Technically Rational?
- Brent Wiseman
- Nov 19, 2016
- 8 min read
“Science is Logic, and Logic is the highest form of humanity... Love, trust, kindness...these are ultimately logical.”
“Hate isn't logical...neither is cruelty... It's not logical to act in a way contrary to the welfare of the species...or the one.”
Facebook commenter
For the past few months, in defiance of all the hate and vitriol of this election season and a Trump victory, I’ve been attempting to prove logically why hate is irrational and illogical. Intuitively, I believe it a given that everyone should treat everyone else with respect, kindness, and compassion. But, for such a strong belief of mine, I can’t find the words to offer that statement the full endorsement of logic. It is generally accepted that kindness has helped us survive the evolution process. In the early days of humanity, strength in numbers grants obvious benefits, but how did empathy help us survive? If you had food and someone else in your tribe did not, feeding them would keep them alive (maintaining the status quo of said strength), and would encourage them to take care of you when you needed it in the future. A tribe full of selfish members who never shared or helped each other would have died out and their genetic conceit would have gone with them. Hence, kindness helped humanity survive up to this point. That same logic can be applied to today's people of Earth; And it is logical, but not that which I seek. It’s logic as to why kindness is a good thing if the survival of the species is the goal. But why, logically, can we argue that humanity should survive?
I would much prefer humanity to persist, but that’s exactly what it is - a mere preference. An opinion. It is not fact that we should. In saying this, I’m not asking why we deserve to exist, or anything like that. That’s a different discussion. What we deserve is irrelevant. The universe simply doesn’t care if humanity or any living (or non-living, for that matter) thing exists. It doesn’t matter. We are arbitrary. It is further evidence of self-importance to assume that we should be here - individually or as a whole. Our want of survival was bred into us by evolution, and it’s something that we crave more than anything else, but it is not a logical truth. You would literally be using the same exact logic (or lack of, rather) if you made the argument that you should have sex. It would be great, you would (probably) enjoy it, if offers the proliferation of humanity, but it is only an evolutionary trait bred into us. Whether you have sex or not is arbitrary to the universe. It makes no difference. I can logically prove that humanity would be better off and more likely to survive into the future shunning hatred and intolerance in favor of love, but not that humanity should strive for that survival. Arguing that humans should show compassion because (most) humans value survival feels like cheating; Like saying “Force yourself on that person because you know you will physically enjoy it and procreation is our prime directive anyway.” I’d be appealing to the emotions and opinions of that person, not making a logical argument. And as you can tell, an argument with a similar structure has the potential to be very very wrong. With the levels of intolerance I’ve seen in the past year, as well as this philosophical quandary I can’t crack, I’ve found myself in somewhat of a stupor. I’ve never experienced the levels like this before in my life, and I feel I’ve been desperate to find the good. Find the truth. Encourage compassion and shun hatred. I argue logic well, in my opinion. Logic is one of the only things I really feel completely in my element with. I’m beginning to feel that this quest of mine won’t be solved until we can irrevocably prove another thing impossible to prove: The meaning of life.
11/19/16 Follow-up The single most destructive thing in the world I move to be the defense mechanism that forces people to be angry at those that disagree with them, for the mere fact of disagreement. From there, often you get scientific denial, you get unjustified resistance to change even if a clearly better option is presented, you get a breakdown of communication which further prevents understanding and cooperation, and you get hatred and eventually violence.
I may need to think on this a bit more but I feel like the underlying cause of this to be selfishness. I suppose rape and murder and the like, some of the most evil acts within humanity, is more often purely wanting for yourself, not out of failure to get the other to see things your way. So, perhaps, it’s better to say selfishness itself is the most destructive thing? Saying it like that seems fairly obvious, actually. So much for philosophical insight.
Then again, I can’t explain with a logical argument why what we perceive as ‘selfish’ is what we perceive to be ‘wrong’. I strongly believe in right and wrong but I also strongly believe in a deterministic cause and effect world view. Of course everybody does the things they do. Of course that man killed that person. Of course these people are instigating genocide. What they do isn't justified, of course, but it's understandable, given the lives they have led. I have trouble putting this thought process into effect in my day-to-day life, but when I actually stop to think deeply about it, we cannot justify why we think ‘good action’ is ‘right action’. We cannot justify the definition of "good". It is relative. You can argue logically that, as we evolved, ‘good action’ often involved a measure of selflessness where we helped each other survive, thereby increasing our chances as a whole of reproducing and enduring. But, no. That is a logical argument why a tribe struggling to survive should stick together if survival is the goal, not of why you should have morals. Why do we want to survive? "Because survival is good?" Circular logic.
If you were to ask someone “Why should you treat someone with respect?” they might respond with the ‘Golden Rule’. I find it a satisfying answer, albeit incorrect. Treating others as you like to be treated is a human idiosyncrasy. Even though I live my life by it, it’s not logical. If you were to ask “Why should you not murder people?” someone might respond “Because to murder another human is bad.” But why? Why do you think that? What explanation do you have for that view? I find it intuitive that it’s wrong to murder but also can’t prove it with logic.Human survival itself is arbitrary. We want to survive simply because we were programmed by evolution to want to survive, as was every other living thing. If we were gone, the universe wouldn’t care. We don’t actually matter. This is why logic is failing me, I think. The ultimate goal of humanity decides what is logical in this case, and we have no defined goal. Stripped down as much as the topic is, it keeps coming around to 'survival' but there is no logical reason to seek that, either. The best answer I can currently imagine is "Because.", which falls seriously short of my requirements.
That being said, it frustrates me that I don’t have such an explanation that supports love. Compassion and empathy are some of my deepest held beliefs and yet so is logic, and I can’t explain this belief rationally. Maybe that is the philosophical question I’ve been chasing all my life? How do I justify morals with logic?
1/24/17 Follow-up
I have again returned to ponder this subject via words on a computer screen. Of all the thoughts and ideas I've had the past few months, this is one I keep coming back to. How do I prove with logic that humanity should show compassion? I always seemed to get stuck when I asked what the goal of humanity should be, as we can't justify "survival" with logic. I've recently come across an interesting notion that might have some merit in this discussion. When researching utilitarianism, I read "There's really nothing more basic than the primal desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain." Seeking happiness can't really be justified with logic any more than survival can, but I think it's a step in the right direction. The argument is made that everything humans do is ultimately about happiness. Why do you go to work? To make money. Why want money? Because I can buy things I want. Why? Because it will make me happy. Or: Why go to college? To make my parents proud. Why do you want that? Because their approval will make me happy. Etc. I remember many years ago researching I believe Freud (?). He had the argument that everything everyone does is inherently selfish. Even giving to charity wasn't necessarily "to help others", but because helping others made YOU feel good about yourself. I found the argument distasteful but have never been able to disprove it. Even taking a bullet for someone: You wouldn't choose to do it if it didn't make you happy. Even if your decisions lead to your death, the happiness you felt at your decision outweighed the fear. The warm and fuzzy feeling you get at such a 'selfless' act is why you do it. I have slowly come to agree with this theory as my optimism waned and my realist self revealed itself. (I feel like I should work that line into a song. lol)
Then, more recently, I read this article:
"Much of the emotional suffering in the world comes from the substitution of power for value. The curse of our times is that so many people have developed the habit of seeking to feel temporarily more powerful when they feel devalued. This leads almost inevitably to power struggles and some degree of abuse of others, if acted out, or, if held in, to some level of depression. Those afflicted with this terrible, though common habit lose sight of behavioral possibilities that would make them feel more valuable when they most need it—when they feel devalued. They grow alienated from their more humane values, which makes them feel progressively less valuable. To compensate, they inflate their egos to fragile proportions, which seem to need more and more power as defense. This dynamic, fueled by the systematic substitution of power for value, leads to what is commonly and erroneously considered the narcissistic constellation of personality disorders."
Much of the narcissism and denial of evidence and fact and childish internet arguments of late are explained perfectly by the above paragraph, in my estimation. It's all about low self-esteem. They feel that if someone points out they are incorrect, this constitutes an attack on their power. Their perceived power is tied to their sense of worth, which is tied to their happiness. Thus, an attack on one is an attack on all. They spout nonsense and deny anything for fear it will cost them temporary happiness to admit they are wrong. Cognitive dissonance, selective exposure, and confirmation bias all excel in this environment, and those are exactly what we've increasingly seen for the past year. The entire world would be happier if people did away with their biases, but I think that happiness would take much longer to cultivate, and humans are impatient. They want instant gratification. So, that was a bit of a tangent not entirely on the same subject as the rest, but I am certainly more satisfied with "happiness" as the ultimate goal of humanity than "survival". Can we prove the ideas of compassion and empathy will lead to more happiness in the peoples of the world? I think we can, but as I said, humans are impatient. Being the bigoted, insular, judgemental people that half of America is, we saved very few migrants from Syria looking for asylum. Yet, had we showed more empathy, we would have taken as many as we could. This would have bolstered the trust between these peoples - both "us" and "them". In turn, this would have furthered the goal of increasing communication and understanding between the two parties. There is little doubt in my mind that this lack of understanding that currently exists will cause many more problems in the long run, leading to MUCH more lack of happiness for both parties. The simple answer is: The more empathy there is, the less conflict there is, which leads to greater happiness. It's still not perfect by logics standards, but it's certainly not ILLogical at all. I will continue thinking on this line of reasoning, but I feel much more at ease with what I've discovered thus far.
Comments