Human Nature or Moloch?

My friend shared a Facebook post by a person concerned with why the United States finds itself again in a chaotic mess made worse by a President with unsound character. I am not responding to the post but rather expressing related ideas.

Why do we allow psychopaths to lead our institutions, corporations, and nations? Why do so many powerful and influential people exhibit dark tetrad characteristics, such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism, which are associated with a lack of empathy and moral concern?

Hume and Socrates chatting across time. Thank the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE), particularly during its Golden Age (roughly 8th to 10th centuries CE) in Baghdad for passing on the wisdom of ancient Greece.

David Hume argues that reason alone cannot dictate our moral judgments.

“It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”

This statement highlights the role of our emotional nature in moral judgments, and has profound implications for our societal structures and the leadership we choose.

Morality should be about how we treat other people. Still, people usually think of morality as a rational weighing of interests, considering one's self-interest in contrast to considering the world.

Hume's central argument is that if we are to choose between accepting harm to ourselves and harm to others, reason alone can't tell us which is the better choice.

We have to concede that Hume has a point. Reason alone doesn't tell us that we should care about what happens to others. All the logical arguments can't make us care about anyone else, much less the world. Moral judgments aren't arrived at through reason; they come from our emotional nature.

Hume concludes that:

“Morals are of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it.” —Treatise, Book III, Part I, Section I

When you look at someone causing harm to another person, the wrongness is not something you observe in the external objects; it is something you feel within you. Feelings are not subject to reason; they are passions that are part of our will.

But what informs our feelings?

We are animals with complex social interdependencies driven in various ways through cultural interactions. Culture emerges from evolved needs influenced by complex environmental factors.

Our ancestors adapted to challenges via evolution (natural selection), which shaped our behavior and cognition.

Social cooperation, empathy, and moral sentiments have evolutionary advantages for group survival and cohesion. This understanding can give us hope about the potential for positive change in our society.

For a holy week aside, let's look at the Beatitudes of Christ for moral sentiments.

The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)

Poor? Spirit? There is much to meditate on here.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)

The meek will possess the land? This is a Kingly admonition rather than an animistic sense of nature's sacredness, but perfectly reasonable for Jesus' time and place.

Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. (Verse 8)

A clean heart requires at least twenty thousand hours of preparation, concerted effort, focus, and deeply considered thoughts and actions.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)

Amen!

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

Amen, again!

Let’s go cross-cultural.

“The highest good is like water. Water excels in benefiting all things without contending with them. It dwells in the lowly places that all disdain. Therefore it is close to the Tao." (Chapter 8) - This speaks to the virtue of humility and finding strength in lowliness, a theme related to being "poor in spirit.” —Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching)

“The sage puts himself last and finds himself first; he surrenders his body and his body is preserved.” (Chapter 7)

Humility and selflessness lead to a greater gain, and wisdom favors the prepared.

“A benevolent man helps others to establish themselves and helps them to attain their aims.” (Analects XII, 23)

This suggests a compassion that would naturally extend to those who are suffering.

“Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.” (Analects XV, 24)

The “Silver Rule” implies an understanding of and consideration for the pain of others.

“A man who is without the feeling of commiseration is not a man.” (Mencius 2A:6)

This highlights the fundamental importance of empathy, which is closely tied to acknowledging and responding to the sorrow of others.

“The softest thing in the world overcomes the hardest thing in the world.” (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 43)

This emphasizes the power of gentleness and non-resistance, a form of meekness that can ultimately prevail.

“Therefore, the sage desires no desire, values no goods that are hard to come by, learns what is not learned, and returns to what the multitude has forgotten. Thus he can assist the natural development of all things but dares not act.” (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 64)

This speaks to a quiet, unassuming way that aligns with meekness.

“The gentleman concerns himself with the Way (Dao); he does not merely seek a full stomach. He may plow the fields, but his concern is not with getting rich. He may study with the expectation of officialdom, but not merely for the sake of a salary.” ( Confucius, Analects XV, 32)

This emphasizes a focus on moral principles (“the Way” wu wei 無為) over material desires, echoing the hunger for righteousness.

“Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are rooted in the heart.” (Mencius 6A:6)

This suggests an inherent human desire for these virtues.

“Is there any single saying that one can act upon all day and every day? Perhaps it is ‘Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.’“ (Analects XV, 24)

This reciprocity principle is a foundation for showing mercy and suggests that such actions will be reciprocated. Blessed are he merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

“Empty yourself of everything. Let the mind become still. The ten thousand things rise and fall while the Self watches their return. They grow and flourish 1 but each returns to its root. Returning to the root is stillness. Stillness is the way of nature. The way of nature is eternal.” (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 16)

This speaks to the importance of inner purity and stillness for understanding the fundamental nature of reality (which could be interpreted as analogous to "seeing God" in a Taoist context).  

“The gentleman cherishes virtue; the small man cherishes the land. The gentleman cherishes the penalties of law; the small man cherishes indulgence.” (Analects IV, 11)

This highlights the importance of valuing inner moral character (“virtue”) over external possessions.

“The gentleman seeks harmony but not sameness; the small man seeks sameness but not harmony.” (Analects XIII, 23)

This emphasizes the value of peace and harmonious relationships. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

“Those who are skilled in combat should suffer the highest punishment. Thus the saying goes, ‘A leader of a punitive expedition is a great criminal; a leader of a war of conquest is a still greater criminal.’” (Mencius 7B:2)

This strongly advocates for peace and condemns aggression.

“To be poor and yet without resentment is difficult; to be rich and yet without arrogance is easy.” (Analects XIV, 10)

This suggests that enduring hardship for one's principles is a mark of virtue. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“A loyal minister serves his prince according to the Way, and if he cannot do so, he resigns.” (Analects XI, 24)

This implies a willingness to face consequences for upholding righteousness.

Jesus Christ was not a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Taoist; he was a human being.

Social contexts and interactions influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Cultural norms, values, and social learning significantly influence our emotional responses and moral beliefs. This awareness underscores the complexity of the societal factors shaping our moral compass, making it a multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration.

The interplay between our biological predispositions, environmental constraints, and the development of cultural practices is crucial to the influence of moral sentiments.

Understanding emotions and their neural basis in the brain is crucial for ethical behavior. This knowledge supports the idea that feelings, including moral judgments, are fundamental to our experience and decision-making. Neuroscience research explores the brain regions involved in empathy, social cognition, and moral reasoning, providing valuable insights into the role of emotions in ethical behavior.

Hume said human society survives because most of us feel positive sentiments and sympathy for others, and these desires incline us to work together for our mutual benefit. Hume refers to positive feelings and sympathy as moral sentiments. He concludes that these sentiments are the source of morality, and we need not look further than that. We desire good for each other and are averse to the suffering of others. This emphasis on moral sentiments engages us in the discussion and reinforces our commitment to ethical behavior.

One can sense inherent grace radiating through existence if one closes one's eyes and quiets one's mind.

Desiring good for other people is not universally felt, as we know all too well from the examples of atrocities people commit daily. Hume acknowledges this and observes that people feel more sentiment for those close to them than those distant from them. Still, even then, we can feel moral approval and disapproval for acts that occurred thousands of miles away or hundreds of years ago. We can even feel moral pangs concerning the future. What kind of world do we want our children to live in?

Are psychopaths incapable of feeling moral sentiments?

It is natural for us to have greater feelings for family and friends than for strangers. Each of us has a limited circle of moral concern, consciously and unconsciously including and excluding people from our moral sentiment. This is neither unnatural nor harmful, but where we draw the line is an important question.

Some people willfully suppress their natural sentiments for other people, disregarding their suffering. They can rationalize away their natural feelings, convincing themselves that something is more important than acting morally. They shrink their circle of moral concern, willfully excluding others. How much of this is learned behavior? Can we hate to fit in? Do we care less because others in our group care less?

What do wealthy and powerful people care about? It is not contrary to reason for them to suppress natural feelings for the fate of life on Earth and people. They know that. For them, letting the world burn is preferable to suffering a scratch on their profit margins. They use their reason to justify the willful absence of feeling, to vilify, to scapegoat, to stand by and watch genocide, to send citizens to a foreign prison without due process, to ignore the courts and rule of law in favor of a nebulous rules-based order, to ignore sound science, to remain wilfully ignorant of physics, to commit ecocide, etc.

Greed, Hume implied, is preferring that harm befall others than be inconvenienced. Corporations ignore the poly crisis, public health, fairness, affordable housing, sustainable infrastructure, agriculture, externalities, and collateral damage to maximize profit. It is not contrary to reason for them to prefer destroying the whole world to losing their income or status. Their absence of positive sentiments and sympathy for others allows them to consider only themselves.

Why do people worship ruthlessly competitive people? We would not tolerate freeloaders or bad actors in a small community, but we do in larger ones. Is it because of Moloch?

Can rational arguments persuade wealthy people that protecting the environment is in their self-interest? Reason, evidence, and data can't make someone care about such things if they contradict their purpose.

Perhaps the answer to any crisis is to give more power to those who embrace their moral sentiments. That would undoubtedly lead to better outcomes than allowing those who lack such sentiments to concentrate power in themselves. A scratch or two on greedy fingers is preferable to destroying the whole world.

"Psychopath" is a common term, but the clinical understanding of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and psychopathic traits is complex. It involves a spectrum of behaviors and deficits, not simply a complete absence of feeling. Some individuals with these traits can be highly manipulative and feign empathy to achieve their goals.

While Hume emphasizes sentiment, reason isn't entirely irrelevant to morality. Reason can help us understand the consequences of our actions, identify patterns of harm, and cultivate empathy through education and exposure to benevolence. Reason can be a tool to inform and guide our sentiments.

The structures of our institutions, corporations, and nations also contribute to the problem. Systems that prioritize profit above all else lack robust ethical oversight and do not hold individuals accountable. This can create environments where those lacking in moral sentiment can thrive.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Addressing this requires systemic change in addition to individual moral development. Why did people vote for a known conman, unstable bullshitter, and criminal twice? DJT is a terrible businessman and negotiator, but many believe in a false narrative concerning their cult leader.

What is it about our culture that allows for that? I think we have grown to a point where mass insanity has a grip on politics and society. We must shrink the cancer afflicting global culture by throwing bad actors to the curb and allowing loving, kind, and just people to lead us—moral character should be the main thing we look for in a leader.

Hume argues that moral sentiments are rooted in our nature. There is evidence that empathy and moral reasoning can be developed and expanded through experience, education, and conscious effort, so there are still reasons to be hopeful. We can feel it.

We all experience a wide range of emotions, including sympathy, compassion, guilt, shame, and a sense of fairness, to varying degrees. Understanding the nuances of these emotions and how they are cultivated and nurtured is important.

Even if we agree that power should belong to those with a strong moral character, the question remains of how to effectively achieve this in a world where power gravitates to those driven by self-interest.

In our complex, modern techno-industrial world with over eight billion people, we are unlikely to find moral, loving, compassionate, and ethical people in charge. Stories about wise ones are found in the distant past when our way of life was quite different.

We must wake up, understand physics, biology, ecology, psychology, etc., and familiarize ourselves with our limitations. This will allow for a compassionate and careful period of degrowth while we reevaluate our way of life.

Global, energy and resource-intensive market economies at scale are unsuitable for life or people's mental health and moral sentiments.

Our way of life is omnicidal and destructive, foisting all manner of deleterious addictions upon us while encouraging the enactment of deadly sins against nature, people, and ourselves.

We must end human supremacy, the Anthropocene, and ecocide in favor of a future for high-quality, loving human caretakers of life on Earth.

If you want a fine example of the horrors of modernity, read ROT.

In 1845, European potato fields from Spain to Scandinavia were attacked by a novel pathogen. But it was only in Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom, that the blight’s devastation reached apocalyptic levels, leaving more than a million people dead and forcing millions more to emigrate.

In Rot, historian Padraic X. Scanlan offers the definitive account of the Great Famine, showing how Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and the British Empire made it uniquely vulnerable to starvation. Ireland’s overreliance on the potato was a desperate adaptation to an unstable and unequal marketplace created by British colonialism. The empire’s laissez-faire economic policies saw Ireland exporting livestock and grain even as its people starved. When famine struck, relief efforts were premised on the idea that only free markets and wage labor could save the Irish. Ireland’s wretchedness, before and during the Great Famine, was often blamed on Irish backwardness, but in fact, it resulted from the British Empire’s embrace of modern capitalism.

Uncovering the disaster’s roots in Britain’s deep imperial faith in markets, commerce, and capitalism, Rot reshapes our understanding of the Great Famine and its tragic legacy.

Make peace.