Biological Foundations of Politics

[cwjerome]

Basically the social conventions we've created through our culture and institutions over time. I totally agree with you that today's version of individualism is superficial and different from before.

 

[Mursilis]

Having been an individualistic person personally and politically, I had always assumed a close connection with the basic thoughts of Hobbes, Locke, and even Rousseau. Although these thinkers varied in detail, they are all completely individualistic in their appraisal of man's nature. Human nature, they said, was solitary and man was not a social animal.

I don't know how a person can study human social science and not see fairly quickly that such an idea is dead wrong.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't know how a person can study human social science and not see fairly quickly that such an idea is dead wrong.

I just wonder if anyone who cares to think about these things has tried to reconcile the fact that many of our most basic political and economic premises are derived from the individualist originations of Locke and Hobbes while society has evolved into a better understanding of man's nature as a social animal. It's just a strange paradox.

 

[Craig234]

I just wonder if anyone who cares to think about these things has tried to reconcile the fact that many of our most basic political and economic premises are derived from the individualist originations of Locke and Hobbes while society has evolved into a better understanding of man's nature as a social animal. It's just a strange paradox.

I don't see the paradox. A better one might be how social cooperation increases freedom.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't see the paradox. A better one might be how social cooperation increases freedom.

Enlightenment thinkers, the ones who gave us the building blocks for the "American system" got the 'state of nature' wrong: humans evolved to hunt and gather in groups--there never was a time when individuals acted as free-agents who, in their rational self-interest, came to establish a 'social contract' whereby they would give up some liberty in order to provide for the common security (government). Instead, there was an ongoing interplay between an emergent market morality (provided by tit-for-tat exchanges), the need to wage war, and ideas (religion, ideology & normative beliefs regarding the law) that together have tended to promote the development of political order in societies.

Maybe "contradiction" is a better term than paradox, but we are now trying to apply our more recent understandings of humanity over our older conceptions, to tweak and update them, and bring our institutions and systems into line with human nature as we better understand it now. I find that interesting.

 

[Craig234]

Enlightenment thinkers, the ones who gave us the building blocks for the "American system" got the 'state of nature' wrong: humans evolved to hunt and gather in groups--there never was a time when individuals acted as free-agents who, in their rational self-interest, came to establish a 'social contract' whereby they would give up some liberty in order to provide for the common security (government). Instead, there was an ongoing interplay between an emergent market morality (provided by tit-for-tat exchanges), the need to wage war, and ideas (religion, ideology & normative beliefs regarding the law) that together have tended to promote the development of political order in societies.

Maybe "contradiction" is a better term than paradox, but we are now trying to apply our more recent understandings of humanity over our older conceptions, to tweak and update them, and bring our institutions and systems into line with human nature as we better understand it now. I find that interesting.

I don't really agree with the conclusions you're asserting. It's not how it works.

Compare the mentality of WWII Europe to today's Europe - it's vastly different about war.

That's not an evolutionary change, it's a cultural change and cultural changes are hugely influential - I'd say dominant - on the issue.

I can agree our founding fathers were a bit optimistic, but more correct than you think.

 

[Mursilis]

Enlightenment thinkers, the ones who gave us the building blocks for the "American system" got the 'state of nature' wrong: humans evolved to hunt and gather in groups--there never was a time when individuals acted as free-agents who, in their rational self-interest, came to establish a 'social contract' whereby they would give up some liberty in order to provide for the common security (government). Instead, there was an ongoing interplay between an emergent market morality (provided by tit-for-tat exchanges), the need to wage war, and ideas (religion, ideology & normative beliefs regarding the law) that together have tended to promote the development of political order in societies.

I think you're taking social contract theory way too literally. Besides, for the vast, vast majority, any idea of a basic cohesive political theory is irrelevant, as most don't subscribe to a single coherent school of political thought - rather, they just graze from one political position to the next depending on the social whims of the period. Otherwise, how do you explain people who claim, on the one hand, gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body (abortion), and yet, on the other hand, gov't does have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body (illegal drug use)?

The greatest paradox or contradiction I see in contemporary political thought is the conflicting ways in which we view the typical 'citizen'. We assume Joe Citizen is an autonomous, intelligent being, and should be able to decide for him or herself what books to read, religions to follow, and groups to associate with, and yet we also assume Joe Citizen is a complete simpleton who can't be trusted to plan his/her own retirement and needs protection from things like payday lenders.

 

[cwjerome]

I think you're taking social contract theory way too literally. Besides, for the vast, vast majority, any idea of a basic cohesive political theory is irrelevant, as most don't subscribe to a single coherent school of political thought - rather, they just graze from one political position to the next depending on the social whims of the period. Otherwise, how do you explain people who claim, on the one hand, gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body (abortion), and yet, on the other hand, gov't does have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body (illegal drug use)?

See, you (and most everyone) is using our basic frame of reference that's been derived from the individualist interpretation of man, nature, and rights. It is our baseline philosophical operating system, whether you or any individual is conscious of it or not. But it's not about individuals subscribing to a single coherent school of thought, it's about society and the principles -however implicit- that underpin it.

This is a recent quote from you in another topic: "Society" doesn't exist, and therefore has no "interests"; individuals exist, but have wildly divergent interests, some of which (most of which?) probably aren't even in the individual's own best interest over the long term."

You are a perfect representation of the western individualist mentality, born of Locke and Hobbes (mainly) and institutionally adopted by the US as a fundamental truism. The only problem is, as I have described in this thread, this individualist conceptual interpretation of the nature of man and reality has no basis in historical or scientific evidence. "Society" is the default foundation and condition of man.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think you're taking social contract theory way too literally. Besides, for the vast, vast majority, any idea of a basic cohesive political theory is irrelevant, as most don't subscribe to a single coherent school of political thought - rather, they just graze from one political position to the next depending on the social whims of the period. Otherwise, how do you explain people who claim, on the one hand, gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body (abortion), and yet, on the other hand, gov't does have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body (illegal drug use)?

The greatest paradox or contradiction I see in contemporary political thought is the conflicting ways in which we view the typical 'citizen'. We assume Joe Citizen is an autonomous, intelligent being, and should be able to decide for him or herself what books to read, religions to follow, and groups to associate with, and yet we also assume Joe Citizen is a complete simpleton who can't be trusted to plan his/her own retirement and needs protection from things like payday lenders.

I think that's a pretty good characterization of the conundrum. One could almost dream that common sense would tell a person when to apply one and when to apply the other. So my question is, does such common sense even exist? On what authority could one make a case? I would guess everybody believes they have common sense.

 

[Mursilis]

You are a perfect representation of the western individualist mentality, born of Locke and Hobbes (mainly) and institutionally adopted by the US as a fundamental truism. The only problem is, as I have described in this thread, this individualist conceptual interpretation of the nature of man and reality has no basis in historical or scientific evidence. "Society" is the default foundation and condition of man.

First, defining justice and the like in terms of the individual hardly began with Hobbes and Locke. Plato addressed some of the same topics in the Republic; heck, even the Torah addressed this topic in the conversation between God and Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom.

Second, that Man is a social being and has formed social units since the beginning of known history is essentially irrelevant when considering topics like individual rights and justice. We may be interconnected as a social unit on one level, but in our basic pursuits of most needs and wants, we're still individuals - you getting an illness and dying has essentially no effect on me, other than perhaps emotionally if we're in the same social unit. My physical health is certainly not affected.

This is what I meant when I said you're taking social contract theory too literally - Hobbes et al. never stated that individuals actually existed as autonomous units for any significant length of time. Rather, they recognized that when it came to fulfilling needs and wants, we may live in a society, but our wants and needs are still individualized. Thus, earlier political theories like pure utilitarianism were inadequate, as they tended to justify things like slavery - abuse of the individual for the common good. That's fine if you're the slave owner, living well off the labor of another, but not so good if you're the slave. Thus, we have to recognize the idea of basic human rights on the individual level, the sort of rights which shouldn't be violated even if society as a whole may benefit. As for what those rights are or should be, that's a whole different debate.

 

[cwjerome]

I think you're starting to understand a little better how different these new understandings of man and his nature may be philosophically and the impact they could have on the trajectory of future society.

First, defining justice and the like in terms of the individual hardly began with Hobbes and Locke. Plato addressed some of the same topics in the Republic; heck, even the Torah addressed this topic in the conversation between God and Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom.

Nope, I didn't say they began Hobbes and Locke, although those two had the biggest direct impact on the "American" system.

Second, that Man is a social being and has formed social units since the beginning of known history is essentially irrelevant when considering topics like individual rights and justice. We may be interconnected as a social unit on one level, but in our basic pursuits of most needs and wants, we're still individuals - you getting an illness and dying has essentially no effect on me, other than perhaps emotionally if we're in the same social unit. My physical health is certainly not affected.

This is very, very wrong... what man is and how he is and his relationship to others and the outside world has everything to do with rights and justice. These are the basic building blocks of philosophy and political theory. Even your example is wrong; the general welfare (that might sound familiar) of others does affect you, even physically. It's always been so. That is what governments do, including the US, it serves the people... not the individual.

This is what I meant when I said you're taking social contract theory too literally - Hobbes et al. never stated that individuals actually existed as autonomous units for any significant length of time. Rather, they recognized that when it came to fulfilling needs and wants, we may live in a society, but our wants and needs are still individualized. Thus, earlier political theories like pure utilitarianism were inadequate, as they tended to justify things like slavery - abuse of the individual for the common good. That's fine if you're the slave owner, living well off the labor of another, but not so good if you're the slave. Thus, we have to recognize the idea of basic human rights on the individual level, the sort of rights which shouldn't be violated even if society as a whole may benefit. As for what those rights are or should be, that's a whole different debate.

Actually utilitarianism as we use the term came after Locke and Hobbes.

The idea that political actors like people and governments alway seek to maximize their 'rational self-interests' is individualist and springs from the principles of people like Hobbes, Locke, Smith, and others. But as I've mentioned, much of what we are learning about early man and basic human nature shows this isn't necessarily true. It's an interesting construct that helps us frame and organize our knowledge and view of the world in a hopefully constructive way, but isn't really true. What we are learning is there are a variety of things people do that aren't necessarily in their individual best interest and it happens quite often. The book "Predictably Irrational" is a pretty good read into this, although the author shows it happens without really getting into why it happens, other than mentioning there are a variety of other factors that come into play when people make decisions and choices besides rational self interest.