since he was a Greek polytheist of the second century B.C., it demonstrates the futility of logic alone. |
The Dilemma of Logic |
fair results will come from dishonest and unfair people,
no matter what laws are enacted.
Protagoras and Euathlus
This is but a hypothetical example of the futility of pure logic. There are more practical examples. For instance, there
is the problem of the conscientious objector. One might ask how he differs from another man who has just as good objections
to killing, but realizes that he is in an imperfect world where a wide spread passive attitude might very well lead to
another country overrunning his homeland. How can we support one and let off the other?
Altruism and Egoism
One of the most charming cases relates to Florida Scrub Jays in which we see parents feeding nestlings assisted by other
jays in the neighborhood. This raising a nest full of young was a cooperative effort involving as many as four and five
other jays which did not have nests. At first it was suggested that the helper jays did not have territories and had
evolved the helping behavior to fill in the time. Further insight into the situation was not evident until an in depth s
tudy involving a thorough banding with color codes of all the jays in a locality had taken place. After some study over
several years it became clear that the helpful jays were always older siblings of the nestlings. By their helping their
parents raise the nestlings, they were promoting their own genetic welfare. Throughout Nature this is the case. After
considerable study, it becomes evident that in all cases of altruism if one does not find a selfish aspect involving a
genetic line, one is missing the point. One only has to comprehend a much more complex evolution of human altruism along
identical genetic lines as the concept of relationships in a family spread to other relatives and finally fictive
relationships of the entire world. As could be expected in humans the purely genetic expectations have been compounded
into all human behaviors. These genetic lines have intellectually evolved and been generalized. The local charity, the
Red Cross, and Save the Whales are examples of active altruism. In these examples, the identification extends to the
immediate genetic family and local community, then the world community, and finally the entire community of all life
on earth. No longer should we mentally separate altruism and egoism. By saving the Whales, argue its members, we are
saving ourselves.
Altruistic behavior is always combined with egoism on a continuum, sometimes toward altruism, sometimes toward egoism.
The ultimate altruism is the sacrifice of one's life for the life of another. In the animal world such sacrifice is only
for a genetically related individual. A honey bee will sacrifice its life at the entrance to the hive to destroy and
invading enemy. Dominant male baboons will jump onto the back of a tiger stalking the troop: a maneuver to delay the
attacker while the rest of the troop escapes. Among human beings, we find people who will commit self-sacrifice for a
group expanded beyond their genetically related group. Cross examination of a hero usually reveals a conceptually
developed relationship between himself and this expanded group. An example would be the "brotherhood of mankind".
These relationships are conditioned (learned). In the absence of such conditioning, relationships are rarely recognized
outside of an immediate tribal group or genetic race. However, the degree to which this conditioning can take place is
ultimately limited by factors of learning capability, intelligence, and availability of ideas. On the other end of this
continuum, the individual thinks of their genetic lineage as no more than self-maintenance: egoism. This promotes
parasitism. An example of this in nature is the ants which tend nymphs as food gatherers. Humans have pets. Is it
possible that pets are exploiting their masters? How about the alcoholic who regularly buys "drinks for the house"
at four. On this end of the continuum, altruistic acts are designed to improve the donor's lifestyle, mental stability,
or social security.
Conflict of Interest
Our consideration of "conflict of interest" concerns itself especially with pecuniary gains of the proponents in
regulatory positions. Public officials are required to avoid even the appearance of a conflict between private interests
and public responsibilities, especially where there is a possibility of unfair profit. Let us compare "conflict of
interest" with its diametrically opposite "compatibility of interest". We might grade them as follows:
Somehow, with conflicting interests, the problem of fraud has been mislaid and the two concepts have never been separated.
All the laws attempting to prevent fraud by eliminating conflicting interests have eliminated motivation. Understanding
that such is entirely against all of Nature, as yet, has not appeared over the political horizon. If one wants good work,
one must allow the workers to benefit by it. This has been suspected since early times when we were advised not to muzzle
the oxen which trod the corn (Deut. 25:4). It was not until Dr. Wilson in 1975 that we had definite indication of which
way to go from Nature.
These studies have not been applied to the political process to make more effective rules, ordinances, and laws with
less dishonesty. It is very possible that the outcome depends on the type of people involved.
A good example from the classics of pure dialectics is evident in the dilemma of two ancient Greeks: Protagoras and Euathlus.
Protagoras taught Euathlus rhetoric to become a lawyer. The agreement was half of the large fee down on starting and the
remainder when Euathlus won his first case in court. Euathlus put off going into practice to the extent that Protagoras
sued him for the remainder of his fee. In court Protagoras summed up his case as follows: "Euathlus maintains he should not pay me, but he is absurd. Suppose he wins this case. Since this is his first appearance
in court, he ought to pay me because he won his first case. On the other hand, suppose he loses his case. Then he ought to
pay me by the judgment of the court He must pay me, win or lose!"
Euathlus had been a good student and was able to answer Protagaras' argument with a similar one of his own: "Protagaras
maintains that I should pay him, but this is absurd. Suppose he wins this case. Since I will not have won my first case
in court I do not have to pay him according to our agreement. On the other hand, suppose he loses the case. Then I do not
have to pay him by the Judgment of the court. Since he must either win or lose, I do not have to pay him!"
A good example of a clash between logic and reality is exemplified in a consideration of altruism and selfishness (egoism).
The dictionary defines altruism as the unselfish concern for the welfare of others: opposed to egoism. Selfishness is
having such regard for one's own interests and advantage that the welfare of others becomes of less concern than is
considered right and just. From the dictionary these two terms obviously deny each other. I remember wrestling with this
problem in my high school days. I thought I detected some selfish aspect to all altruism and developed a cynical attitude
toward it. It wasn't until I read Dr. E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology in 1976 that I was enlightened on this subject.
Dr. Wilson started with social insects such as ants and bees. He showed that large classes of sterile helpers were
developed to serve the queen of the colony with her enormous quantities of eggs to efficiently promote a genetic line to
which all the helpers belonged. He went on to give evidence of thousands of similar cases in Nature.
This relationship of altruism and egoism, derived from nature, will help us determine ethics in the application of
government. A practical and daily example of the ambivalence of logic may be found in an analysis of the laws of conflict
of interest in authoritative positions, whether they be in politics or industry, though the logic pertains more to
politics where the obsolescent dialectic materialism still holds sway. (A-) "Conflict of Interest" refers to the interest of a person who has an inside position and possibly might be able to
influence matters in such a fashion that he might personally benefit from the action. This should be guarded against,
and if possible eliminated.
(B-) In this case, the interest of the participant would not benefit along with others of the considered interest.
This would eliminate greed as a motive for dishonesty.
(C-) Participants without "conflicting interests" could possibly make impersonal judgments which could be fair to
all persons inside and out of the organization.
Let us now outline the arguments of the logically opposite idea: We begin with a contradictory premise.
(A+) "Compatibility of interest" refers to the interest of a person who is in an inside position and possibly might be
able to influence matters in such a fashion that his practical experience would be reflected in the actions. This
should be encouraged.
(B+) In this case, the interest of the participant would benefit along with others of the same interest. This would be
a motive for good work, since any poor work would result in his personal loss.
(C+) Participants with "compatible interest" would be able to make adjustments with understandable sympathy and experience
understanding which could be fair to all persons.
We have now come full circle in our political and economic philosophy with regard to "conflict of interest". In this
discussion we have been able to take approximately identical ideas and make them either of positive or negative value
in our thinking. The original framers of our Constitution felt a relationship between responsibility and vested interests.
They felt that the only people who should be allowed to participate in making laws were people who owned land and property,
since the laws referred to such matters. Over the years "compatibility of interest", unfortunately, became subordinate to
"conflict of interest".
fair results will come from dishonest and unfair people,
no matter what laws are enacted.
Right of privacy
A clear example of the pitfalls of dialectic thinking are the laws of the "right of privacy" which seem to protect the
law-breaker more than they do the law-abiding citizen. An honest man has no fear in having his honesty investigated. An
honest man cashing a check does not mind revealing his identity. A check forger certainly wants rights to privacy.
Likewise a policeman can tap the phone of an honest person and will soon be bored. A problem only seems to arise when
the police are dishonest. People seem to think that a judge, whether he is honest or dishonest, can only issue an honest
warrant.
We have just touched on two instances in which we have operated under concepts of "conflict of interest" and "right to privacy" without Scientific validation. No thought was ever put to the question of whether there would be a better way. In the meantime we have had massive litigations, ruined many honest lives, and wasted time and energy of thousands of people to an effect that is completely predictable: Dialectics matures to a state of intellectual paralysis and such results are to be expected. Dialectics originated as an art and practice of articulating logical ideas in a disputation and discussion of a thesis. Dialectics is a form of argumentative logic with the clear stipulation that it is purely abstract and metaphysical. This means that it is only in the minds of the protagonists. Ancient proponents of dialectics disdained the use of experiments and observations which they felt were denigrating. They felt that they were the masters of reason and to give in to observations was giving up control. On the one side there is an arrogance in which philosophers allow themselves to be overwhelmed by their own sense of self-importance. On the other side there is a proper humility to give in to scientific observation and develop a new philosophy around it. True philosophers must give up arrogance and adopt a humility in the presence of Nature.
The dilemma of democracy
We must be wary that we posses primitive fears that other people will pass us by. Due to these fears, there are times when
politicians have imposed crippling legal stipulations, such as have been discussed here, so that nobody can get anywhere.
There is no valid reason to give the ignorant and inexperienced an even chance in making decisions for us due to their
political success. It is time we insured that this success should fall on those that are qualified in their field of
expertise. We have arrived at a position in our present laws that certain scientific and comparative studies may be very
difficult and even illegal. Examples of this will be evident throughout the book. Law-makers are good people, but, being
users of mature logical philosophies, they tend to create ridiculous logical complications. Using a mental process by which
it is impossible to arrive at a decision of right and wrong, they inevitably crippled their own business of constructing a
successful society. There is possibly another dialectic argument here as to whether it is the dignity of the law or the
arrogance of the law that is at stake.
General concepts about morality or ethics
In order to create, or alter, or judge a structure of moral and ethical concepts, one has to first decide: what are the
objectives of that structure of prescriptive behavior. Is the objective to have as many children as possible? Is the
objective to rid the land of a particular tribe, or culture, or people? Thankfully, in western culture, the most common
concept of a generalized rule of ethics and morality may be traced to the "Golden Rule" by Jesus: "Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Mat. 7:12) St. Paul wrote a positive moral gauge in his letter to
the Philippians (4:8): "Whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report, and if there be any
virtue and praise, think on these things." Evil is the negative of this same statement: "What so ever things are not true,
honest, just pure, lovely, and of good report, and if there be no virtue and praise, think not on those things." Due to the
thinking that has been discussed in this book, it is possible to add further insight to these goals of the prescriptive
behavior. For the realistic idealist, to an extent, a modern, but still inclusive delineation of objectives for morality
consists of four parts:
(1) If an act decreases morbidity for the most people, it is good.In general, the further one moves to the right in statement four as to the welfare, health, and life of the social units, the greater is the act. An act for the good of the world is the greatest. An act that threatens the welfare, health, and life of one's self or certainly one's family is truly the most evil. It is difficult to find a neutral activity. An example might be reading novels for pleasure.
(2) If an act increases the Love, Beauty, Work and Freedom (discussed in chapter nine) for the most people, it is good.
(3) If an act does neither of the above, it is neutral.
(4) The measure of social units (for the most people) is as follows: self, family, relatives, tribe, clan, friends, acquaintances, local people, city, county, state, country, and world (discussed in chapter seven).
Hammurabi's stele in the Louvre Museum |
Morality and the exceptions to the rule |