Odeon at Gortys, Crete

Other than for natural disaster and disease, all man’s problems are of his own making and could be rectified, argues John Preece.

In the western world, antisocial behaviour persists in its many forms. Reports of substance abuse, crimes against property, sexual and violent crimes, sexual perversion, juvenile delinquency, corruption, terrorism, and suicide confront us daily in the press, whilst the prisons overflow, and the family unit is in decline. Most of these manifestations of social malaise are also present in the undeveloped world, often in more florid forms, but here tyranny, turf warfare, torture, mutilatory punishment and slavery are added to the corrosive litany of human malfunction.

Though promoted as a means of improving matters, the behavioural models formulated by philosophers, organised religions and academic departments of psychology and sociology have by now been extensively tested and found wanting. Humanity hungers for a new and better ethical code, based on a more profound understanding of human behaviour, hard evidence, rationality and a global concordat.

Philosophy concerns itself with the nature of the universe and with doctrines as to the best way of living. Since the days of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, rival schools of metaphysics have approached ethical issues either from an utilitarian standpoint judged by outcomes, or from an intuitive one whose emotional content harks back to the moral compass imbued in its propounder during childhood. In either case, efforts to construct convincing proof of argument tend to be hamstrung by the use of terms whose meaning has been changed to suit their specialised context, an artifice which creates more problems for the layman than it solves.

Intuitive ethics are conjectural and subjective, and so can never be impartial, whereas pragmatic conduct is based upon the observation of consequences by consensus. Actions are by definition utilitarian if they lead to “the greatest good for the greatest number of recipients”, a principle which thereby establishes intercommunal responsibilities. Within this overall framework is embedded a second fundamental principle, that of reciprocity, which establishes interpersonal responsibility on the “do as you would be done by” basis. Parents teach their child the first of these principles, whereas the peer group teaches the second.

Early forms of religion were primarily concerned with intermediation with the spirit world, sacrificial propitiation, sorcery, healing and prophecy, whilst personal conduct was regulated by tribal law. With the introduction of writing, rules of conduct were inscribed on stone and displayed in public places, such as temples where they became sacrosanct. The earliest of these was drafted in the cuneiform language by the Autarch of Isin, but other better known examples of behavioural codes are the diorite inscriptions of Hammurabi of Babylon, the ten commandments of Moses (in fact an underestimate, as there were in reality 613 rules governing Hebrew conduct), and the Dorian code still in evidence at the Odeon of Gortys in Crete. As these early protocols became moulded into cult dogma by the priesthood, they became immutable, since to challenge them was to blaspheme.

Man conceptualised polytheism by creating a plurality of gods in his own image, each with his or her respective potency, sphere of influence, temples and cult following. When the business of attempting to apportion veneration and propitiatory sacrifice between jealous and temperamental immortals became unmanageable, monotheism emerged, first in Persia, then in Palestine and Arabia, and with it theocracy. The high priest now became plenipotential, adding the functions of supreme ruler and generalissimo to his portfolio, and became the sole arbiter of all forms of human conduct.

The five rule-of-thumb ideologies which have dominated western civilization during the historical era have been Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Communism and Fascism. The flip side of these religions and pseudoreligions is that when it suited them to do so they invoked armed aggression, massacre, oppression, overt discrimination, the use of assassination and torture as political instruments, and a host of lesser abuses of power, privilege and trust. The Herem, the Baltic Crusade, the Jihad, the Holocaust and the Great Terror brought out the very worst in human nature. Disillusionment with the discrepancy between the aspirations and achievements of organised religion is leading to its slow decline in developed countries where congregations shrink, churches and chapels close, and it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit candidates to the ministry. The pastoral care of the sick and poor is now provided by the state, and the influence which the church exercised in law, education, art and music in past centuries is now vestigial. Given the rationality conferred by higher educational standards, belief in the paranormal now seems primitivistic to many people.

Is an irreligious society necessarily an amoral one? Monozygotic twin studies show that religiosity is genetically transmitted, and only culture determines whether an individual attends church, mosque or synagogue, or none of these. Ritual congregation has therefore little or no part to play in the acquisition of basic morality which, as we have seen, is a critical responsibility of parenthood. A child’s moral compass is developed between the ages of two and four years, and its social contract is moulded between the ages of two and six under the tutelage of its peer group. Clerics would not normally have access to children during these early years and, in any case, theosophy is unintelligible to such a small child.

With increasing specialisation in higher education, the study of human behaviour has become fragmented and dissipated between the rival disciplines of psychology, sociology and anthropology. But the study of our inner selves is a comprehensive exercise, and pertinent data must be drawn from research into at least eleven other domains. A multidimentional approach not only increases a target subject’s corpus of knowledge, but deepens the way it can be understood, allows correlative problem solving and stimulates innovative ideation.

Because of academic compartmentalization, the important contributions of history and historical biography to the formal study of human behaviour are continually sidelined, yet it is precisely from these sources that cited examples of cause and effect must be drawn. We need to re-orientate our approach to our understanding of ourselves by using corroborated exemplary historical data as the starting point of investigations which, when coupled with the findings of all other relevant disciplines, will clearly demonstrate what is, and what is not, in the best long term interests of the individual and the community at large.  The dissemination of results calls for the use of a computerised behavioural database to which all have access, and through which the process of rationalisation becomes reproducible and acceptable by all.  We shall then have created a pan global consensus and a system of ethics which complies with the needs of the twenty-first  century.

John Preece has been a practising doctor, University research fellow, software company director and national computer magazine editor