Paradigms of Social Justice and Obligation

Conclusion

    The nature and effectiveness of beliefs is revealed by the fact that most beliefs just don't matter, whether because they are contradictory, meaningless, superfluous or inconsequential. If they are contradictory, some other consideration is required for decision. People say they want freedom, democracy, and justice, but they also want security, leadership, and personal advantage - so what happens? Kings seem to have abdicated to someone named Society, whose Good we should believe is the be-all and end-all of social policy. The "good of society" may be perfectly meaningless, but most communication consists of useless repetition, intentional ambiguity, and un-reality to some degree. The clearest distinction among beliefs though is between those that affect the individual's decisions and those in the "political realm". A preference for black coffee has a very real effect, while a belief in some government policy is typically utterly inconsequential. American Republicanism insulates the citizen from even a 100 millionth part voice in any of the millions of governmental decisions made every day. What could be the role of belief in that case?

    If, instead, beliefs are consequent to behavior (or events), than the reaction of the individual to enormous social forces beyond his control is futility and making do. Like sports fans, they identify with and support those forces - such as displays of jingoism, socialism, subordination, or sloganeering. Why they do so is fondly described as "because that makes them feel good". People perceive that en masse, they have an effect on a grander scale than their individual lives - thus, the games of conformity and trying to identify with the winner. Those who succeed in this game of course win a very real division of the spoils of exploitation. The beliefs held during successful games, however meaningless and inconsequential they were, are firmly retained in the best of conservative traditions. Those beliefs, which are the price of admission to conformity, are relieved of any constraint of conforming to reality and assume bizarre mythological forms. Examples abound: religious tenets, American Virtue, organizational group-think, journalists' faith in the mass media.

    What then motivates action if not faddish and inconsequential beliefs? Delusions can persist because they are not contradicted -or, their contradictions are unimportant to survival and success. Just that survival and success are so important suggests biological underpinnings. Deliberate ignorance and denial of evolutionary biology's implications for human behavior is not uncommon. The ignorance is not merely an academic point; it has allowed, even caused, the major trends threatening our civilization. Someone might still avoid the implications for self and individual beliefs, while recognizing that aggregate effects of trendy beliefs and shared propensities have norms or average-weighted distributions of conduct. Whether cultural, childhood, or sub-conscious explanations are preferred is not as important as the recognition of deeply rooted, uncritically examined motivations resulting in a broad range of social problems.

    It might seem strange to seek explanation of modern changes in the constancy of human nature. Other essayists modernize human nature to embellish their preconceptions. So-called mechanistic explanations of human behavior are not excuses for social coercion, but deny, thru fact contradicting fiction, the legitimacy of that coercion. A knowledge of constant human nature could show, for instance, why many laws and institutions are bound to fail, or have "unintended" harmful consequences. By asking how a given nature responds to the modern environment, at least very real and measurable factors are considered. The guide to human nature is how it responded in past environments - again, a quickly growing database called history. A purely cultural evolution of institutions, traditions, and beliefs does not begin to account for why institutions become burdensome, traditions become harmful, and beliefs become absurd; why would a culture evolve for the worse?

    Labeling any of the general activities of humans "new" is liable to be wrong, for an inadequate perspective easily misses what is really the same or similar. For example, modern corporations, bureaucracies, and military organization are manifestations of hierarchy, which is typical of all social primates. What is different is a drastic centralization of power, many more levels of organization, and an anonymous, far-flung, irresponsibility. The motivations behind the trends discussed in this essay probably had their role in every culture at any time. Often what seems new is only more publicized, or cyclical, or merely transient. Just because some aspect of modern life has changed does not necessarily mean human motivations will be expressed differently. Drinkable water piped into every home has a profound effect on everyone's life, but I doubt it has changed anyone's feelings, beliefs, or behavioral strategies. The frenzy of war though undoubtedly does change the expression of biological programming. (This is important because of America's persistent wartime status since world war II.) Understanding human nature is required to anticipate, or explain, why some changes are more significant.

