Human Nature Has No History? Complete Bunk! Here’s Why

This post was inspired by Terrance Heath’s article entitled “3 Fundamental Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals”

Today, however, American optimism has got completely out of hand. A corrective is needed. The corrective must come from conservatives, the people who understand that “human nature has no history.” We must revive the fine tradition of conservative pessimism. In this age, optimism is for children and fools. And liberals..”

This statement struck me as so very odd. So I decided to investigate a bit.

I found a good explanation in Jonah Goldbergs blog post “The Next Big Thing“. He wrote:

As longtime readers know, my favorite definition of conservatism is the idea that “human nature has no history.” In other words, it is only through the power of our institutions, traditions, and ideas that we are not barbarians. If men were angels, we’d have started as angels and there would never have been a need for all that trial and error we call human history. But, men are not angels, men are disgusting; we need thousands of years of cultural evolution and constant reminders even today that we shouldn’t pee in the kitchen sink
…
This may be obvious to you and me. But it strikes many “progressives” as odd. They think humans have somehow “improved” since the days when they needed to be taught a lot of that dead-white-guy crap. Many on the Left would gladly take a pill that made us forget the Canon. They don’t realize that if we did that, within days we’d probably start eating grubs and fighting over who gets the choicest cuts of rat. When you hear arguments against tradition or Western civilization you are essentially watching someone take a sledgehammer to the very soapbox they are standing on(sic).

Does anyone else see the problem here?  Civilization may be nothing more than a thin veil for him.  He might need lots of rules with lots of enforcement to keep him acting like a civil human being.  And indeed, this may be true of all his friends and associates.  But it is certainly not true of everyone.  And I know because it is most certainly not true of me.

Since he brought up cannon law, allow me to introduce one of my favorite parts of the Christian bible. These, I believe, are words to live by;

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified
Galatians 2:16

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
1 Timothy 1:8-11

This is the highest standard of the morally and ethically enlightened.  And one does not need to be a Christian to follow it.  Any atheist can be as comfortable practicing morality and ethics as the most devout theist.(The emphasis is so any atheist can see I’m using the aforementioned quotes as statements of a philosophy of law, rather than religious cannon) One only needs to be self motivated to be morally and ethically enlightened; to be moral and ethical for it’s own sake rather because some law tells you so or to avoid some social censure.

There resides within us all, a kernel of morality and ethics.  Our brains are naturally wired for it.  Fairness, it seems, is directly wired to the reward center of our brain.  Even more compelling than that; our brains have to work extra to damp down our reactions to inequality whenever we are faced with an ethically dissonant situation.  And it’s not just equality either.  ‘The golden rule’ also seems to be hard wired in the brain.  But again, we had to develop extra circuitry to override it – making the brain work overtime in order to be unkind to someone.  Again and again, we see that the brain requires more activity to act badly than it does to act good.  It has to work to suppress it’s natural tendencies to do right.

The theory that human nature has no history depends upon the idea that adults are no more cognitively developed than children before they learn right from wrong.  It takes ethics to apply morality in any consistent manner.  And a sense of ethics requires cognitive maturity.  Perhaps this immaturity is true of conservatives.  Perhaps this is their highest level of moral and ethical development.  The rest of us grew up and learned how to apply our morals in an ethical manner.

My theory is that the concepts of morality and ethics developed long before manipulation and evil.  Both were developed through natural selection as successful survival tactics.  But the brain is also largely plastic; whatever you use most develops the most.  Practice evil manipulation and that is the kind of brain you get.  But it’s not all cut and dry either.  Morality is hard wired into the brain and is tied directly to our emotions.  To be physically amoral is to be missing large chunks of the human brain.   Ethics, on the other hand, is largely a matter of mindfullness and priorities.  One grows up learning to be mindful to apply our moral sense.  This is a large part of the role of modern parents.  Some people value loyalty more highly than others.  Loyalty is the moral foundation of motherhood, family, and nationalism.  Who is too loyal and who is not is a matter of opinion.  But for many, it’s more important to be loyal to one’s “own group” than it is to be personally moral or ethical.  Thus, many would support “the group” even if the group commits mass murder, invades others unjustly and wages uses biological warfare against other groups.

Loyalty, by the way, is considered one of the five basic morals (the others being purity/sanctity, safety/care, equality/reciprocity, and authority/respect.  Each exists across all human cultures; so they are universal.  Obviously, some loyalty is good – as in the case of a mother nurturing her child (instead of any other) or brothers sticking up for one another.  But there’s some point where loyalty is overemphasized – as in the case of people supporting the invasion of Iraq even years after the reasoning was shown to be false (an ethics failure by conservatives), and the destruction of the Iranian and Guatemalan governments to promote American interests (two ethics failures by liberals).

So here we are at last; having proven that one of the most fundamental precepts of conservative philosophy is completely wrong.  Not only does human nature have a history that spans as far back as the first creatures to nurture their young, but it probably has a far longer history than the legalism required to civilize conservative “human nature”.

In fact, what conservatives are calling “human nature” is almost indistinguishable from their resentment to the legalism required to keep them civilized.  Pass any law, no matter how humane, moral, or ethical it be, and these conservatives will call it “human nature” to resist it.  Law itself is an inhumane institution that creates niches for legalists to make a living.  The more law there is, the more niches there are to support legalists (people who make a living by finding ways to enforce or subvert the law).  The only reason we have laws is to keep these people from acting like barbarians.  But since these “human nature has no history” kind of people want to act without regard to morality or ethics, they seek ways to circumvent the law, relegate it to irrelevance, or subvert it to their own advantage.

Of course, once one of these people subverts the law to take advantage of others, he becomes the very advocate of the law.  “The law is the law”, he might say; but such absolutism is inhuman.  Unfortunately, we need such absolutism to keep these people from breaking the law; in spirit if not the letter.  Good people naturally resent a subverted law and seek to circumvent it themselves, or relegate it to irrelevance.  “More laws”, the subverter says.  “my legalistic advantage must be enforced”, only to find more resentments, more people gaming the system, more legalists.  Eventually, the whole system spreads to consume all available energy.  At which point, people rebel, force is applied, and people die.  Hopefully, the subverter is overthrown and the advantage removed.  Only for the whole thing to start over again.

This is the conservative idea of civilization.  And they may very well need such inhumanity enforced upon them in order to feel civilized.  But to me, they ask for enslavement to the inhuman system of laws they create for themselves.  They ask for a purely mechanical society where one’s life is fully determined before birth.  That’s not being human.  Cogs in any machine perform the same function.

I need no laws to be moral and ethical.  I need no such bondage.  Strip the law from me and I shall act the same as I do now – only perhaps a bit kinder in my freedom to act out of compassion without inhumane laws blocking me.  Our only need for the law is to keep the “human nature has no history” crowd from harming me.  Take them away, and we have no need for laws.

In my opinion, conservatives who think like that are to be pitied.  I see no way they could possibly make the Earth into anything but an inhumanly hellish place to exist.