Human Destiny?

I get discouraged every time I take another crack at educating myself in either religion or philosophy. A lot of the arguments are circular and really don’t make much sense. I have the impression that Plato and Aristotle were brilliant, the Old Testament prophets were inspiring, and Christ and his followers were lovable, but when you put them all together in a blender, as we have done with our so-called Judeo-Christian ethic, the result is a confusing farrago of ideas all based on a profound misreading of the nature of life in general and humanity in particular.

We are brought up to believe there is some kind of ideal person that we should strive to become, some abstract principle of right and wrong that we should follow, some utopian condition that our species can ultimately achieve if only enough of us follow the one true path. Good and evil, the moral absolutes. What is right is right because God says so, according to the true believers. The philosophers argue their case in more elegant terms, but when you get to the nub of what most of them are saying, it’s usually about how we can reason our way into discovering and then defining moral absolutes.

Darwin’s theories of evolution provide an antidote. Human societies evolved as did other species, not according to some preexisting design, but in response to the immediate circumstances their members encountered. There is no master plan. We muddle along, constantly adapting to changed circumstances. Some of the factors forcing us to change are external, while others we have caused ourselves, as side effects of our own decisions. But there is no human destiny as such, no ideal condition we will ultimately attain.

This is a tough pill for most people to swallow. When we start on a journey we like to know where we are going. And we feel reassured if we have someone we trust to guide us. The idea that we are stumbling along on a long trip through time, entirely on our own, can leave us feeling a bit lonely and, yes, scared. But sorry, folks, that’s the way it is. Evolution is too powerful a theory, and has explained too much of what we know about the world around us, to deny as “just another theory.”

Where does that leave us? Is there no divine authority? Are ethics, morality, and other values nothing more than creations of human minds? Is it possible that their authority within a given society derives from nothing more than a consensus of the individuals that comprise that society?

Well, friends, yes, it is entirely possible, and if you set the faith you were brought up in aside for a moment, and look around you with courage and clarity, you will see that it’s not only possible, it’s the only plausible explanation. Our ethics and values have evolved along with other aspects of our human cultures. The ones we like to think of as representing absolute truths have survived and are with us today because they are effective at resolving or mitigating conflicts of interest that arise within individuals, between individuals, between individuals and their groups, and between groups. They are social lubricants, the oil that allows many people to cooperate toward shared objectives.

Ethical principles are behavioral guidelines. They are for the most part simple dos and don’ts, concepts of right vs. wrong, that people share and support. They are general in nature and easily understood, as opposed to the law, which is far more detailed and specific. The law derives from ethics and is answerable to it, rather than the other way around.

This perception in hand, we can deduce certain conclusions about how ethical principles have evolved, and their role in contemporary society.

1) Ethical principles and the laws that apply them evolve in response to emerging human needs. There is no higher end or goal; they are shaped by humans responding to perceived discomfort with the status quo. Some of these adaptations work better than others, in the sense that they offer new and better ways of resolving problems that inhibit cooperation within and between groups. Over the long run these more successful adaptations survive, and human society evolves into increasingly large, specialized, and successful groups.

2) New ethical principles, that answer to new kinds of issues, are more readily accepted if they are seen to evolve logically out of other, already accepted principles. This is frequently but not necessarily the way they arise. Some new challenges, as for example those posed by the threat of nuclear annihilation, or some of the recent breakthroughs in biotechnology, cannot be met only by dusting off and reinterpreting the precepts of our forebears.

3) Radically new ethical principles are more likely to gain acceptance if the society trying to assimilate them recognizes that ethics are human constructs, not precepts handed down on tablets of stone by a divine creator. We need to recognize that just as we fashion law to meet our emerging needs, so must we constantly reexamine and revise our ethics–and that the ethics, being the more basic, are the more important.

4) Most people are insufficiently flexible in this regard. Humanity has always learned new rules of behavior mostly as a reaction to painful experience, with the outmoded habits of older people being replaced only as they die off. But the stakes are higher now, because the rate of technological change has accelerated. We who are alive and in control right now have to adapt, not just hang on until we are replaced. The problems we face are urgent and vital; we cannot afford to muddle through as in the past.

5) In sum, we need more humanists, and fewer dogmatic theists, and we need them now.

Carl Coon 11/22/01

This entry was posted in Progressive Humanism. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Human Destiny?

  1. sreeja says:

    may i know the need of destiny

    • Thoth Coon says:

      What do you mean, “may I know the need of destiny?” It is unclear what you are asking. Are you asking why people need to believe in destiny? Are you asking what destiny itself needs if it exists? What are you asking? Use more words to be clear please.

      A wise person once told me that I should explain myself while assuming that the person listening to me is a non-expert in my own thought life. I would say the same to you. I am not an expert in what you are thinking or the background contextualizing where your question is coming from. Please explain what you are asking for completely oblivious people like me. Thanks. Thoth

  2. admin says:

    You should not try to educate yourself in religion, or philosophy. Why do I say this? Once you have found the true Word of God, and have read His Word, you needn’t look any further. To do so would be an exercise most futile and a cause for anathema; a voyage into the fake and farce – from the truth to man’s false nonsense. For man is devious; sometimes unintentionally, but always with an agenda. And man is human – weak and superstitious. Try to find the calm, the beauty that exists everywhere,

    Try:

    The letter from Paul to the Saints in Macdonia, i.e., Philippi, viz.,

    PHI 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord [is] at hand. PHI 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer nd
    supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. PHI 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall steep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
    PHI 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things
    [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

    Blessings, admin

  3. 1in Amilion says:

    Just go to nature and enjoy it all around you! Feel that you are here living right now!
    Don’t bother yourself with this questions, answer will came to you like to all of us in our time…

  4. treacychole says:

    the tradition view say believe in God,be a good person and you will go to heaven as your desired destiny.

  5. Carl Coon says:

    Aside from near-death experiences, which can be explained scientifically, nobody has ever gone to heaven and reported back. So we don’t know. Your view is safe enough since if you are wrong you will never find out. We humanists prefer to focus on living a good life on this earth.

    • Eric O'Connor says:

      Hello Carl,

      I found your article very interesting, but was left with one question resting in the back of my mind; what’s the point of it all? Assuming there is no God, and ethical values are man made; what is the goal of life in general? I’m all for the betterment of society and higher education, but in the end, we are left with the stark reality the it is utterly pointless. At some point in the future, all mankind will be extinct. What will it matter, how much knowledge we have gained, or how socially advanced we have become, since there will be no one or no things to even remember? Even if we try and validate all these goals by saying “It matters because the person who lived that life experienced it all, and actually lived. Living is a feat in itself.” If we come from non-existence, and will return to that non-existence, does the interim life even matter?

      I feel the problem that arises with no “one true moral or ethical law” is that, as you mentioned, it’s man made. Why, if I feel it is ethical and pleasurable to steal a car, should I not do so? If I’m to restrain myself for the betterment of society, why should I even care, since ultimately I am finite and I should seek as much pleasure as possible. True it could be argued that stealing the car will also possibly produce negative side effects for myself personally if I am caught. If I’m not caught though, why shouldn’t I continue, since there is ultimately no right or wrong, and this action is bringing me pleasure in my short life. With man made ethics, what right or grounds do we stand upon in claiming that someone has wronged us, since there is truly no “wrong”?

      I would enjoy hearing your opinions on these thoughts.

      Eric O’Connor

  6. Carl Coon says:

    Good questions, Eric. I’m still working on the answers. We need a sense of direction; once we have that it’s a lot easier to work out answers.

    Try the principle of entropy, and life as the answer, the opposing force. With life comes evolution and with that comes the story of how we came to be, and pretty soon the answers to your questions start falling into place. Stay tuned, I may have something more to say on this soon. Carl Coon

  7. Thank you for your views on Human Destiny. I agree with your comments on evolution as it applies to our physical, cognitive, emotional and spiritual development. Hopefully in this scientific and nuclear era our cognitive,, emotional and spiritual development will keep pace with our scientific and nuclear knowledge. If not we face a very uncertain future for the human ego is unpredictable and requires further urgent research to understand its influence in politics and international relations. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin are good examples of our failure to understand and contain those factors that destroy harmony and world peace. If we choose to live in a community and expect the benefits of that community it is reasonable to believe we should embrace those standards set by the community. No one is stopping us from being a hermit elsewhere if we object to community standards and expectations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *