"Man became all he is without understanding it." ¹

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Introduction.	The Evolution of Man.
Things That Are and Things That Ought to Be.	Utopia.
Tradition and Prejudice.	Self-Interest.
The Market.	Greed, Morals and Charity.
Man and The Law.	Conclusions.
Notes.

[TOC]
Introduction:-
All parts of nature, no matter that some might seem to us to be absurd, are of the "general frame"; all of nature, including ourselves, as Pope observed, are but "parts of one stupendous whole." This whole body of nature is throughout all of life and extends itself throughout all of the universe and "operates unspent." Man is not of divine origins, nor is he headed that way; he is not perfect, nor is he perfectible. He is what he is; by nature formed. This is one conclusion, which, after considerable study, seems sensible enough to me. Each of us, however, will have to come to our own conclusion as to the nature of man; but conclude we must; for, without first determining the nature of man, it is not possible to proceed to questions of a political and economic nature, such as, "What is the best social arrangement under which people might work and live?"

We can let our hopes and imaginations run free, as have done a myriad of speculators down through the ages, but much misery will come about if we try to fit people into a scheme which takes into account the way we would like humans to be, rather than the way, by nature, they are.

[TOC]
The Evolution of Man:-
"Fully to understand human conduct as a whole, we must study it as part of that larger whole ..."2 What is the accepted theory as to how the larger whole, the universe, has come about. First, there was the big bang: and from that, things evolved. The scientific question is settled: over millions of years, exposed to the great forces of nature (Nature vis maximna), man, as a natural phenomenon, just as animals and plants, has evolved (through time and random chance) into what he is today. Man, in the larger picture, has but just come down from the trees.

"The hunting and the fighting instinct continue in many manifestations. They both support the emotion of anger; they combine in the fascination which stories of atrocities have for most minds ... the pleasure of disinterested cruelty has been thought a paradox and writers have sought to show that is no primitive attribute of our nature, but rather a resultant of the subtile or other less malignant elements of mind. This is a hopeless task. If evolution and the survival of the fittest be true at all, the destruction of prey and of human rivals must have been among the most important. ... It is just because human bloodthirstiness is such a primitive part of us that it is so hard to eradicate, especially when a fight or a hunt is promised as part of the fun. (William James.) 3

"But how far has human nature changed in the course of history? Theoretically there must have been some change; natural selection has presumably operated upon psychological as well as upon physiological variations. Nevertheless, known history shows little alteration in the conduct of mankind. The Greeks of Plato's time behaved very much like the English. Means and instrumentalities change; motives and ends remain the same: to act or rest, to acquire or give, to fight or retreat, to seek association of privacy, to mate or reject, to offer or resent parental care. Nor does human nature alter as between classes: by and large the poor have the same impulses as the rich, with only less opportunity or skill to implement them. Nothing is clearer in history than the adoption by successful rebels of the methods they were accustomed to condemn in the forces they deposed." (Will and Ariel Durant.)

[TOC]
Things That Are and Things That Ought to Be:-
If we are to get anywhere with this topic we must avoid metaphysical statements, statements that bring us beyond the real world, beyond the facts. To do this one must be able to distinguish between a statement which is a value judgment (where one says what ought to be the case) from a statement of fact (where one says and is able to demonstrate what is the case). We must restrict ourselves to genuine assertions about the facts. We must stick to empirical statements, statements that can be shaken or supported by the investigations of an objective observer.

Certain scientific theories make claims about matter we cannot perceive, whether because it is too far away in space, or in the distant past, or too small for any of the human senses to detect; these scientific theories must be tested indirectly, they usually have consequences that can be observed. As is the case with scientific theories, philosophic statements can only be put as hypotheses, propositions, which can never be known as certain, but which can be deliberately put to the test of observation and experiment, and revised or rejected if their predictions get falsified.4

You can believe God made you, and, thus, with this belief, it is to Him you must turn -- this is Religion; or, you can believe we are determined by society, and to remake ourselves we must remake the men in whose society we find ourselves -- this is socialism. Both are examples of theories that incapacitate men; these are examples of irrational theories. These irrational theories appeal, simply, to the emotions of irrational people; they are easy to accept; and, like any closed system, impregnable to rational criticism, difficult to dislodge. Man as has been scientifically demonstrated has evolved, individual by individual; he did not come about through the design of anyone, supernatural or otherwise. As an evolved individual, man is a being who instinctually knows that he must rely on himself and his own powers.5

What makes men unique in the animal kingdom is that he, as an individual, has evolved the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for himself. It is this rational capacity which is at the center of each man's life; it is how he survives, day to day.

[TOC]
Utopia:-
The book shelves of the world are filled with the works of the Utopian writers, "both ancient and modern." They all suppose that a state of society is possible in which "the passions and wills of individuals would be conformed to the general good, in which the knowledge of the best means of promoting human welfare and the desire of contributing to it would banish vice and misery from the world, and in which, the stumbling-blocks of ignorance, of selfishness, and the indulgence of gross appetite being removed, all things would move on by the mere impulse of wisdom and virtue to still higher and higher degrees of perfection and happiness."6

The word Utopia comes from the book, Utopia, wherein Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) described his view of the perfect society. But the first Utopian blueprint in history was written in ancient Greece at about 380 BC. It is Plato's Republic. It was Plato's view that the individual person was not, and could not, be self-sufficient. His view of man is the same that one might have of a laboring beast of the field:

"... And even in the smallest manner ... [one] should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals ... only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently ... There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands." (Plato).

Plato's view of society was pinned by the belief that philosophers are capable of knowing the absolute truth about how to rule society, and, thus, are justified in wielding absolute power. Such a view is in striking contrast to that of his principal teacher, Socrates (469-399 BC), who was always conscious of how much he did not know, and claimed superiority to unthinking men only in that he was aware of his own ignorance where they were not.

Now, I think most would agree, a stable and efficient society is important; but one should wonder about a society that will use force (legislation) to make the individual give in to the desires of those who have set themselves up as knowing what is best for everyone. Those who subscribe to the theory that we should be ruled by those who really know best, subscribe, whether they know it or not, to Plato's theory of man. Whether we know it or not (and most do not), it is upon this Platonic theory that our modern day society dwells. The theory is: the community is to permit government to use persuasion and force with a view to unite all citizens and make them share together the benefits which each individually can confer on the community for the benefit of the community. This theory -- so attractive in its statement -- is a false theory. When, in its legislation, in its use of force, government suppresses the welfare of the individual; when its efforts are aimed to foster the attitude that one should not proceed to please oneself, government commits a fatal error in the achievement of its laudable object, the betterment of the whole. The essential problem in proceeding in this manner is that individuals cannot contribute to the whole, indeed will be a drain on the whole, unless they are allowed to be free and productive, that is to say allowed to suit themselves.

Men did not evolve into robots; they did not come to possess the independent spirit, so characteristic of man, by serving others; man came to be the superior being, that he clearly is, because of the exercise of free choice: free choice, the essential ingredient in the evolutionary process.

[TOC]
Tradition and Prejudice:-
Habit, as Oliver Wendall Holmes has said, is "a labor-saving invention which enables a man to get along with less fuel." Habit comes naturally to man; and, habit "makes the custom." In turn, custom becomes the great guide to human life. "Customs, even the most foolish and the most cruel, have always their source in the real or apparent utility of the public."7 Some customs, we might safely conclude, are harmful, and, thus, not to be followed; but where left with a choice, habit or custom is more true then most anything else one might choose as a guide. Habit may be equated to prejudice; it is an impression or an inference which one has picked up, -- a person knows not when or how -- as likely as they are unavoidable, they are fair; they are taken from one's general observation, or past experiences. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a prejudice, as Edmund Burke has written, "it is natural and right."

"No wise man can have a contempt for the prejudices of others; and he should even stand in a certain awe of his own, as if they were aged parents and monitors. They may, in the end, prove wiser than he."8
( William Hazlitt.)

[TOC]
Self-Interest:-
The human individual, in the evolutionary process, considers his choices and calculates which of his chooses will be to his advantage, not necessarily to his exclusive advantage, but to his advantage.10 A person normally proceeds to take steps which he thinks would best promote his advantage, which often includes "scratching another person's back."

"The first principle ... is that all actions whatsoever arise from self-interest. It may be enlightened self-interest, it may be unenlightened; but it is assumed as an axiom, that every man, in whatever he does, is aiming at something which he considered will promote his happiness. His conduct is not determined by his will; it is determined by the object of his desire. Adam Smith, in laying the foundations of political economy, expressly eliminates every other motive. He does not say that men never act on other motives; still less, that they never ought to act on other motives. He asserts merely that, as far as the arts of production are concerned, and of buying and selling, the action of self-interest may be counted upon as uniform."11

"Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.)

"Man is a creature of social instinct condemned by his nature to be solitary. Creatures in all outward respects similar to himself are awhirl about him. They cannot help him, nor he them; he cannot even be sure, for all he may assume it, that they share his hope and calling." (Hewlett.)13

"No man is much regarded by the rest of the world. He that considers how little he dwells upon the condition of others, will learn how little the attention of others is attracted by himself. While we see multitudes passing before us, of whom perhaps not one appears to deserve our notice or excite our sympathy, we should remember, that we likewise are lost in the same throng; that the eye which happens to glance upon us is turned into a moment on him that follows us, and that the utmost which we can reasonably hope or fear, is to fill a vacant hour with prattle, and be forgotten." (Dr. Johnson.)

"The personal always prevails over the intellectual, where the latter is not backed by strong feeling and principle. Where remote and speculative objects do not excite a predominant interest and passion, gross and immediate ones are sure to carry the day, even in ingenuous and well-disposed minds. The will yields necessarily to some motive or other; and where the public good or distant consequences excite no sympathy in the breast, either from shortsightedness or an easiness of temperament that shrinks from any violent effort or painful emotion, self-interest, indolence, the opinion of others, a desire to please, and sense of personal obligation, come in and fill up the void of public spirit, patriotism and humanity."

As History will show the development of human life became wholly dependant on a regular market process. In the age of barter the market process was readily intelligible, but, in an age of abstract interpersonal processes and indirect exchange, the economic order is simply not understandable, even to the most enlightened individual perception. (For example, money and its institutions, which traditionally have so offended moralists, are subjects which bewilder specialists.)

The simple and timeless fact is, as described by Adam Smith in 1776, that, given the diversity of man's knowledge, only the individual through his own industriousness and ingenuity, is able, in a random way, of accessing (if one will forgive the computer lingo) the bit or bits of information required to advance his own particular need or want.

[TOC]
Greed, Morals and Charity:-
We now here deal with the problems of right conduct. This requires additional study in a philosophical area known as ethics, and, believe me, on the subject of ethics there is no lack of material. Ethics deals with the "study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles, which may be viewed as the individual's standard of conduct or as a body of social obligations and duties." The theories range all over the place: from that of pure conscience, a moral awareness of right and wrong which has been imprinted in each of us due to the Divine Will; to an innate sense (e.g., Rousseau); or to the set of values derived from individual experience (e.g., John Locke and John Stuart Mill).

Personally, I subscribe to a theory known as the moral sentiment theory. It was developed by Shaftesbury (1671-1713), Hume (1711-76), and Smith (1723-1790). As against Hobbes (1588-1679), who was of the view that people were disinterested in virtue, Shaftesbury, et al., maintained that people had a natural moral sense; they gain a specific feeling of pleasure in good actions.

But to discuss our subject under this head on the basis of the moral sentiment theory, or the branch of philosophy known as ethics, may be putting our subject on too high a plane. While it must be questioned whether a person of average intelligence could make money the chief object of his thoughts, the fact of the matter is a good reputation is a valuable commodity in the market. As Holms said, "I value a man mainly for his primary relations with truth."

Charity begins at home. If we all subscribed to that English proverb, then there wouldn't be too much need for public, or external charity. Those in a family unit are those who are best able to weigh the worthiness of another family member's need for charity. External charity, charity to a stranger, will come about because of instinctual feelings of pity, or if you like on account of the Shaftesburian theory of moral sentiment. But, on whatever the basis on which one wishes to consider the question of charity, to be born in mind is the caution of John Stuart Mill: "As for charity, it is a matter in which the immediate effect on the persons directly concerned, and the ultimate consequence to the general good, are apt to be at complete war with one another."

[TOC]
Man and The Law:-
There are two basic kinds of law: one is scientific, or natural law; the other is a rule (or a set of rules) -- apart from a natural law -- which society prescribes for itself. The former is descriptive and cannot be broken; the latter is prescriptive and, by definition, can be broken.

In Canada, as in most all the western countries which can trace their founding roots to England, the people work and live under laws know as the common law, it is "unwritten," it is not set down in any one place. Common law has evolved and, in a most powerful way, it encourages "spontaneous adjustment" by its tradition, tacit rules and private arbitration. Unfortunately it is being replaced with written, or legislative law, a type of law which, because it takes matters out the hands of individuals, is leading to the destruction of individual freedom.

The role of law, in a Free Society, is to limit freedom only to the extent that it, freedom, might be preserved. Absolute freedom cannot exist, but, for a productive and happy population the greatest possible amount of liberty must be allowed. "Liberty of each, limited by the like liberties of all, is the rule in conformity with which society must be organized. ... Each man should be allowed to pursue the objects of life, restrained only by the limits which the similar pursuits of their objects by other men impose."14 Thus, restrictive law, mostly of a criminal nature, is necessary if men are to live together in a community, but it must be very carefully circumscribed.

[TOC]
Conclusions:-
Men are fixed with instincts that have come about through the long process of evolution. These instincts are impulses which stimulate us to certain types of action, action taken without prior experience, or prior thought. These instincts, down through the generations, have served us well: we have survived, and we have survived with many of these instincts, necessarily, still intact. For man to be better than the beasts it is necessary for him to conduct his life on something other than just on a strictly instinctual basis. Man, in order to advance beyond the state of being animals, -- to be civilized -- must take control of himself, note I say of himself, not of others, or of nature. When it comes to others, we can set an example, we can lead the way, we can honour tradition and custom; we cannot, and must not, however, let anyone have the power to control the acts of others, it leads inevitably to disaster. The depths and horrors of human behaviour where certain individuals are allowed to take control over others can best be appreciated by reading history; consider, for example, in this century, the history of the Nazi extermination camps, and of the Communist purges. We must constitutionally restrict those who we allow to be near the levers of power; everyone must be allowed the freedom of choice. We must learn -- all over again -- to respect tradition and custom.

_______________________________

_______________________________

2 Herbert Spencer, The Data of Ethics (1879). Spencer continued, "we must study it as a part of that larger whole constituted by the conduct of animate beings in general."

3 The Principles of Psychology (1890).

4 To accept these statements one has to be familiar with the empiricist school and the works of Locke and Hume. We are to thank the empiricist school for the development of natural physical laws, such as Newtonian laws. That we should proceed by our senses, as we have in scientific theory, and accept only that which is consistent and coherent with past experiences, is equally applicable to philosophic thought; this proposition has been fully developed by Sir Karl Popper; see in particular, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) (Princeton University Press, 1971).

5 See, generally, the works of the imminent zoologist, Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975).

6 Hazlitt, The Spirit of the Age (1825); (Oxford University Press, 1970) at p. 162.

7 The French encyclopaedist, Helvetius (1715-71).

8 Elsewhere in his writings, Hazlitt says the "breaking the husk of a prejudice may reveal either a maggot of a rotten canker or a precious kernel of truth."

9 This idea -- that man has developed in an evolutionary fashion not only biologically but also culturally -- has been developed in the writings of David Hume, a philosopher to whom we have already referred. Like the lot of all animals, humans evolved in accordance with certain natural rules, in that "no form can persist unless it possesses those powers and organs necessary for its subsistence: some new order or economy must be tried and so on, without intermission; until at last some order which can support and maintain itself, is fallen upon."

10 Though few in number, there are exceptions; such as the instinct we might know as "mother love."

11 James Anthony Froude's, essay "The Science of History."

12 Hazlitt.

13 Maurice Henry Hewlett's, (1861-1923) essay, "The Crystal Vase."

14 Herbert Spencer.