Life in the Pack

Of dog fights and social moralities

© Bryan Zepp Jamieson
http://www.mytown.ca/zepp
8/2/08

    A couple of sociologists wrote in to the Washington Post this week, suggesting, in effect, that schools could compromise on the issue of teaching science versus “intelligent design” by holding that human morality is separate from evolution, and that we are, in fact, separate from the animals in that regard.

    The concept that we are "above the creatures of the field" comes from the old testament, and in the 19th century it (excuse me) evolved into “social Darwinism”. This came at a time when racism and social bias were rife, and people spoke, without irony, of how the millennia-old cultures of India and China were “savage” and that they were obliged to take up the “white man’s burden.”  Darwinism was seen as an amoral type of competition that came at a time when Western Society was both vile and exploitative, and compensated for it with a stifling blend of rank hypocrisy, suffocating self-righteousness and prudery masquerading as morality.  The notion that humans were above “the law of the jungle” (while benefitting from it) was a comforting one to the movers and shakers of Victorian culture.

    The notion that if humans believe they came from animals they must be immoral (held most often by people who believe they came from dust) is based on the premise that without a god or gods to guide us, we would be capricious and amoral.  That gods tend to be capricious and amoral themselves tends to totally escape their proponents.  Jehovah, with his foreskin collections and great floods, wasn’t even the most erratic; Zeus, Kali, Shiva, Coyote and Loki are even worse.  Gods are above and beyond human morality – it’s very nearly one of the prerequisites for being a god – and the result produces great campfire stories but little in the way of moral instruction. 

    If human morality doesn’t rest on the solid bedrock of usually invisible and silent cosmic sky beings telling us “Do as we say and not what we do,” where does it stem from?

    “Societal norms” and “consensus” are the answers most often given, but like “god magicked  it,” these are only partial answers, ones that suggest an underlying and unexamined cause. 

    Morality is societal, and is most often local.  In fundamentalist Muslim countries, a woman is required to cover her face; imposing such an imposition on women is considered immoral in western countries.  A lot of what is judged “moral” consists of nothing more than local hicks concluding that their bad habits constitute natural laws of the universe. 

    But some moralities extend across all cultures, albeit subject to local variation.  All cultures have prohibitions against murder, although the definition of “murder” varies.  All have some form of what we call “marriage,” although that can vary even more.  Cultures have laws containing cannibalism, usually sublimating it into rituals so it doesn’t become a social problem.  All societies have sanctions regarding theft, violence, and honesty in dealing with others. 

    Morality forms around hierarchal patterns, as well.  Those in power are expected to furnish justice and fairness to those below.  Those below are expected to offer fealty and work.  A great deal of morality -- and the relatively recent development of combining it with religion -- exists in the main for the purpose of keeping the plebes in line.

    What transocial moralites have in common is that they make it possible for larger numbers of humans to function as a society.  They are social imperatives.

    Individual morality?  That’s best defined as “how you behave when you think nobody’s looking,” and while it varies wildly among individuals, it exists in most individuals, and makes a society possible.

    Is it unique to humans? 

    I don’t think so.  We had an old Labrador Retriever that we got three years ago to keep our Samoyed, orphaned from her pack, company in her declining years.  The lab was pretty rickety, banged up from an old auto accident and ancient.  The vet estimated her at age15 back then.  The two dogs more-or-less got along, in part because they were too decrepit and infirm from age to fight.  Then the lab had trouble getting up.  She got progressively worse, and in two weeks, couldn’t get up without assistance, and a week after that, couldn’t get up at all.  For those reading with mounting concern, a few days later we had her euthanized.  But in her final weeks, when she was utterly dependent on us to feed and water her and keep her reasonably clean and dry, we were surprised to see the other dog start grooming her and keeping her close company.  Not only that, but the two cats, who had treated her as furniture, would come up to her and touch noses, and one would even lick her snout.  She seemed to take comfort from that.

    It’s easy to say that the dog was just acting according to her pack nature.  But what of the cats?  They had nothing to gain from it.

    These were small, but utterly selfless acts.  The cats in particular had no imperative to offer comfort.  It suggests kindness and compassion, behavior that in humans would be considered moral.

    Social Darwinism is a vicious and amoral belief, the belief that society should be a dogfight.  It’s supposed to be based on evolution, which is popularized as “survival of the fittest.”

    However, evolution requires cooperation as much as it requires competition.  Two wolves fighting over a mate must, nonetheless, hunt together if they are to eat.  There are, on average, about three pounds of bacteria in your intestines.  They can’t live without you, but you cannot live without them.  Tiny mites eat the gunk off your eyelashes, and in return, you get to see. 

    Among the large primates and particularly the apes, we see the hierarchal structures and behavior patterns used to keep the troupes functional and relatively free of conflict.  Top monkeys have a good time of it, with all the mates and first pickings of food that they want, while the omegas have a lean, miserable time of it out on the periphery, but as a society it works, and it works because there are behavioral norms associated with each social role – a type of morality.  Nearly all species that form groups, be it tribes, hives, packs or prides, have a hierarchal system, and a way of ensuring that it stays in place.  But it depends in large measure on the willingness of the individuals to cooperate -- a form of morality.

    Symbiotic relationships in nature are too numerous to count, but it’s the ones that don’t involve immediate survival that are intriguing.  Nearly any large mammal is capable of forming a bond with another mammal of a different species, and zookeepers tell of astounding pairings.  Gorillas have pet kittens, a pride of lions adopt a goat.  Mothers will often adopt a kitten or cub of a different species if there happens to be a teat available.  In nature, relationships often form on a voluntary basis; birds that pick at the skin of crocodiles, remora who pick at the skin of sharks.  Crocs and sharks aren’t seen as being big on compassion or mothering instinct, and yet they tolerate these other species invading their boundaries, and work peaceably and cooperatively with them.

    Environmentalists like to talk about how all life is interrelated, and that is true.  But few grasp how widespread is the phenomenon of the INTENTIONAL interrelativity that often adds nothing more than companionship to each animal. 

    Darwinism isn’t just a dog fight; it’s a dog licking the muzzle of a sick companion, or a cat touching the nose of a distressed dog.  It is a reaching out, a caring, and it is this interdependency and not invisible sky beings that is the basis upon which human morality rests.