This writer’s reading of Gary
Wills’ history of Thomas Jefferson’s thinking in writing of the Declaration of Independence – at least
as reflected in the books he read – ran across an insightful quote. The quote comes from Jefferson’s pen. It reads:
Man was destined for society.
His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and
wrong, merely relative to this. This
sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling;
it is the true foundation of morality, and not the to kalon,[1]
truth, etc., as fanciful writers have imagined.
The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or
arm. It is given to all human beings in
a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or
less degree. It may be strengthened by
exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some
degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required
for this; even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a
professor. The former will decide it as
well and often better than the latter because he has not been led astray by
artificial rules.[2]
Is this true?
The sentiment flies in the face of the tabula rasa view of the human mind.
To remind the reader – if needed – the term tabula rasa became prominent
during Jefferson’s time. That can be
attributed to the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francis Bacon, and John
Locke. It basically says, humans are
born with no beliefs, inclinations, or biases other than their basic instincts.[3]
Of
these three writers, Locke is most interesting when one is considering
Jefferson’s thinking and writings. Many
seem to want to attribute this founding father’s inspiration coming from Locke
and Locke’s supposed adherence to a natural rights view – as that construct is
defined today.
Wills
claims that Jefferson did not even own a copy of Locke’s famous political/government
classic, The Second Treatise of Civil
Government. But he did own Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, a
more epistemological work. And yet, the
above quote seems to indicate Jefferson’s disagreement with Locke’s contention
that humans are born with a clean slate.
This
was an active point of debate during Jefferson’s time. Such writers as Thomas Reid, Francis Hutcheson,
David Hume, and Adam Smith actively contributed to this discussion – they did
not all agree. But some time has gone by
– the discussion referred to here occurred during the late 1700s, coinciding
with the writing of the Declaration
and later on, the Constitution.
In the
years since, the study of psychology or related study, have in part been about
answering the questions: are humans
naturally prone to be good; to do good works?
The answer: maybe. There is evidence indicating Jefferson was
right, but the final verdict is still out.
But the research does suggest an answer.
One
researcher, Michael Tomasello,[4]
reports that one can observe young children have a bias toward good works –
being helpful (at least attempting to be so).
And further, that this bias is not enhanced or furthered by rewards. Therefore, training does not enhance or
detract from this proclivity. Plus,
researchers observe this trend across cultures that vary in how and when social
rules are taught. And humans’ relatives
– chimpanzees – show this bias toward helping under appropriate experimental setups.
In sum,
Tomasello believes that, yes, humans have a natural inclination toward helping
others from an early age and that what parents do or the culture encourages has
little to do with this bias. But that view
is based on work with very young children.
This writer, a former secondary school teacher, can testify that
teenagers, as a group, are not known for their altruism.
He
witnessed acts of charity by students he dealt with, but he also witnessed
ample cases of cruelty or indifference when it came to the needs of others. So, is there a transition as children grow
up? Tomasello reports further: as very young children become older, say
about age 3, they are more discriminating as to who will benefit from their
good works. It takes on a more
transactional character; they will be more likely to be kind or apt to do a
good turn to someone who has been good to him/her.
Also,
at work is youngsters learning and accepting social norms. These norms exist to facilitate societal
existence – they are important. There are
too many needed behaviors from basic courtesies to how to behave in various
social events or arrangements to count on more formal approaches, like enacting
laws. If nothing else, they make social
living easier. So, as children learn
these norms, a natural tendency is to want to be part of it all and not be seen
as weird. Weirdness includes bucking
social norms and among the young is fodder for ridicule.
Another
researcher, Hillard S. Kaplan, agrees.
From an anthropological perspective, Kaplan is said to report “[m]odern
humans have lived for most of their existence as hunter gatherers, so much of
human nature has presumably been shaped for survival in such conditions …
Kaplan has found evidence of cooperation woven into many levels of human
activity.”[5]
This
includes division of labor between the sexes, among the ages of people, and among
kin members and members of other families.
No choices here, cooperation was essential for survival. And to be efficient, people being cooperative,
need to be so willingly or voluntarily.
The more
people want to be in-sink with what is expected or needed, the more likely it
will be done correctly, thoughtfully, and with less resources. Feelings of altruism facilitate establishing
such relationships. Further, the more a
society becomes specialized in its economic activity, the more these factors
become important.
The
cited New York Times’ account of this
research goes on to report:
Indeed, it is in our biological nature, not
our political institutions, that we should put our trust, in this view. Our
empathy is innate and cannot be changed or long suppressed. “In fact,” Dr. [Frans]
de Waal writes, “I’d argue that biology constitutes our greatest hope. One can
only shudder at the thought that the humaneness of our societies would depend
on the whims of politics, culture or religion.”
The basic sociability of human nature does not
mean, of course, that people are nice to each other all the time. Social structure requires that things be
done to maintain it, some of which involve negative attitudes toward others.
The instinct for enforcing norms is powerful, as is the instinct for fairness.
Experiments have shown that people will reject unfair distributions of money
even it means they receive nothing.[6]
Yes, research also indicates that humans can be selfish as
well as charitable. And, as this blog
has argued, the educational institution in adopting, along with the whole
polity, a natural rights perspective as the most influential view of governance
and politics has led to an abandonment of being that institution dedicated to
bolster the charitable side or a moral side.
It has led to a youth culture not noted for its altruism.
Also, anti-social events – wars, criminality, snobbery,
etc. – call for cooperation. That is, to
be successful, within an effected group, those who can exploit cooperative
tendency for others in the group, will more likely achieve its goals. “Lawrence H. Keeley, an anthropologist who
has traced aggression among early peoples, writes in his book ‘War Before
Civilization’ that, ‘Warfare is ultimately not a denial of the human capacity
for cooperation, but merely the most destructive expression of it.’”[7]
That then is what this question over cooperation, altruism,
helpfulness, being moral, and the like tends to inspire in the current
discussion. Perhaps the late 1700s is
not that long ago. The balance between
selfishness – natural enough – and charity has been part of the human condition
from before civilization. Civics
education – one can argue – needs to address this ongoing battle.
[1] Kalon refers to ideal physical or moral beauty as the
term was used by ancient Greeks.
[2] Garry Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence (New York, NY: Vintage
Books, 1978/2018), 202-203.
[3] Without trying to be suggestive, the writer’s
understanding is that sucking is about the only behavior instinct humans have.
[4] The information in this posting reporting on contemporary
research on the psychology of altruism is taken from Nicholas Wade’s reporting. See Nicholas Wade, “We May Be Born with an
Urge to Help,” The New York Times, November 30, 2009, accessed October 25,
2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html
.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., emphasis added to highlight the potentials of
a viable civics-education program.
[7] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment