When defining "others" and their relative importance to "ourselves", we can look at the degree to which another's state of being affects ours. To what extent are others included as "one of us"? Knowing and understanding this connection will help define what is acceptable behavior. "Otherness" can be classified in several different ways: similarity toward self (family, religion, ethic group), interconnectedness (residence in the same city, working at the same business), or status (hierarchical, income, social).
One way to look at morality is as an evolutionary development to ensure the survival of the group. Before the development of agriculture, not to mention cities, most people lived in small groups, small enough to not overtax the local resources, but large enough to maintain genetic diversity. What might morality look like in a small clan or tribe of a few dozen people, or at most a few hundred? Surely individuality would not be valued; there would be no tolerance for anyone who went against the norms of the clan. People setting their own rules would lead to division and imperil the continuance of the group. An expectation that everyone contribute to the group would be a requirement as well. Freeloaders would imperil the health and welfare of the group. In short, the sense of self-preservation that an isolated individual would apply to him or herself would be extended and enlarged to include the group.
Moral laws that are common today could have had their roots in these smaller societies. A prohibition on killing would make sense: killing off members of the clan would weaken the clan, although an exception might be made when an individual's behavior put the whole clan at risk. Lying could be frowned upon due to its tendency to erode trust - in a small group, similar to a small town today - everyone knows what everyone else is doing and a known, habitual liar might be ostracized. Stealing would disrupt order, although one can imagine a communal society with common ownership as well. Other analogues to the biblical ten commandments could depend on the situation and environment in which the clan finds itself. Would what we think of as adultery strengthen or weaken the clan? Rules and standards of behavior would develop organically to respond to the need for the group to survive and thrive and to keep relations among the clan members relatively smooth.
So what about "the other"? Does the neighboring tribe or clan's existance strengthen or weaken the home clan? Or perhaps it's neutral. Are they of similar strength? In a nonspecialized, hunter-gatherer, nomadic society it's hard to imagine how the presence of another clan nearby could be a benefit; at best they would be neutral, not figuring in at all. Get close enough and another clan would be competing for the same resources: game animals and access to water. It would not be hard to imagine that internal prohibitions against killing would not apply to the "other". The continued existance of the tribe would necessitate either killing the rivals, driving them off, stealing from them or absorbing them into the tribe. All of these things happened. Stealing horses was not considered wrong by many tribes native to North America. Folk migrations were very common in Europe over the centuries as peoples displaced others in a quest for the best land or in response to being displaced themselves. Wars large and small have been a fact of human existance for as long as there has been human existance. And what were wars usually fought over? Resources, including living-space, i.e land.
So, what is morality but a taking care of one's own and defining how to best live in peace with other members of the group?
But what happens when someone, or a class of someones, within the group sees an opportunity to use the morality of the group to further an individual agenda? That's for Part Four....
No comments:
Post a Comment