasons to oppose cruel punishments, and any sort of aggressive violence in general. Additionally, ignorance and neuro- or psychopathology are much more parsimonious explanations of antisocial behavior than metaphysical evil (all of which are possibly remediable).
In consideration of this view, one may be tempted to give up on the project of morality entirely (that is, to accept a passive form of moral nihilism), but this would be a mistake. Morality is necessary for the practical functioning of human society.
What is needed is a system of morality that is grounded in compassionate understanding, and which is appropriately restrained by philosophical reason.
Plato, and Freud — who borrowed from Plato in his work — wrote about why morality must be restrained or guided by reason. Both Plato and Freud viewed the human psyche as being divided into three parts: a rational part, a primitive desire-driven part, and a moral part. Plato uses the analogy of a charioteer (reason) who has to restrain and coordinate the actions of a white horse (morality) and a black horse (primitive desire). Freud describes a tripartite psyche divided into the ego (the organism’s conception of self — which uses reason to understand the world), a superego (morality), and an id (primitive desire). These conceptions are helpful when we think about the influence of morality on the individual, and on society.
Both of these thinkers emphasized the importance of reason as a moderating force to restrain or guide these two instinctual drives. If either of these instinctual drives is given too much freedom the individual will be in peril (as will be those they interact with).
Reason, for example, informs us that retribution and cruel punishment are not actions that have clear justifications (see my point about free will above). Rational analysis also shows us that we should withhold assent to some moral impulses — such as those to purity — since they are outmoded in light of a modern understanding (such as a modern understanding of disease causation).
If one’s moral impulses are not restrained by reason, they may become an inspiration for cruelty in the form of retribution, hate, and aggressive violence. History is rife with examples of aggrieved groups standing up to injustice, only to end up matching or overshadowing the injustice of those they opposed. We see this today in some of the most zealous segments of the cultural Right and Left.
Generally speaking, certain segments of the cultural Left want to enact violence on those who do not share their conceptions of the moral foundations — their egalitarian view of care and fairness, and their emphasis on positive conceptions of liberty; whereas those in certain segments of the radical Right want to enact violence on those who do not share their in-group loyalty / care, their meritocratic conception of fairness, and their emphasis on negative liberty.
If one’s moral code can be used to justify a non-defensive infliction of harm, then it is not sufficiently restrained by reason. And without reason we have no hope of arriving at significant intersubjectivity about moral questions — we will only have competing systems of morality based on epistemically suspect cultural conventions like dogmatic religion or folk wisdom.
If we do not challenge priggishness on the individual level we risk developing a judgmental attitude that results in conflict and possible social alienation; similarly, internally focused judgment can harm us by engendering unproductive guilt and shame. On the societal level we risk the possibility of letting anger and vindictiveness grow until violent conflict is unavoidable. Only critical thought and reason can prevent these damaging consequences.
Abstract/ TL;DR: Many modern secular moralists act in ways that are counterproductive to the urgent cause of creating a more just society — especially by exhibiting an alienating sanctimoniousness and over-zealousness for morally condemning others. The pejorative term “social justice warrior”, with its connotations toward self-righteousness and officiousness, is often used to describe such individuals. To effectively advocate for social justice we must combat this tendency to hyper-moralize or use morality as a weapon for “canceling” or punishing those who do not share our views; instead, I propose that advocates of social justice should adopt an approach that is more compassionate and more conducive to changing individual minds and changing society.
Social Justice Warriors: The New Moralists
There has always been a tendency in society that leans toward moral obsessiveness. Historically, obsessive moralists were religious theists that believed the creator of the universe had handed down moral imperatives, however, in modern society secular priggishness is just as common as the religious variety. The pejorative and sarcastic term “social justice warrior” (SJW) is commonly used to refer to one of the largest cohorts of secular moralists — as they tend to focus much of their moral scorn on real or perceived social injustices (sexism, racism, ableism, etc.) — and because they exhibit a characteristic over-zealousness and overreach in their approach.
To be clear, I am not criticizing the movement for social justice or prescriptive morality in general, rather I am criticizing the sledgehammer approach to prescriptive morality / social justice (or, colloquially, moralizing) where nearly every aspect of life is scrutinized to absurdity — and in which there is no coherent ethical theory or theory of human psychology to guide this scrutiny. This sledgehammer approach also tends to take the maladaptive approach of globally labelling people as good or bad, rather than their specific acts — an approach which is counterproductive for several reasons.
The most salient examples of this new moralism gone astray invoke Poe’s Law with their tendency toward hyperbole: feminist scorn over the horror of “manspreading”; the interpretation of just about everything as being a “microaggression”, or an overt form of bigotry; the idea that the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of science need to be decolonized; describing even the most benign examples of trans-cultural diffusion as cultural appropriation; the belief that minority groups cannot hold racist views; the belief that the best way to counter prejudices is to invert them (e.g., matriarchy instead of patriarchy, counter-racism instead of anti-racism); etc. An internet search of any of these terms will provide plenty of examples if you haven’t been keeping up on the culture war.
The problem with this moralizing is not that sexism, racism, or other forms of prejudice which contradict human rights do not deserve moral concern — they very much do! — it’s that our approach to correcting these injustices must 1) identify actual cases of unjustified prejudice (rather than what are likely false positives); 2) seek to explain the origin of prejudice cogently, and 3) use this information to combat prejudice effectively — without exacerbating divisiveness and alienating people.
Unfortunately, many proponents of social justice fail in all three of these areas, such as by identifying innocuous behavior as prejudiced or by advancing illogical definitions of prejudice; by misidentifying the causes of prejudice; and by causing alienation and division in various ways (e.g., through the use of hyperbolic or histrionic rhetoric, by advocating cancel culture vindictiveness, by espousing a puritanical and unreasonable set of counter norms [such as hyper-political correctness, hyper-vigilance in calling out perceived wrongs, or ideas similar to vicarious atonement for ancestral sin; etc.].
Irrespective of causative explanations for this moral scrupulosity on the sociological level, the distal origin of this phenomenon, on the individual level, is the human mind itself, which possesses evolved emotional impulses (see moral foundations theory) to engage in moralistic judgement — impulses which may become hyperactive or problematic when they are not restrained by rational faculties or judicious moral codes (see The Danger of Unrestrained Morality). When this scrupulosity is turned inward we might refer to it, in Freudian terms, as an overactive superego — and this form of neurosis frequently leads to a self-defeating and non-productive anxious preoccupation with one’s current or past actions. Such a preoccupation paralyzes the individual in a self-imposed hell of unproductive shame and guilt (see Albert Ellis on guilt/shame), thereby preventing growth.
This self-punishment does not help anyone and harms the individual, perhaps preventing them from making the changes necessary to truly change for the better. The adaptive converse of unproductive shame or guilt does not attach essentializing labels to oneself (you are not defined by your history), and believes in the possibility of reform; such an approach involves the recognition and acceptance of past wrongs, and an earnest commitment to not making the same mistakes in the future.
Just as with inward hyper-moralizing, turning unrestrained moral impulses outward, onto others, leads to a similar type of harm — this time in the form of applying essentializing condemnatory labels to others. Such an approach is likely to cause an amygdala response that results in the accused becoming more entrenched in their position (see reactance), or it may result in a paralyzing shame that prevents the individual from changing for the better; what it is very unlikely to do is to result in critical reflection and/or a positive change in their behavior or beliefs. Further, this approach engenders non-productive anger and retribution, which perpetuates the cycle of conflict between groups. History is replete with such examples. As the proverb states, hurt people hurt people…and so on, ad nauseum. Further exacerbating this harmful moralizing is the moral impulse to in-group loyalty or tribalism — which ironically also drives many of the hateful ideologies which prejudiced individuals cling to.
To draw an analogy with religion, the modern secular moralist resembles the Pharisee or the Sadducee whom Jesus criticized for myopically focusing on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. And, just as with the hyper-religious moralists in the story of Jesus, the modern secular moralists wield morality like a weapon — with an intent to “cancel”, or psychosocially destroy those who have transgressed. This approach is problematic on multiple levels, but most importantly it is likely to alienate people, including allies, and it is not likely to produce a situation in which an offending individual can grow or reform themselves (if, indeed, they have done anything that is clearly harmful); in other words, it is a punitive and retributive approach to justice. From a rationalist perspective, Christian morality and metaphysics are grossly flawed, but secular moralists would do well to consider the admonishments to forgiveness, compassion, and against moral hypocrisy, which are said to have been espoused by Jesus.
A more effective approach to morality — in terms of inter-subjective sociocultural goals — should, first and foremost, focus on reforming problematic behaviors and dialectically countering hateful ideologies; additionally, it should be grounded in reason (including the consideration of theoretical and evidence-based skepticism towards individual free will; the tenuousness of a permanent concept of personal identity; and a logically parsimonious, constructivist conception of morality — all three of which serve to temper hyper-moralizing), compassionate beneficence, and a non-retributive/non-maleficent conception of justice (social or criminal). A dialectical and non-retributive/non-punitive approach is more likely to circumvent the amygdala response that causes a person to dig in their heels, and is therefore more likely to change minds.
Anger in response to oppression is entirely understandable on an emotional level, however, it is not likely to be effective when it inspires action. Rational understanding is the antidote to untampered anger, and this approach appears to have a better case record of success. When we eliminate the destructive passion of vengeful anger from our minds and from the social sphere we will witness the birth of a less hateful, less violent, and more compassionate world.
In modern evolutionary biology there is a core concept known as adaptationism (or functionalism). Adaptationism seeks to explain a trait’s existence by describing the adaptive function it serves.
In other words, adaptationism proposes that the most likely explanation for why a particular trait was conserved (i.e., persisted over time), is the one that best demonstrates why it would be adaptive — that is, why the trait serves to increase individual or group fitness. For example, it is hypothesized that dinosaurs first developed feathers for thermoregulation, and later some species developed more specialized feathers — such as those that enhanced gliding abilities. In this case, feathers served a primary adaptive function — to insulate the body; this and other, secondary functions (sexual signaling, gliding enhancement, etc.) helped ensure that the trait was preserved after it appeared.
Cultures, in many ways, are analogous to organisms — a fact that is illustrated well by Richard Dawkin’s concept of a meme, or a unit of cultural information that is analogous to a gene in biology. Due to these analogical similarities we can often develop an understanding of cultures and cultural phenomena by appealing to evolutionary principles.
Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay.
An adaptationist view of cultural evolution holds that a cultural phenomenon is extremely unlikely to have been conserved if it was not advantageous to the population. The adaptationist view, when applied to culture, seeks to describe a cultural phenomenon in terms of its function or adaptive purpose. For example, some hypotheses explain the cultural phenomenon of religion through demonstrating why such a belief system could prove to increase the fitness (the group flourishing and persistence over time) of a culture — or, more precisely, the population which gives rise to the culture (see evolutionary psychology of religion).
[Note: Over time it is possible that successful cultural adaptations are encoded genetically through a culturally mediated selection processes. For example, certain forms of prosociality are socially enforced, which tends to increase the reproductive fitness of those who are predisposed to adhere to them.]
Those who want to do away with worn out cultural norms or create major socioeconomic changes should first seek to develop an adaptationist approach to revolution — that is, before they advocate for eliminating a targeted cultural institution they should seek to understand why it might have come into being, why it persisted, and then propose an alternative that will better serve its societal function/s —that is, if it is indeed found to still be performing important functions.
(Note: It is possible that a cultural institution has never served an important function — rather, that it is a spandrel, however, one must investigate to discover whether this is the case. It is also possible that a cultural institution may be an exaptation — initially developing as a byproduct or for a particular purpose, but finding later utilization for an altogether different purpose.)
The general principle or heuristic that prescribes the above approach is known as Chesterton’s Fence. This principle uses the analogy of a seemingly purposeless fence found on a road to illustrate why it is important to find out if there is a purpose for something before we do away with it. In this analogy it is possible the fence is serving an important purpose — such as, blocking a danger on the road; if we assume the fence is purposeless and hastily tear it down there may be negative consequences.
One prominent example of the above is the critical situation posed by dogmatic religions (and dogmatic ideologies in general). A cogent case can be made that many of these belief systems now constitute a real existential threat to our species — regardless of how adaptive they were at one point in history. It is likely, however, that religions still serve important adaptive functions in peoples’ lives, and in society.
Psychological research has revealed some of the primary adaptive functions of religion. Religion helps to build an individual’s social support network, it serves to provide a scaffolding for personal meaning creation, it provides practical wisdom and ethical guidance, and it functions in a terror management capacity to assuage death anxiety, epistemic uncertainty, and to connect the individual to something bigger than oneself.
If we are to supplant dogmatic religion we must promote rational philosophies of life that can also serve these functions. (For some examples see: secular Buddhism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Liberationism.) Likewise with any other outdated cultural institution, an approach to revolution that is conscious of cultural adaptaptionism is much more likely to succeed than one that only seeks to destroy the existing order.
There are a number of arguments that have been used to challenge the death penalty. For example, many have argued that the criminal justice system is flawed by biases and other errors of judgement. Due to this fact, innocent people have been put to death in the past.
Since humans are prone to bias, and because mistakes can be made, more people will undoubtedly be executed for crimes they did not commit in the future.
In this article, I will focus on what I find to be the most compelling ethical arguments against the death penalty . These arguments appeal to generally agreed upon human values such as compassion and fairness .
I believe one of the strongest ethical arguments against the death penalty is that it runs counter to the idea of reforming individuals; rather, the death penalty gives up on the hope of changing a person for the better.
As our understanding of the mind and human behavior increases it is likely that we will one day come to better understand the causes of antisocial behavior, and effectively eradicate these causes or their effects. For example, we now understand that head trauma and environmental factors like abuse and toxins can result in neurological injury that predisposes individuals to impulsive and violent behaviors.
Dramatization of 14 year-old George Stinney being strapped into the electric chair in the movie Carolina Skeletons.
A more informed and rational view of severe antisocial behavior makes it apparent that we should regard this behavior not as incorrigible evil, but as neurological or psychological pathology — pathology which we currently may not be able to effectively treat, but which we one day will. [Note: For a beautifully done theatrical exposition of this argument view Star Trek: Voyager “Repentance” Season 7, Episode 13.]
Another strong ethical argument against the death penalty points out the hypocrisy of the act, and the effect it has on society of promoting retribution and cruelty.
If we are to take a morally legitimate stand against non-defensive violence, we have to oppose such acts in all instances. Since an incarcerated individual is in a situation where they are unlikely to continue to harm others, there is no justification for committing an act of violence against them. To do so would be to act in aggression, rather than in defense. Further, a cogent case can be made that state uses of aggressive violence help to foster a culture that sees the use of violence as an acceptable, morally defensible way to deal with conflicts or perceived injustices.
It may, of course, be argued that chronically violent individuals still pose a threat when they are incarcerated — to other inmates, and, possibly, to the general public if they were to escape. This, however, is only a practical argument which points out one potential negative consequence of death penalty abolition. Rather than viewing this as a strong argument for the death penalty, it would make more sense to see this as an argument against allowing individuals predisposed to extreme violence to have unsupervised or unrestrained contact with others — and for taking stronger measures to prevent the escape of individuals who pose a danger to others.
A civilized society must, if it is to be ethically consistent, oppose all uses of violence that are not justifiably defensive in nature. The state has no moral legitimacy in condemning murder if it engages in acts that could also be seen as murderous or torturous by rational persons. As long as we allow the state to use aggressive violence we are all complicit in these unjustified killings.