    The predominant (or idealized) alternative to a sociobiological approach simply perpetuates, if not exacerbates, the harmful consequences of modern context. Contrary to preventing "social darwinist abuses", the belief in beliefs necessarily label some beliefs bad and their believers guilty. The attendant censorship and propaganda, discrimination and repression by thought police is a familiar theme of the twentieth century. Even that is minor though compared to the horrendous practices "good" beliefs have supposedly justified. Paternalism, for instance, has excused psychiatric slavery, the war on drug users, and oppression of third world countries, thwarted opportunities at home, and of course, literally defined the enslavement of women. If the "human mindset" did not accept these excuses so easily, the harmful consequences would have been obvious -and avoided. But of course, a primary reason for the prevalent mindset is to distract from that truth. That all the major trends identified in this essay are ignored in the major media indicts the alternative approaches. Problems must first be identified before they can be solved.

    To over-generalize from my interdisciplinary experience, gaining expertise about any social establishment is realizing that the practice is not the principle; our establishments are manifestly not what they are supposed to be or alleged to be. Beliefs or wishes about the nature of, for instance, government regulation, the judicial system, or Big Science, not only contradict, but distract attention from, the reality of those establishments. Curiously, the specialists will admit the truth about their establishment, but not entertain the same skepticism about others. Touche' Everywhere is the cynical lesson, untaught. The institutions and regulations and taxation just keep on growing, while the true motivations behind them are not just ignored, but denied.
 


REVIEW

Trend or Attitude
Context
Primary Motivation
Security & Risk-Avoidance  Insecurity Fear
Presumptive criminalization Anonymity (Distrust) Fear
Criminals lose all rights Statism (Prejudice) Fear
Mental disease paradigm Complexity Greed, Power-lust
Systemic poverty Inequality (Advantage) Greed
Public vs. private good Institutionalism (Cliquish) Greed
Extra-territorial lawlessness Globalism Greed, Morality 
Legislating morality Pluralism Conformability
Violations of social contract Statism  Sociality 

    In every trend above, the motivation for, or explanation of, the agents' behavior is quite distinct from the motivation of those who are not the agents but merely assume appropriate beliefs about other's behavior. For instance, the purveyors of protection are clearly motivated by greed - but it would be surprising if they did not believe in its value, and empathize with the buyers of fear-insurance. A spoonful of sincerity makes the medicine go down. In all the other trends, agents who decide and act belong to The Establishment. If they are not directly employed by the government, their affiliation is like an extended bureaucracy. Their subsidized, protected corporation or institution intimately embraces the government in a mutually corrupt dependence relationship [Karp 1973]. Of course, the Establishment is society, but its agents are "organization men" (who act appropriately) [Whyte], while the non-agents simply believe as individuals. Non-agents have the responsibility of citizens and victims, for whatever that's worth, of allowing and demanding Establishment action. The motivations of victims of coercion seem an academic topic; what beliefs really count at the point of a gun? The coercion is a final effect of a complex system of causes; what "allowed" one person to coerce or victimize another person?

    Such a review is not meant to be complete or even definitive. The "primary motivation" is just a label, and its contents are only a vague reference to some underlying reality. The listed motivation seems only to shine a bit brighter in an enormous constellation of influences. Throughout, all trends and their motivations have been clearly interrelated. Some people dismiss it all pessimistically as the workings of greed - and go on to get theirs. Yet they would be just as guilty of deliberate ignorance. Greed has its place - as essential as any other motivation. The real crime seems to me to be thoughtlessness.

    Is this essay just a matter of opinion? Is this question just a symbolic expression? Against the reality of coercion and other human relationships, reasons and excuses seem rather silly. "There's more punishment because there's more crime." "There's more insurance because more can afford it." "There's more insanity because we can recognize and treat it better." The word games are excuses not to think. Others may be irrational and make excuses, but you yourself have only reasons and goals. It might be argued that the subconscious hypothesis is only a ruse to denigrate other's opinions. However, without subconscious predominance the consequences discussed here would likely not exist. The problem is the absence of informed, reasoned, and impassioned opinions. If this essay leads the reader to re-examine any beliefs and search for some of the evidence offered, it has succeeded. Everyone desperately needs to consider the impact of their individual choices and actions on the remote and long-term. We urgently need more opinions, and controversy, and dissent. Maybe life is just a game, but the stakes are awfully high.
 

The End.