The Dwarf Bends the Titan to His Will

by Will Wilkinson on February 14, 2009

T.H. Huxley. Hell yes :

The propounders of what are called the ” ethics of evolution,” when the ‘ evolution of ethics’ would usually better express the object of their speculations, adduce a number of more or less interesting facts and more or less sound arguments, in favour of the origin of the moral sentiments, in the same way as other natural phenomena, by a process of evolution. I have little doubt, for my own part, that they are on the right track; but as the immoral sentiments have no less been evolved, th’ere is, so far, as much natural sanction for the one as the other. The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before. Some day, I doubt not, we shall arrive at an understanding of the evolution of the aesthetic faculty; but all the understanding in the world will neither increase nor diminish the force of the intuition that this is beautiful and that is ugly.

[...]

Men in society are undoubtedly subject to the cosmic process. As among other animals, multiplication goes on without cessation, and involves severe competition for the means of support. The struggle for existence tends to eliminate those less fitted to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their existence. The strongest, the most self-assertive, tend to tread down the weaker. But the influence of the cosmic process on the evolution of society is the greater the more rudimentary its civilization. Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called the ethical process; the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest, in respect of the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are ethically the best.

As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed it; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live. Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual of his duty to the community, to the protection and influence of which he owes, if not existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal savage.

[...]

Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it. It may seem an audacious proposal thus to pit the microcosm against the macrocosm and to set man to subdue nature to his higher ends; but I venture to think that the great intellectual difference between the ancient times with which we have been occupied and our day, lies in the solid foundation we have acquired for the hope that such an enterprise may meet with a certain measure of success.

The history of civilization details the steps by which men have succeeded in building up an artificial world within the cosmos. Fragile reed as he may be, man, as Pascal says, is a thinking reed: there lies within him a fund of energy, operating intelligently and so far akin to that which pervades the universe, that it is competent to influence and modify the cosmic process. In virtue of his intelligence, the dwarf bends the Titan to his will. In every family, in every polity that has been established, the cosmic process in man has been restrained and otherwise modified by law and custom; in surrounding nature, it has been similarly influenced by the art of the shepherd, the agriculturist, the artisan. As civilization has advanced, so has the extent of this interference increased; until the organized and highly developed sciences and arts of the present day have endowed man with a command over the course of non-human nature greater than that once attributed to the magicians. 

By the way, this view was shared by Huxley’s fellow X Club member, that villainous utilitarian liberal Herbert Spencer. Darwinian liberals, understanding the benefits and artificiality of civilization, are its best defenders. Those who would have us live “according to nature” invariably have a stupid view of nature.    

  • Civilization is not artificial; the development of human conventions is as much a part of our nature as building an ant hill is a part of the ant's nature.
  • Grrr... And aspartame is not an "artificial sweetener" because it's made of naturally occurring elements?

    All human societies have conventions, yes. Historically, most human societies have not has conventions that support an amazingly liberal order of astonishingly extended, complex, and peaceful cooperation.

    So Yo Yo Ma is a cello virtuoso. So what!? Everybody can hum. Come on people.
  • And aspartame is not an "artificial sweetener" because it's made of naturally occurring elements?

    Yes, just as I wouldn't say that a beaver dam is unnatural because it is put together in a way that would not have occurred had the beaver not intervened.

    Historically, most human societies have not has conventions that support an amazingly liberal order of astonishingly extended, complex, and peaceful cooperation.

    This is a blanket statement that I challenge you to support. There has always been extended, complex order and peaceful cooperation--as well as extended, complex order with coercive underpinnings. The Roman empire created a amazingly open hub of trade in goods and ideas; but it was also an empire that ruled by force.

    The level of wealth and the sheer number of people involved are unprecedented--I'm not arguing with that. But the idea that human convention is ever better than nature is naive as those who, as you say, have a stupid view of nature.

    So Yo Yo Ma is a cello virtuoso. So what!? Everybody can hum. Come on people.

    Either I'm a poor communicator or you just felt like snarking without even pretending to base it on what I was saying. Yo Yo Ma is a virtuoso, and part of the way we are able to tell that is because he operates within a set of musical conventions with standards that his peers can judge him by. Frankly I have no idea why you brought this up, as I cannot see its relevance to the present discussion.
  • Sorry, I am feeling a bit unduly snarky. I've read the Extended Phenotype. It is a good book. And, obviously, Manhattan is the outcome of a natural process. But it is not useful to refuse to distinguish Manhattan from a hunter gather band, since both flow from human capacities. I don't think I need to support that the "amazingly liberal order of astonishingly extended, complex, and peaceful cooperation" is a new development in the career of homo sapiens. The Roman Empire, like today's world, is completely aberrant relative to the norm of human existence and happened approximately 2 seconds ago. "Civilization" is exactly the right word. Our impulses have to be shaped by culture in a very specific ways in order to make it possible to live together in the way that produces long, happy, healthy, wealthy, lives. The result of that is not supernatural of course. But it is unnatural or artificial in a pretty obvious sense. It's a lot like psychological foot-binding. Things just wouldn't develop that way without a lot of concerted intervention.
  • Things just wouldn't develop that way without a lot of concerted intervention.

    Whoa...you had me until this point. Especially when you said this:

    Our impulses have to be shaped by culture in a very specific ways in order to make it possible to live together in the way that produces long, happy, healthy, wealthy, lives.

    But the idea that this wouldn't happen without a lot of concerted intervention is not an obvious conclusion to reach--at least, it is not obvious to me.

    Let me put it this way: human language is part of our extended phenotype. However, there is a lot of variation among languages across regions and across history.

    English has the most words of any language today--I know this for a fact. And while I don't know whether it also has the most words of any language in history, it wouldn't surprise me.

    The manner in which English developed into its present state required some very specific steps along the way, but I would not say that it required "a lot of concerted intervention". If anything, I think it happened incrementally without any concerted intervention of any sort, with a result that was no part of anyone's intentions.

    In fact, hesitate to elaborate my position any further before I am certain I understand what you meant: what exactly did you mean when you stated that Civilization would not have been possible without concerted intervention? What form did this intervention take?
  • By intervention, I don't think he meant planning. I think he meant social forces that alter the "natural" behavior of individuals.
  • And at the risk of getting semantic, what I was saying was that those social forces are themselves natural
  • Too late. :-)

    Ultimately, everything is natural (I believe).

    I think the sense Will, and Huxley, are using it is a useful one, though. The arrival of these forces is relatively very recent, and radically modifies how people have previously behaved, and would behave in their absence.
  • I think what we believe is very similar, though not quite the same.

    I think that those forces modify human behavior in exactly the same manner that language does. I view variation on both levels as identical; and it is not so much that our behavior is "altered" so much as that human beings largely depends upon traditions and language to provide us with the context we need before we can make any decision or take any action.

    I understand that it's different from being "natural" in the sense of a person's skin cells, but I think that that difference is analytically more trivial than I think Will and Huxley here make it out to be.
  • That is really a remarkable passage. And just 30 years after Origin was published. Wow.
  • DMonteith
    As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.

    Scientifically speaking, this is just so much antiquated bullshit. Altruism and cooperation are absolutely compatible with evolutionary success. What the heck does "[the] artificiality of civilization" even mean? Children who are abused are far more likely to engage in violent behavior as adults. Does this mean that children who are not abused and who grow into non-violent adults are unnatural? Seems to me that "the cosmic process" is conveniently identical to "original sin" for Huxley.

    Perhaps somewhere out there is an essay on how phrenology shows that moral progress is the birthright of mankind, but I wouldn't be inclined to cite it even if it did align with my preconceived notions.
  • I don't at all understand your crankiness about this. Nor do I understand this "scientifically speaking" of which you speak. Evolutionary accounts of "altruism" (i.e. helping behavior) fall very short of providing an account of morality. I recommend you read a good book on the subject, such as Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality

    The "artificiality of civilization" means that the highly developed, refined, peaceful human institutions we so rightly prize are the consequence of amplifying some weak natural tendencies and suppressing some strong ones. You know, artifice. Sure, all flavorings are made of molecules, but you understand what an "artificial flavoring" is, right?
  • DMonteith
    Well, given the lack of culture/civilization displayed by any other species throughout the history of life on earth, isn't it just as plausible to claim that the existence of these prized institutions is the result of strong natural tendencies rather than weak ones? In the absence of your assumptions about human nature, the concept of "artificial civilization/culture" becomes a tautology.

    The book you link to looks interesting, but the evolutionary implications of altruistic behavior are far from the only point of intersection between science and what used to be solely the realm of moral philosophy. I'm far from being an expert, but my understanding of current growing scientific knowledge about the highly contingent nature of human brain development in early childhood, particularly regarding linguistic and social/emotional development, leaves me highly skeptical of what has been widely believed in the past to constitute man's "true nature". The understanding and fostering of the integration of a fully formed amygdala at birth with the 75% of human neuronal development that occurs between birth and the third birthday seems to have much greater implications for "moral progress" than does celebration of outdated quackery that either consists of or relies heavily upon thinly veiled justifications of religious authoritarianism. I'd think that the libertarians in the audience would agree with me on this, but I'm never very certain that I actually understand where libertarians are coming from so I wouldn't be too surprised to be wrong on this count.
  • John Thacker
    "Darwinian liberals, understanding the benefits and artificiality of civilization, are it’s best defenders. "


    The ones who are truly liberals, yes. While it's true that Herbert Spencer gets a bad rap, there are those who, called Darwinian liberals, really did succumb to the idea that the morality of "survival of the fittest" was the highest morality, instead of the idea that civilization should struggle against that. In some ways H.G. Wells, Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) and (certainly) Oliver Wendell Holmes fell prey to this.

    Certainly the sentiments expressed by T.H. Huxley have been repeated by conservative theorists many a time. (Indeed, they form the basis for many of the thoughts of Jonah Goldberg, and are of course related to his thoughts on Wells's "liberal fascism.") The argument that it's necessary that "the cosmic process in man has been restrained and otherwise modified by law and custom" in order to preserve civilization's advance is in many ways a natural argument for conservatism, for reluctance to alter those laws and moral precepts that underlie civilization's progress in ways that may not be easily understood at first. Indeed, is that not a large part of Edmund Burke's writings?

    It's too easy to see this as a kind of dialectic between those who want civilization to advance and those concerned with preserving the laws and moral precepts that support civilization's advance, but there is somewhat of a point there.

    Edmund Burke's way of putting it was "Society cannot exists unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there
    must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free." in Letter to a Member of the National Assembly.
  • In fairness to the Stoics, who first espoused the principle, living according to Nature was the equivalent of living according to Reason. Like intelligent design theorists, the stoics believed that Reason pervaded the universe. A transcendent order that all earthly forms yearned to align with or mimic. Hints of Plato should be obvious.

    Indeed our high discount rate impulses were thought to be abnormal and contrary to reason and therefore nature.

    This way of viewing things--besides being based on dubious metaphysics--never really offended anyone until homophobics grasped onto natural rights theories and used them as a cudgel to beat down unconventional sentiments.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: