Relationships: Rules of the Road

How, indeed, do we make functional choices?

Very early on, I wrote about shortcuts. These are our guides for living based on that which we have been taught, our personal experiences, and that which we have observed.

Our world is dynamic. Groups are formed and dissolve as they gain and lose function. Guidelines appear and disappear as the circumstances and interactions change. Nevertheless, some aspects of human existence remain fairly constant... and it is from these aspects that we formulate our "truths"... our beliefs and morality and ethics.

Humans are "herd" animals. Humans that live in isolation are less likely to survive. Herds survive by spreading the risk and sharing the resources. There are implicit "rules" of the herd. Rules allow the weak and strong to co-exist while acknowledging the strong through larger shares of the resources and protecting the weak by receiving a measure of protection from the strong. So, killing another member of the herd is prohibited except under extreme circumstances. Allowing the strong to kill the weak at will would destroy the herd. Sharing resources, albeit unequally, satisfies the strong and accomodates the weak.

So human herds have "commandments", "laws", "rules of engagement", "God's truth"... constants that reflect the ongoing dynamics of herd living. Of course there are variations! Rules of conduct, customs, traditions... they are all variations of basic herd dynamics that occur because of differences in environment, resources, and accidents of the past... something worked once and the lesson stuck. That's why so many religious beliefs have so much in common... despite the particulars that separate them. Questioners through time have all come to common conclusions about what was beneficial to the herd and what was destructive. Since most societies have had a belief in a creator of some sort... a god or gods... because they had no other explanation for existence... then the recognition of what was good or beneficial for the herd was easily transformed into "God's will" or "God's commandment". Men were physically stronger than women, so it was "God's will" that women be subservient to men. The strong got a larger share of the herd's resources, so it was "God's will" that a man could have up to four wives... if he was strong enough or rich enough to care for them.

The particulars varied from desert to islands to grasslands, but the general "truths" of the herd remained fairly constant. As the herds became larger and man's mastery over his environment became greater, "God's laws" required augmentation... greater specificity: laws of conduct, business law, rules of the road.... But all based on the cumulative shortcuts that have help mankind survive within his groups for millenia.

Our choices then become functional or dysfunctional within the larger context of the herd. The variations among herds allow some dysfunctional choices of one herd to become functional... appropriate... choices of others. It is often the combination of territorial encroachment and variations in what is deemed appropriate that bring herds... nations or cultures... into conflict.

Hence, suicide is a sign of mental illness in the West, but honored as "martyrdom" if done in the name of Allah against an "infidel" enemy. Or perhaps we only see it as suicide because death is certain for the attacker. Compared with the soldier in battle that dies knowing that there was a high risk of death, but not certainty, one could say the distinction was not that great... but for me it is great enough... especially when targets are not other soldiers. Ah, but those targets of the suicide killer supported the soldier. Perhaps... perhaps they were only other members of the herd... weaker members... non-threatening members. My shortcuts won't let me accept the validity of the suicide killer's shortcuts... but I understand the premise... better a death well conceived than a life futilely spent.

Perhaps this is an example of the reason we go to war. Perhaps this is why those with the "absolute truth" on their side are the greatest danger to peace. Those that hold to "absolute truths" argue that our choice is that "if one does not assume objective truth and an intelligible world, one will find only doubt and meaninglessness". In other words, without an absolute truth (which we may never be able to prove, but which we know in our hearts... believe...) there is only nonsense.

Or maybe what there is, is the basic human drive for thousands of decades... to know more and to know better. Perhaps we may never prove what is absolutely true, but we may know better what is and should be... why some choices are functional and some dysfunctional.