I have often said that there is no 'logic center' in the human brain. That is in response to comparing our thinking to that of a computer. A computer has a logic center that can add numbers, compare numbers and other numerical manipulations. We have nothing like that, though we are able to be taught to perform those operations. My statement is also in response to the general query 'why can't people just be logical'. Even very smart people can be notoriously illogical at times, usually falling prey to one of the many fallacies that plague our thinking. Fallacies such as over generalization is an obvious by-product of our inductive reasoning gone awry. But there are other Fallacies that are harder to explain, such as the one I call the 'external agent' fallacy, where we attribute unexplained phenomenon to various entities such as luck, gods, devils, or other supernatural agents. this has been a component of human nature since the beginning of time, and still exists today. One aspect of the external agent fallacy, is the idea of judgement of our actions by supernatural agents, and reward or retribution for our actions. This implies that we have some idea of what is right and wrong.
Just like addition and subtraction, the idea of right and wrong is mostly learned, but there is probably a core of ethical reasoning built into us, just as we have a core of inductive reasoning. Our core ethics come from our empathic feelings, our ability to see through another's eyes and have sympathy for them. If there is a logic core to our brains it is in our ability to conjure up an ideal model of a situation, and compare that to reality by which we can arrive at a judgement of whether the real situation is good or bad. Built into our brains are the addition circuits that add up all aspects of some circumstance, and then compares the sum to some idealized outcome.
This idealized outcome depends on whom the circumstances effect. Also built into our thinking is the concept of 'us' and 'them'. Idealized outcomes for 'us' is usually what we would like to see happen to ourselves. Idealized outcomes for 'them' is anything except what we would like to see happen to ourselves, the exact nature being left to the imagination. This idea is easily and intuitively aligned with evolution of our species as a social animal, that is, one that depends on cooperation to succeed. In our governments and other social structures we often strive to wrestle with nature to produce idealized outcomes, to reward the virtuous, punish the wicked, and help the downtrodden despite natures observable indifference.
Difficult ethical questions, such as 'would you pull the lever to divert a train from hitting a group of people to a track with only a single person' cause conflict in our ethical logic. In brain-scanning studies of people who are asked to make similar decisions finds that different area of the brain are in conflict about what to do. The study also makes the claim that they can predict what decision a person will make based on which area is more active (the study appeared in a recent edition of scientific american or scientific american mind, but I'm too lazy to search through my back issues, so finding the reference is left as an exercise for the student).
So we have an ethical logic process that allows us to make ethical decisions, idealize ethically correct outcomes, compare the ideal outcomes to reality and make ethical judgments. The only problems we face are other fallacies that allow us to favor behavior that benefits us, and our innate concept of 'them', for which our empathy and ethics do not apply.
I believe that if we try, we can overcome our concept of 'them', especially if we start at an early age emphasizing that we are all one people. We have all heard of anecdotal stories of soldiers in war time, who may kill without thought most of the time, but who finds some situation in which an enemy soldier suddenly becomes familiar and guilt for the killing manifests itself. We have the ability to see all people as we see ourselves, but our cultures still differentiate and serve to fan the flames of animosity, and negates our innate ethical behavior.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote 'All men are created equal' it was only applied to white land-owning individuals. However the act of writing it down gave it a life of it's own with it's inescapable logic: that it applied to women and people of color and to all people on earth. Slowly over the centuries we see the 'us' becoming more and more inclusive, and I believe that it is inevitable that us will become all-inclusive, at least on a formal level, if not individually respected, and those that wish to divide us will be shamed into inaction.
While I do believe that we can make our concept of us all inclusive, I don't believe in any Utopian brotherhood of man, there will always be conflict. Even with our ethical logic, we tend to be programmed to favor our own interests slightly (or greatly for 'selfish' people). This self bias tends to balance itself out because everyone has it, but it implies conflict and rules and processes for resolving them.
There is a logic for ethics which is simple and intuitive: cooperation tends to be more successful than individual endeavors. This is a logical basis for ethical behavior. Religion, as so many wish to believe, is not necessary for ethics, except that our 'external agent' cognitive bias manifests a fear of uncooperative behavior. But the logic exists without our conscious manifestation of our social tendencies. So good and evil can be defined in terms of cooperative behavior and uncooperative behavior. Ultimately, good always wins as cooperation is more efficient, even though evil sometimes wins individual battles. But as long as we have us and them built into our thinking, one man's good will be another man's evil.
Because cooperation tends to be more successful than individual action, and our governments are the agents of our cooperation, we as a people tend to prosper when our governments are more pro-active about organizing projects that benefit us all. It was this spirit of cooperation that put a man on the moon, and gave us the foundations of the Internet. Unfortunately this spirit of cooperation seems to only be active in the face of a real threat. Without a unifying force, our actions tend to meander and cancel each other out, and only outstanding individuals can have any success. But these successes pale in comparison to what we can do if we can be of a single mind about some project.
And finally, my identification of the 'external agent' fallacy does not preclude the existence of some external agent(s). We know not what exists outside of the realm of our existence, and the existence of our belief in some external agent may be a shadow of the hand of God. Or it may just be an odd character defect, the choice is yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment