The Immoral Animal

“Homo sapiens has no natural rights, just as spiders, hyenas and chimpanzees have no natural rights. But don’t tell that to our servants, lest they murder us at night.”

These are lines from the bestseller ‘Sapiens’ by the famed historian and author, Yuval Noah Harari. But this article is not a review. I’ll pen down my thoughts and leave the rest in your hands – well, minds.

What is ‘bad’? What is ‘wrong’? So, I’m not asking for examples of bad or wrong events but to pause and think of what these two words mean. And, I think, most of you as well as some dictionaries would be of the opinion that these words essentially centre around the same meaning, to use another synonym – ‘incorrect’. But, of late, I’m beginning to realise that there is a wide chasm of difference between these words. Let me explain.

What is bad? It is more of a qualitative parameter to an event or a person. ‘Bad’ represents a subjective opinion than an objective one. (But then is there anything that is truly objective?) For example, a mother who is overprotective of her child would consider late-night parties as ‘bad’. But, a mother who is more liberal wouldn’t do so. In this case, both the mothers cannot be judged on the same scale because of ‘bad’ being a subjective quality.

“Then, what’s wrong with ‘wrong’?”

Now, ‘wrong’ gives out an aura of a command. An event is categorized as ‘wrong’ in consensus with a group of people. This essentially makes it a law and is expected to be followed by people within a geographical boundary. For example, in some countries, smoking marijuana is ‘wrong’. But, there still may be two polar groups discussing whether it is good or bad. Smoking cigarettes maybe bad but is not ‘wrong’; according to the definition offered by us. So, the events classified as wrong has a wider effect than ‘bad’ ones. (Does that make it objective?)

“Okay Rohini, ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ are different. You have proved your point. But what is the big deal?”

Well, as of now, we haven’t gotten to the big deals. It becomes a deal when we bring in the concept of morality.

“What you are talking about, morality, eh? I’m already feeling sleepy!”

Hear me out.

We believe we are moral beings, or we try our best to act as one. Every aspect in our lives circles around this one virtue that we are expected to imbibe and nurture through time. Kindness, empathy, honesty, helping others are some of the tenets of morality based on which a Homo sapiens is judged, valued and transformed into a human.

Let’s turn the tables around. Bearing in mind the differences between ‘wrong’ and ‘bad’, is morality ‘good’ or ‘right’? Is morality a subjective opinion that differs among people or a law that we are to follow to make our lives easier? Why after all should we be moral when lions pass their days by terrorising the jungle? Does that mean the lions are immoral? Do they go to the lion hell where all the lions that ever lived terrorize the inmates there? These are some questions that have driven philosophers to mental asylums.

This is where Sapiens book enters. The author proposes that concepts like human rights are simply an entity that exists only in our collective imagined reality. This statement when loosely translated, suggests that morality is a mirage. Many of you may find this irksome to accept because without morality we become just another animal working hard only for sex and food. And for many, morality is the one thread to hang on to the probability of the existence of God.

“So, are you telling me to stop being moral?”

Well, no. After all, our laws and nations would collapse overnight if all people suddenly accept that morality is just an imagined virtue. It is a social construct upon which our human civilizations are built. Ethics, religion and rules are the pillars that glue and hold us together preventing our descent into anarchy and chaos. That being said, it wouldn’t hurt to come out of our blissful ignorance and face raw reality at times.

This revelation is somewhat similar to the feeling I got after reading Dawkins’ ‘Selfish Gene’. While the latter presented animals as inherently selfish, the former did the same trick with morality. A lot of theists often argue that when life of breathed into the humans by a creator, it also carried the seeds of morality. I do agree with them on the fact that being moral does set us apart from most of the other animals. But, I think in our nomadic days, being moral was ‘good’ and so later during the settlements-age, it turned into a ‘right’.

So, nothing is inherently good. Neither is nothing inherently right. Perspectives of people vary widely that it is the core cause of protests and rallies worldwide. Subjective opinions are often construed as laws and imposed on others who necessarily are not on the same lines. If only homosexual people could go on with their lives, without being branded as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’!

“So, nothing is objective? Or you just reiterating that life is a ‘maaya’? Coz, God knows how many times I’ve heard it!”

Lol, no. We do have objective truths everywhere. Surprisingly, there are fewer takers for this solid side. These are the ones represented through bar-graphs and tables in science journals; that haunt every graduate through numbers and statistics; that which separates the fine line between reality and imagination – Science.

“Okay… blah blah, science. So, what the hell are you trying to say?”

I honestly lost track. I guess… Today, we are kind, not because it is a ‘good’ thing to do but is the ‘right’ thing to do. We don’t go murdering or cannibalizing people because of stringent laws that make it a ‘wrong’ deed. In fact, in a smaller famine-stricken population, the human who could kill another person would have the scales of natural selection tipped on his side.

But…

We as a species were able to transcend into a more intricate ordered intelligent animal society because of our ability to imagine non-existent realities.

So long, and thanks for all the views.