In my previous post, I went over how I came to the conclusion that Hamartia as Paul describes it in his letters is in fact neurological in nature, that the human amygdala was adversely affected, and that because of this the human survival or threat response system in the brain is overreactive in comparison with other animals. In this post, I want to discuss how this error, what I would describe as an abnormal amygdala in comparison with other primates, has produced what we know as human morality, that is, a distinction between what we call good and evil, or right and wrong, which, according to Genesis 3, is the immediate result of this error occurring.
Morality is one of those subjects which is a fascinating study from the perspective of cultural anthropology. From this perspective, when all cultures across the world are taken into consideration, there are almost no universal tenets of morality. That is, there are almost no prohibitions or proscriptions of behavior which exist within every culture. In some cultures, rape is an atrocity, for example. In others, it's legal justice (believe it or not). In some cultures adultery is punishable by death, in others it's normal practice. In some cultures, retributive murder is considered justice, in others, it is a serious crime. In some cultures, nudity is considered shameful or even criminal, in others, it's considered normal, and what constitutes nudity varies between cultures. There are degrees, exceptions, and variations to all of these things and many more. The only two possible exceptions to this lack of universal cultural moral tenets are the killing of an innocent human being in cold blood, and incest. Though this latter practice does have its own exceptions under very strict rules depending on the culture.
In Psychology as a discipline, there are what are called the "Stages of Moral Development" originally laid out by Lawrence Kolberg. In his scheme, human beings progress through six successive stages of moral development: Avoiding Punishment (I will do what I'm told or I will be punished for it), Self-Interest (I will do what I'm told because it benefits me), Good Boy Attitude (I will do what I'm told because I will be seen as a good person), Law and Order Morality (I will do what the law says), Social Contract (I recognize that the law is not always right, and I will follow what is right when the law is not), and Universal Ethical Principles (Society is not always right, and I will do and work for what is right even if society is against me) . The first two are seen roughly from the ages of 3 to 7. The second two are seen from the ages of 8 to 13, and the last two, should they be reached, are considered to develop during adulthood. It should be noted that Kohlberg himself said that not everyone reached every stage, regardless of physical age, and that many people became stuck at Law and Order Morality. Very few, in his opinion, ever reached the stage of Universal Ethical Principles. It was also his contention that everyone advanced in each stage in succession. No one skipped a stage, or took them out of order.
When looking at the stages of moral development, a theme or a pattern begins to emerge, and we can see that, from the very earliest childhood, morality is based on what the person perceives as a threat or a reward. When we go back further than three years old, and look at newborn infants up to the age of two, from a moral viewpoint, they generally only express what they either like or don't like. What pleases them, or what doesn't please them. For those two year olds who are verbal by that point, they will often declare what they don't like as "bad" and what they do like as "good." When a parent does something they don't like, it isn't unheard of for the child to declare "Bad Mommy!" much to her dismay. When an infant receives a food which it finds unpalatable, it will frequently treat it like an adult might treat poison and try to get rid of it in some way. In contrast, a food or a toy that the child likes is treated as though the child cannot survive without it and much crying and screaming may ensue if it is not given. And so, what we see from infancy in human beings is that the very beginnings of morality appear lie with what the person dislikes or likes, and the infant's reactions are indicative of these dislikes or likes being seen as either a survival threat or a survival need by the child's brain.
With all of these things in mind, I would argue, based on observation, that human morality, the concept of "good" and "bad/evil," is a direct result of the overreactive human amygdala treating nearly everything as either a survival need or a survival threat, even if there is no actual physical threat. As we progress through infancy and into later childhood, the amygdala interprets what pleases and what displeases as a need or a threat and treats it accordingly. As the child gets older, this extends to what the child agrees with and disagrees with, the former being seen as "good" and the latter as "bad." This fundamental basis of morality then extends into adulthood as the person is raised in a certain culture with certain societal expectations which that person deems in his or her best interest to conform to (and what is in that person's best interest must also be in everyone else's best interest, or so the human brain tends to interpret it). As the person is educated and begins to think about what is actually in everyone's best interest, they agree with that, and the survival of others is then placed on a similar plane as their own survival. Another way to interpret this is that the person identifies with the principles or ethics which they have agreed with so much that it is the principles which must survive at all cost even if the physical body does not. That is, the survival of one's self-identity is considered the priority over the survival of one's body.
In general, the human brain tends to collect or even hoard those things that please it, and tends to push away or try to destroy those things that displease it. A person may form an attachment to something or someone they see as a necessity in their lives, and an aversion to something or someone they see as a threat (to whatever degree) in their lives. A person may crave chocolate, but green beans disgust them and are avoided. A person may crave money, but poverty must be avoided at all costs. A person may crave the companionship of certain people, but actively attempt to avoid others. This behavior, as can probably be seen, can grow more and more detrimental and harmful as someone may commit theft because they believe they need what they stole, or murder because they believe a person was a threat to them in some way, or rape or adultery because they believed they weren't going to have their sexual drive satisfied any other way. With the amygdala sorting everything we encounter, every thought, every person into needs or threats, harm to others and ourselves is the inevitable result.
Consider how arbitrary human morality actually is as I discussed at the beginning of this post. Consider how arbitrary, even ridiculous, the very first thing which is recorded that human beings declared "bad" or immoral. They were naked. Why is this arbitrary, even ridiculous? Because every animal on the planet is naked. To this day, human beings are the only animal on Earth to make and wear clothing voluntarily. Every other animal without exception seems perfectly fine with wondering around completely uncovered and unclothed from the day they are born to the day they die. Prior to the introduction of Hamartia, this was also the case with human beings as the Genesis account records. Then, suddenly, they develop an error in their thinking and they begin to try and cover themselves up for no reason apparent to anyone else observing as though they had gone mad. What had been a perfectly normal state was suddenly seen as a threat that they had to deal with.
But what about compassion and empathy? Isn't this a part of human morality? Yes and no. Compassion and empathy are the ability to feel what another person is feeling. From my understanding, this is at least in part due to what are called "mirror neurons" in the human brain which act to "mirror" the other person in such a way so as to interpret how they are feeling or even what they might be thinking without them having to verbalize it. Compassion and empathy allow the person to see themselves in the other person, to emotionally step into their shoes and, at least to an small extent, allow themselves to be that person and experience what they experience. These things are what allow human beings to relate to one another as human beings. This seemingly independent system becomes a part of human morality when the person sees it as a survival need, and therefore something to accumulate.
In conclusion, human morality is based on the human brain, afflicted with the error of an overreactive amygdala, sorting everything: people, possessions, ideas, likes, dislikes, things agreed with and things disagreed with into survival needs or survival threats and assigning the labels of "good" or "bad" to them accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment