Bad to the Bone

Slick’s room, Friday the 12th of February, 16:53

Good morning internet, how are you today?

It’s me again, back to put more words into your think-space. Is it beginning to show that I’m struggling both to come up with original opening lines and to give up my insistence on doing so?

Today, I’d like to discuss that pillar of philosophy- morality. Now, minds far greater than mine (well, maybe similarly as great as mine. False modesty really doesn’t suit me) have spent lifetimes grappling with this subject, and clear answers have yet to emerge, so while I may well revisit this topic in future, today I’m going to try focusing quite narrowly on the origins of human morality rather than its content: why  do we think we are we good/bad, rather than what  actually makes someone good/bad.

Well, for millions of people around the world, we are good because God/ the gods/ the FSM want us to be, and we are bad when we fail to uphold his/her/its desires through our own weakness. This view (known in philosophy as divine command theory) basically considers the root of morality to be the divine mind. Now, those of you who are regular readers of this blog should have a good idea how I feel about this kind of theory, but for those of you who don’t….

Divine command theory is stupid. Firstly, it relies much to heavily on the concept of one divine will- if morality comes from God, then which God? Does that mean that one religions is right, and that everyone else is wrong? If this is the case, how can we possibly judge which religion is the correct one? What if the correct religion is Egyptian paganism- does that mean all modern people are terrible people and destined for Egyptian hell?  Or does it rather mean that there are countless rival deities, and that what is right for one is wrong for the others? Well if this is the case, then does it matter which one we follow? Surely, whatever I choose to do with my time, one or more Gods throughout history will applaud me, and yet others condemn me- does this mean that I’m guaranteed a place in both heaven and hell?

Additionally, if, to take an example at random, Christianity is right- then what chance did all the ancient Greeks have of ever getting it right? It seems monstrously unfair that God should punish them as sinners simply because they had the misfortune to exist in the wrong part of space-time to hear the truth. They couldn’t help be anything but sinners!

Finally, there is a problem here with Atheism- now, whilst I’m not saying that all atheists are morally infallible, most sensible people will acknowledge that many of them are extremely nice people, who go through life trying to make it a nicer experience for those around them- they give to charity, console friends, etc. It seems that the Divine Command theorist must say either that they are somehow “accidentally” doing God’s will, despite the fact that they themselves would reject such a claim, or alternatively that, despite appearances, they are actually bad people. I don’t know about you, but this whole position reeks of a poorly thought out blind faith approach to me.

So, if not God, then where else would our morality come from? Well, at the opposite end of the spectrum, we have evolutionary explanations. We have our concepts of right and wrong because some things (such as “don’t murder all the children for fun”) have evolutionary benefit in preserving the genes of an individual or indeed a society of individuals. In this view, that which is for the genetic good is “good” and that which is detrimental is “bad”, and any philosophical attempt we make to define morality as any more than an kind of in-built societal cohesion/survival mechanism is essentially wistful thinking. We are nice to each other because, fundamentally, it is in our best interests as animals to be so- after all, if no-one trusted you because you were a renowned thief, you would find it a lot more difficult to find a long-term, suitable mate and raise an optimum number of children.

Now, this view of morality is, in many respects, a lot more appealing- it has the advantage, unlike Divine Command, of being supported by evidence in the real world- we can witness the development of primitive “morality”-esque systems in, say, higher primates, and relate them to out own situation. While it is true that there are things which seem difficult now for evolution to explain- why, for example, is it considered wrong to eat a child who is unrelated to you to prevent yourself form starving. Evolutionary speaking, this seems like sound decision, but morally speaking it would be widely condemned. However, it is certainly possible that evolutionary explanations for such things will one day be proposed, as they have been in the past. Evolution is far form my forte, but suffice it to say that, for now, it seems a neat and accurate account of human morality.

That being said however, I cannot accept a purely evolutionary explanation for human morality. Such an explanation would involve implying that, for all the airs we give ourselves, we are essentially and irrevocably bound by our animal natures, doomed never to rise above our baser genetic instincts, and any attempt we make to convince ourselves otherwise is mere self-deception. Personally, I prefer to see morality as deriving from evolutionary factors but ultimately surmounting them, and emerging into a state where it posseses its own value. For me, the root of morality is a combination of instinct and sympathy- for example, I am nice to people who seem upset because I can sympathise with their feeling and wish to relieve them from it- and intellect- for example, I encourage secularism as a moral cause because I consider that the benefits (freedom from religious repression, open dialogue between differet positions, etc.) has long term positive impact on the “good” of people in general- and not just in an evolutionary sense. In other words, while it is true that human emotion and intellect, like our idea of God, arises ultimately from our evolution as an animal species, it is also true that, having reached this state, we are more than simply animals, and our morality validly reflects such concerns without need to recourse fully to either God or science.

Be good,

Slick

P.s I’m personally quite enjoying the regular switching back and forth between philosophy of religion and human relationships as blog topics. What does everyone else think? Anyone want to see more of one and less of the other? Or something completely different?

The Winner Takes it all…

Slick’s room, Monday 1st February 16:12

Good morrow, gentle-folk! Slick here, combatting your prolonged winter blues with a warm cup of blog. Cream and marshmallows not included.

So,  last night I went out in Newcastle, and, wonder of wonders, the entire city was full of school-girls. Or, more accurately (and legally) adult women dressed as such. I kid you not- on a sunday night, every single bar was jam-packed with the biggest social in the world: Carnage. Some commercially organised club-night thing. I’d say we should have one in Durham, but I’m not sure it would work in the same way…

Anyway, the reason I raise this point is that some of my experiences, and also conversations I had with my friends at the end of the night directly inspired me with the subject of this afternoons blog. Today I’d like to talk to you about a little something called “The Game”.

Now, for those of you who don’t know, the game is essentially an esoteric selection of rules, maxims and customs regarding inter-personal, inter-gender relationships. The goal of the game depends on the player- but in most cases is one of two things. For many “players” (and in this case the term is fully appropriate) the goal of the game is to get laid, as often as possible and with as many different people as possible. For others, the goal of “the Game” is to find a single individual who is good-looking, and a nice enough person that they can start getting involved in something more long-term, and I suppose ultimately settle down with. In fact, it is probably fair to see marrying the girl/guy of your dreams as the ultimate form of winning the game. It could be argued that these are really two different games, but as frequently they are played on the same playing field, using the same rules, they can be considered the same for now.

To give more concrete examples of what the Game really is, when you say to yourself “how long should I wait before calling this girl?” or “whats the best chat up line to use in this situation?” or “if I go out with this guy for a drink, does that count as a date?” or “I shouldn’t get involved with him because we’re such good friends” you are playing the game. Essentially, the game consists of a set of rules and regulations which we all (or nearly all) buy into whether we like it or not- because not playing the game essentially means losing the game, and never getting a boyfriend/girlfriend or any sort of romantic entanglement (except in a few exceptional circumstances. Like, I guess, sitting on a train next to someone who says “I’ve had enough of playing the Game”, I just want to find someone on this train I can be honest with) and few people have the strength to accept that consequence.

Obviously, some people are more involved in the Game than others- there are even books written about how to succeed at the game, and men who essentially dedicate themselves to being master “Players” (in this sense the goal of the game is pretty universally sex rather than long term companionship, but arguably for some guys the best way to find something more serious is to have a wide selection of shallower things first, which can be pursued more at will.) Some people- nuns, priests, people who are really involved in their careers, and  people who marry their first love- manage to avoid playing much, if at all, but nonetheless the game is a powerful force in our western Anglo-American culture. We’ve all heard the phrase “don’t hate the player, hate the game”.

To return briefly to the whole two games/one game distinction, it might be superficially appealing to divide the players into men and women, and say that often the men are pursuing sex as the end “goal” and women are pursuing marriage- hence, for example, amusing t-shirts bearing an ecstatic bride and gloomy groom and the slogan “game over”- but this is an unfair distinction:  there are plenty of guys whose sole reason for playing “the game” is to find a girl and settle down, and there are plenty of girls who enjoy playing for the more shallow casual sex goal. I could complain here about how much easier it is for women to succeed at “the game” (in either sense) but I will restrain myself.

Now, I don’t know about everyone out there, but personally, despite the impression some people seem to have of me, I really dislike the game. I have played, and will continue to play, but I’d much rather not, because essentially The Game is a game of deception. It relies on hiding aspects of yourself and exaggerating others. It involves observing restrictive rules- such as “don’t call a girl for three days” or “have sex on the third date”, regardless of what you  personally want to do. And if you stop playing the game- if, for example, you tell a girl/guy that you really like her/him even if you’ve only been on a single date, then you are branded as a “wierdo” or “creepy” and ostracised- you lose the game.  I know I keep returning to this point (in fact its one of the few uniting themes of my blog) but I would much rather be honest. For me, it would be simpler if we didn’t have to play the game- if we could just interact with people as fellow human beings without placing all these restrictions upon ourselves, but unfortunately I cannot see how that will ever happen. It will always be the case that we, for example, wait a certain amount of time before phoning someone so as not to come on too strong, or carefully construct what we say to someone we like in order to provoke the best response- I fear the Game is too deeply embedded in our collective social consciences to do otherwise. Now, I’m not saying that we can’t be honest with the people we love- but in order to achieve that kind of close bond, a little dishonesty and Game playing is necessary in the first place. Even the happiest couples, as far as I know, had a period at the very beginning when they danced around each other, and were uncertain about what or how much to say, and how to say it to one another.

On somewhat of a side-note, I think that the Game is, in part, why it is important to have close, platonic friends- with good friends you can really be honest, and let of some of the pressure that maintaining this facade we put on for the benefit of the opposite sex (or the same sex if you’re that way inclined) puts us under. I know that without my friends it would eventually drive me crazy.

Keep it real, Players

Slick.

P.S you just lost the game.