Sunday, May 15, 2022

Part I. Introduction to the Culture of Human Warfare

                                   By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.

                                   Professor Emeritus of Philosophy

                                   Mount St. Joseph University

 

In this blog I will develop a preliminary framework for exploring the surprisingly complex meanings of the term "human culture," and the cultural basis for Human Warfare.                                                                                                                                                                          

For Homo Sapiens it is important to acknowledge that "culture" is a collective concept that is shared within groups of humans, especially: families, religions, nations, businesses, and various ethnic groups. Of course, some human feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are entirely programmed by biological evolution and therefore, primarily, genetic in origin; others are shaped by teaching and learning via cultural evolution.  And of course, evolutionarily speaking, both beliefs and behavior evolve, devolve, or remain stable over time. And culture is often reshaped by legality and illegality. John Stuart Mill, the founding father of libertarianism argued that laws that dictate illegality must be employed only to the extent that they prevent involuntary "harm to others." Here's a few examples.                                                                                                                         

When I was growing up, we often ate fish on Fridays, call it a family tradition that was inspired by pre-Vatican 2 Roman Catholicism. My mother and father were non-attending Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, respectively. My mother was a full-time mother and housewife, and my dad worked in the air conditioning and refrigeration repair business, He had several customers that sold fried fish, which they gave him for free on Fridays. Other customers offered him free draft beer, cheese, ice cream, steaks, and lobsters. One of our neighborhood cultural traditions was for several neighborhood men to sit on our patio and drink beer and tell jokes with dad after dinner. Of course, mom hated that tradition. But dad had other cultural traditions that limited his drinking. He always went to bed at 10 PM and never drank before noon. Of course, one might argue that dad was an alcoholic, and that those other cultural traditions evolved out of his genetic predisposition toward alcohol consumption. My sisters and I became moderate consumers of alcohol. When I attended Eastern Kentucky University in the early 1970s, the sale of alcohol was prohibited within the Richmond city limits, but legal in the county, which inspired the rise of bootleggers. Eventually, the law was changed to illegal only on Sundays, and later it was changed again to allow Sunday sales, after 2 PM. Of course, back then there were no Roman Catholic Churches in Richmond, which would eventually present interesting re-interpretations of the law.  Recently, I developed a habit of drinking scotch whisky between 7 and 9 PM. Here in Cincinnati, until very recently, it was illegal for drug stores and grocery stores to sell "hard liquor." You would have to buy it in a state-licensed liquor store. Today, many grocery stores legally sell "hard liquor." Note that I surreptitiously introduced the notions of and legality and licensure into our discussion.                                                                                                                                                                         Local, state, and federal governments paternalistically legalize and/or illegalize various cultural traditions, others outlaw harmless traditions that are offensive to other groups, often dictated by some acknowledged authority. Some legal and/or moral traditions are positive; "you must do A." Some are negative; "you must not do A." And all traditions also evolve, devolve, and/or remain stable over time. Paternalistic laws are intended to promote individual well-being and prevent "harm to self." Governments often employ licensure as a mean of controlling the sale of some products and services. Recently, the FDA illegalized the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, which will be challenged in local and state courts; and ultimately, decided by the Supreme Court. The reason for the ban is that many young children illegally obtain these products, and eventually become "addicted" to tobacco via these products. In the absence of legal sanctions, many addictive products get locked into cultural traditions. But highly desired products and services that are rendered illegal, creates black markets, which generate underground illegal behavior that becomes locked into tradition. Historically, the most prolific black markets involved buying and selling of drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, and weapons (especially guns). Black market formation is limited by geographical legal jurisdictions marked by borders.  Hence, black markets are often geographically located adjacent to "free markets" which makes it easier to illegally purchase outlawed products and services and "smuggle" them across borders. Sometimes even law enforcement officers surreptitiously participate in lucrative black-market activity.  Libertarians, embrace free market activity and restrict illegality to behaviors that involuntarily harm others. It is often argued that addictive products and services are, necessarily, subject to legal intervention. But we libertarians argue that governments must be limited to providing users with objective information about potentially harmful addictive products and or services. "Don't smoke because you'll get cancer." "Don't visit prostitutes or you will catch a disease." Once adults are duly warned about dangerous products and services, any ill-effects become their own personal responsibility. Hence, drinking is legal but driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. So, to what degree is cultural influence shaped by legality and free choice? How does cultural influence affect harm to others and personal and/or collective responsibility? And how does the philosophy of human warfare explain the universality and long-term persistence of male violence and human warfare, and the fragility of peace?                                                                                                                                                                                                    

First of all, let's acknowledge that human warfare is a collective behavior overwhelmingly promulgated by human males. Second, warfare involves leader-follower hierarchical relationships. Old men tend to be the leaders and young men tend to be the followers. Third, the warfare instinct is evident in others forms of rule-based male behavior, especially child's play, and violent sports, including football, hockey, boxing, wrestling, and even baseball. Street gangs and various police organizations also resemble the structure of organized national armies, including territorial control, rule-based leader-follower relationships, financial gain, and the use of military-style weapons. (AK 47s). The puzzle for evolutionary philosophers is how to explain (via genes and/or culture) the longstanding, worldwide, participation of males and the rules and technologies that tend to shape warlike behavior.  

          Part II

                                                     

                                           

No comments: