Why isn't human nature giving an alibi for state coercion?
In discussions about human nature and the origins of social organizations, there is frequently an apparent paradox. any people object: since the nature of man is social and based on kindness and cooperation, it cannot be both aggressive and militant. The thing is, it's not. Modern evolutionary biology and anthropology — frequently unreflexively invoked by my polemists — prove precisely the opposite. Kindness and aggression are 2 sides of the same evolutionary coin.
The dark side of self-householding (Hare and Woods).
The main thesis of the loud book “They Will last the Most Kind” is: the self-dominating of man increased our kindness and ability to cooperate with members of our own group. The authors, however, compose that the same mechanics has its dark side. A strong bond with ours goes hand in hand with alien dehumanization and utmost cruelty to them. The ability to empathize inside the tribe drives ruthlessness beyond its borders.
The Paradox of Kindness (Richard Wrangham).
In his book “The Goodness Paradox” (2019) Wrangham distinguishes reactive (impulsive, emotional) aggression from proactive (planned, cool and collective). In man, the erstwhile is highly low, but the second is highly high. We are at the same time the most peaceful within the group and the most deadly species of primates outside. These 2 qualities are not excluded, but they are present together.
Parish Altruism (Choi and Bowles).
These researchers in "Science" (2007) built a mathematical model of the coevolution of alleged "parochial altruism" and war. It clearly indicates that dedication to their own and hostility to strangers could only evolve into a package. no of these features were unchangeable alone.
The frontier of ours (Robin Dunbar).
When Dunbar asks how many friends a man needs, he examines the cognitive capacity of the network of bonds within the group. Dunbar's celebrated number (about 150 people) marks the natural boundary between ours, to which we are kind and strangers. From the fact that a scientist explores the mechanisms of relationship in a group, it does not show that he denies intergroup hostility — it is at most adequate that in a given work he deals with only 1 part of reality.
From an simple logic point of view, the substance is simple. The terms "kind to their" and "aggressive to strangers" are 2 predicates with a very different scope of reference. The classical rule of contradiction states that there is only a contradiction between sentences on the same subject, at the same time and in the same respect. The combination of intragroup relationships with intergroup relationships and the search for contradictions here is simply due to the misunderstanding of the cited investigation — or the fact that the citing have not read them at all.
I have described all these mechanisms many times in my blog notes.Here I remind you the most important: these findings of biology do not change the heart of the ethical problem. Even if man were naturally only mild and kind, the answer to the question of who, and on what basis, has the moral right to force an adult to do anything that he refused to do would inactive not arise. This question is frequently answered by state defenders.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>Twitter.com/gps65]]>
]]>t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS]]>
