Near as I can tell, every social / moral / ethical system includes these two components: (1) this is the way we are by nature, but (2) this is the way we should be (according to a moral vision).
Nobody wants man to be “natural” man. Everybody (worth considering) wants to recognize our dark side but calls us to transcend it for the purpose of some higher calling.
For example, let’s say it was fairly well established that people are naturally tribalistic and will prefer people who are like them to people who are unlike them. Someone might admit that’s the way we are by nature, but believe we need to transcend that and accept everybody. Or, again, we could admit that people are selfish, but that we should learn charity. We realize that men want to play the field, but we’re calling them to chastity (which is not the same thing as celibacy).
In various leftist ideologies, this is “the new man.” Yes, men are greedy and want to accumulate wealth for themselves, but we’re calling them to work for the common good as a higher value.
This topic was brought home with particular force as I listened to Mythos by Stephen Fry on my long drives to and from Nashville.
Fry’s retelling of the Greek myths is very good, and his audio version is fantastic. He argues in an appendix that one compelling thing about the Greek myths is that they’re very human. We don’t see an idealized view of man, but man with all his faults.
Fry is homosexual, and IMO he’s a little too eager to promote the “not heteronormative” aspect of the Greek stories. But this raises an interesting question. You can’t promote a moral view by saying “this is natural.” We all believe we’re supposed to transcend nature, and that means repressing certain things and promoting other things. It means calling men to be more (better) than they are. If the Greek myths represent how we are, that’s not a moral vision.
But what things do we promote, and what things do we suppress? How do we decide between competing moral visions?
From the “everything I need to know I learned from Star Trek” point of view, we might reflect on the TOS episode called “Patterns of Force,” in which a revered Federation academic encouraged the Ekosians to adopt Naziism. As Spock explains, it makes a lot of sense from a purely utilitarian point of view. Professor John Gill was right. The Nazis provide an incredible example of reviving a nation that’s down in the dumps. They converted a downtrodden, beaten, poor, and demoralized Germany into a nation that almost achieved world domination.
Spock, the utilitarian / logician, is contrasted with Kirk, the hero / humanitarian, who doesn’t care about all that. “But why Nazi Germany?” he asks with revulsion.
The Nazi Ekosians show us that the bare fact that a system is efficient, or has good outcomes from one point of view, doesn’t justify it from all points of view.
This seems to be part of the crisis western civilization is going through.
Men are brutes. We need to give them a vision to call them to something better. But we (collectively, as a culture) have lost faith in the traditional (western/Christian) answer, and we’re all stabbing around for something else. We can’t agree on a moral framework or vision, so we certainly can’t agree on specific tactics or rules.
For one group, liberty and self expression is a higher moral value than family, which comes with traditions and restrictions. The first-tier value (liberty) might be best served by some second-tier value, like universal suffrage. But universal suffrage remains a second-tier value, and will be abandoned if it’s not perceived to promote the first-tier value.
Conservatives have foolishly believed that if we promote second-tier values, like freedom of speech or democracy, we’ll be okay.
No. People are more than willing to ditch freedom of speech or democracy (which are tactical, second-tier values) for the sake of some higher value.
Take the woke for example. They know perfectly well that they’re restricting freedom of speech, but they think it’s justified in the service of something else.
The over-arching moral vision creates a hierarchy of moral values (first tier) that are implemented by tactics (second tier). So, “all men are created equal” (first tier) results in certain tactics, like equality before the law (second tier).
Many conservatives think they can win the culture by promoting second-tier values, like freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law, etc. This will fail. Radicals will continue to undermine the moral vision that undergirds those tactical values, and replace it with another set of values that require different tactics.
It’s likely this will happen all of a sudden. One day someone will question the previously unquestionable, and people will think, “Yeah, why did we care about free speech anyway?”
The moral vision has to be promoted and defended or else the tactics will be swept away in a revolution.
That’s where we are now — primed for a revolution. The moral vision of the west has been undermined for decades, and now the second-tier / tactical values that support it are being questioned. The only hope of conserving the western tradition is to get back to its moral and religious foundations.
[I asked ChatGPT to respond to this post in the style of Jordan Peterson. This is what I got.]
Well, it appears that you’ve stumbled upon a fundamental truth about the human condition. You see, every society, every culture, every ethical system, has within it a tension between what is natural and what is right. And this tension is what gives rise to the need for a moral vision that transcends human nature.
You’re correct in observing that nobody wants man to be “natural” man. We recognize that human beings have a dark side, that we are capable of unspeakable acts of cruelty and destruction. But we also believe that we can transcend this darkness, that we can rise above our base instincts and strive towards something greater.
Now, you mention the Greek myths, and how they present a very human view of man, with all his faults and flaws. And yet, even in these myths, we see the importance of transcending our nature. We see heroes who strive towards a higher ideal, who overcome their own weaknesses and shortcomings in order to achieve greatness.
But how do we decide what is right, what is worth striving for? This is a difficult question, and one that has no easy answers. There are many competing moral visions, each with their own set of values and priorities.
Some might argue for liberty and self-expression as the highest values, while others might prioritize tradition and family. And yet, even within these broad categories, there are endless variations and nuances.
Ultimately, what we need is a moral framework that is grounded in something deeper than mere human opinion or preference. We need a foundation that is solid and unshakeable, that can withstand the winds of change and the storms of revolution.
And that foundation, my friend, is the moral and religious traditions of the West. These traditions have provided a framework for ethical living for thousands of years, and they remain just as relevant today as they ever were.
So, if we hope to conserve the Western tradition, if we hope to defend the values and principles that have made our civilization great, then we must return to our moral and religious foundations. We must re-discover the wisdom of our ancestors, and apply it to the challenges of our time.
And if we do this, if we stay true to our moral vision and defend it against those who would tear it down, then we can be confident that we will emerge from this crisis stronger and more resilient than ever before.
Maybe a distinction without a difference… you tell me…
The Orthodox say that the natural man is good. They say that because everything God created is good. The problem now is that we are not in our natural state–we are in a deformed state apart from our natural state.
When most speak of our “natural” state, they mean this deformed state everyone finds themselves in. And, in this deformed state, most of the religious traditions do agree that we have a disposition towards evil.
The founders of this country which were a mix of christians, deists, and enlightment had at least some sense that this wouldn’t work without self control. Now, self control is out of vogue. You can watch Maury where some woman is testing the 5th guy who might be the father of her baby…and she wants welfare from the state and welfare from some guy she bumped uglies with for one time.
That’s an interesting point. I suppose the question that follows is how we can know whether any particular aspect of our nature is from our natural state or our deformed state.