CCBlogs thinking critically, living faithfully

Continuing my series on the evolutionary morality of the 7 Deadly Sins. 4/7 of the way there… perhaps by 2011 we’ll be finished.

Popularly termed “every man’s battle,” lust is probably the most oft confessed sin by men everywhere. It’s common. It’s hardwired into men as a gender. The desire for sex is biological, the reward both psychological and neurochemical. Beyond this, it is the drive of all genetically reproducing organisms to “sow their seed” as one might say. Why is it wrong? Why deny such a basic instinct? I believe it is the first instance where what is deemed beneficial to the species (greater population) is deemed immoral and wrong for the individual.

"Birth of Venus" the Roman goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality

What we understand as lust is very different from the world our ancestors grew up in. With prostitution being termed the “oldest trade”, men (or women) could satisfy their sexual desires. Later developments were sexual displays and theater. However, even these do not compare to the world in which we define lust today. Multiple factors exponentially increase the opportunity for lust. The internet is by far the greatest revolution in distribution. The ability for anyone to produce and distribute photography, print media, and video recordings as meta-products (those which go beyond the tangible product by not necessitating physical hard copies for consumption) greatly expands the sheer volume of published material. Beyond simply a lust of the eyes, advancements in contraception has made it simpler to indulge in the lust of the flesh with less probability of impregnation and, thus, less chance of financial and relational liability to actions. With all of these advancements, it is no wonder that one sees such a rampant industry and why men find it such a difficult “battle” to fight. (That is, if their moral conviction leads them to avoiding lustful indulgence.)

Why, if it’s so wrong, is it so natural? Evolutionary psychology bases itself upon the principle that the neuroanatomy of an organism is what dictates its psychology. However, the neuroanatomy of the organism is dictated by the genetics of the organism. These are then held to the same genetic principles of other traits: the ones that help you survive and procreate are, thus, the ones most likely to be passed on and become most populous in a species. If a gene codes for heightened sexual desire in neuroanatomy, it seems likely that this gene will be passed on. It dictates a greater chance for its survival by increasing the likelihood its possessor will have sex. The stronger the encoded desire becomes, the better chance it has of continued survival and spread. So, as you can see, the chances of a gene for sexual desire continuing to spread and mutate toward stronger desire is obvious. Especially in the male of the species who has more seeds to sow. For the female, her gametes (eggs) are limited to a precious few, and if one is successfully impregnated, she is then taken “off the sexual market” due to the incapability of her to become pregnant again for the next 9 months. In this explanation, I hope you might also see how infidelity can become the strong temptation for the male. If the drive tells him to have as many offspring as possible, it seems a more feasible goal if one has as many mates as possible. (Interestingly, women are more forgiving of men for having extra-relational intercourse than men are of women. Another example of evolutionary psychology, in that a male values the loyalty of his partner to spreading his genes as opposed to a woman valuing the care and emotional satisfaction of the relationship.)

None of this is an excuse for infidelity or all-consuming lust by men everywhere. It simply is a reason for why those desires exist. We are not completely controlled by our psychological/biological desires. If you can skip a meal, you can skip some extraneous sex.

So why is it wrong? In many cases, as with gluttony and laziness, it is over-indulgence in the flesh that causes the religious institution to find it wrong. It is against the idea that the actions of the body do not affect the soul, and, strays toward the ascetic approach to maintain purity; that is, that the flesh is evil and indulgence in its desires are, thus, evil. However, does this run deeper? There has been a social impact of all previously addressed sins, is there one here?

In the modern era, one could make an argument that, provided it remains a private indulgence, consuming pornography has no impact on social life whatsoever. The problem with consuming pornography is its degradation of the humanity of those depicted. If it is not right to publicly oggle another human being, is it right to do it privately? One might argue that these women are degrading themselves by posing for the photo initially, and this may be true, but, just because there is a product provided does not mean consumption of it is ethical. Is it right to think racist thoughts regarding another human being as long as you’re cordial in your interaction? Or do we see a problem there? It’s a matter of equality.

We are a functionally monogamous species. The amount of sex that takes place outside monogamous relationships (and the number of monogamous relationships that an individual might have in their lifetime) shows that this is not our natural state. One of our close genetic relatives, the gorilla displays more primitive sexual behaviors. There is a tendency for a patriarchal society in a group of gorillas with one male designated as the leader (typically the “silverback”, denoted by the gray hair covering its back) and the females mating nearly exclusively with him. In a similar manner, in the more primitive societies of human culture, polygamy is a relative norm. Why do more “advanced” civilizations have these monogamous stipulations? My hypothesis is that it relates to equality, respect, and rights. While women have not had the same rights as men for what could be considered a “long time” respective to the existence of “advanced” civilizations, in some sense, I believe this shows some tier of rights that they might have possessed. The idea of female equality is not necessarily new. It is one that has been wrestled with by many civilizations over history. I would submit, if a female is perceived as “less” than you, it is easier to feel justified in your perception of her in a lustful manner. It is not then degradation, it is acknowledgment of truth. Over time, I believe history has progressed toward a generally accepted equality of both genders.

The question still remains, is there social consequence to lust? Obviously, there is an element of social consequence to the action of unwanted public degradation. However, the private action does denote a power element. Rather than work to gain the right for a sexual relationship, one simply finds another outlet for the biological need. In any form, this is not consensual or equal. One party either receives payment for deeds or simply has their image used for sexual stimuli. One might argue that it is better done to an image or a person who gets some sort of recompense for the action, but in the culturally progressive view of equality, respect, and rights it is, rightfully, taboo. This, I believe, is why it is unstated and viewed as a “skeleton in the closet.”

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

The other day, a friend asked the time-old question “Why does God allow suffering?” to which multiple people responded with their various opinions on the subject. One individual responded with an argument of contrast. That is, suffering exists to show beauty through contrast. So, if suffering shows beauty, why do we speak of its eternal end with regards to heaven?

My (roughly edited) response was as follows:

The things we cannot, by their definition, conceive of are the very things we are being asked to put words to. If we acknowledge the existence of and attempt to describe such persons and places, it is and must be the loosest of metaphors. For all we know is our experience. All we know is ourselves. The impossible illustration without imperfection or brushstroke is the task at hand.

Is their suffering in heaven? Although it is, by definition, a place where “no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, and no mind can imagine what God has prepared,” then truthfully logic fails to some degree to argue. We are told by scientists that physical laws and constants may theoretically vary from universe to universe, yet we cannot conceive of an existence outside of our context. Any attempt to imagine a world in which these forces are different becomes automatically contextualized by our own for understanding. It is similar with ideas of heaven. We create a world in the looking glass. A world that is the same, yet different and idealized; like a work of fiction gives flesh, tension, and movement to a philosophy.

Please note, I am not suggesting heaven is some alternate universe or post-universe, because the timescale one would have to operate on to suggest such a thing does not account for the probability of extinction for the human race or the billions of years it would take for even our own sun to expand into a red giant and consume the earth (and still the universe would continue). But I am speaking of the incapability of man to conceive of what he has not experienced without shaping it as something he knows. We must anthropomorphize personality and we must shape metaphors to understand a world outside our own.

It does not prove its existence in anyway. A “restoration” or “rebirthing” of existence with the elimination of things like disease ignores the fundamental nature of such things. Disease is not demonic or malevolent. Disease is essentially packets of data doing, like a microscopic, simplified, and unconscious form of “us”, their best to procreate efficiently. What you call disease, is them hijacking you to help them. So is this part of refinement? The elimination of any creation deemed unfit to be of aid to the human being? Or is this rebirthing in essence the capstone of creation in its elimination of continued creation (and procreation)? Is it the sustained final chord in grand culmination of the symphony?

For myself, with my doubts and questions, it has often been a question reduced to what I know in the here and now. It is a question of suffering reduced in the here and now. I can seriously hope for such a final note, but may my uncertainty drive me to take hold of the here and now, both in light of that hope and in respect of the possibility that this will cease and be the only life and experience any man gets, and thus, to responsibly strive that each man’s suffering is lessened.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

[It's a little overdue, but, yes, the series continues!]

–noun

excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

–noun

a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another’s advantages, success, possessions, etc.

What are envy and greed? These sins surround the subject of resources, consumption, and desire. They are inter-related and tangled together; one man’s greed provokes another man’s envy. In essence, I either desire more goods or I desire your goods.

Dissatisfaction, the root of envy, is the result of our desire for self-preservation and equality. On the sexual playing field, if someone has more or better resources, looks, etc. it is likely they will gain preferential advantage for their survival. If we all desire our own survival, we will naturally desire the things that allow others to survive. There is an invisible game of King-of-the-Hill going on in which all organisms are competitors. Why are we not all consumed by envy? Because we have found enough existential satisfaction in other elements of our survival. We have found companionship, employment, excitement, happiness, etc. Yet, we are still quite prone to dissatisfaction with our present circumstances in light of the success of others. This is envy.

Greed might be more difficult to define. Is it the hording of possessions and unwillingness to altruistically share? Or is it the desire for more resulting from dissatisfaction with present levels of success? Whichever it is defined as, greed is rooted in the same act as envy: possession.

Greed might be considered generalized, disembodied and non-directed envy. I want money.

Envy might be considered greed with an indirect object. I want his money.

When you look at the things we envy, I would submit that you find a pattern of interest. At their core, humans desire only a few things; things concerned with their survival and things concerned with genetic proliferation. That is, humans desire power, resources, and sex. With reservation, a man typically finds that these things are not detrimental to simply desire. It is when these desires go unchecked through a lack of satisfaction that mankind begins to find moral qualms with such ideas. Channing Pollock is quoted as saying, “Calm self-confidence is as far from conceit as the desire to earn a decent living is remote from greed.”

This brings us back to my original hypothesis about what determines moral wrongness regarding these subjects. It is the inter-relational element of our actions, the social outcome, that determines what we define as wrong. My desire for something is not wrong. Desire that is divisive or all-consuming is what we define as wrong. If I am unwilling to give out of my abundance to help, I am greedy. My desire to have overcomes the socially right action of altruistic giving. With envy, if my desire to possess what you possess drives a relational wedge between us, we find it wrong. If it doesn’t, we don’t. We would consider it to be a “mutual interest in the same things.” Just because my friend has a nice car and I want a nice car too does not mean I envy his vehicle. If that’s the reason he’s my friend, we might have an issue in that I’m exploiting him for what he possesses. If I harbour bitterness because he has the financial ability to get a new car, and I don’t, then I am envious.

Fable after fable tells us of the all-consuming power of Greed and Envy. Midas loses the things he values to the treasure he desires most. Faust loses an item of eternal value for temporary gain. And, in another example tying Greed and Envy together, Avaricious and Envious find themselves granted what they desire on the condition that their neighbour receives double. Avaricious lets Envious go first, knowing he will ask for treasure, thus doubling Avaricious’ wealth. Contemplating the possibility of his neighbour’s joy and benefit, Envious requests for one of his eyes to be plucked out.

“What joy it gives to the petty and tarnished to have companions in their ills and misfortunes!” – Aesop’s Fables

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”

- 1 Timothy 6:10

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

Featured on NBC’s ‘Chuck’:

Lyrics:

“When I wake up with the morning light I can always breathe
Somehow that never has meant much to me
And I can’t say I am thankful for the things I have
I’m a hell of a guy
Living a hell of a lie

And if I gave it all way I’d expect something back
I’m never sure that I could tell you where my heart is at
Cause every good thing I do is a selfish act
And I’m a hell of a guy
Living a hell of a lie

That’s why I don’t understand where you come in
Showing a son of dirt how to be a man
I tried to refuse your name, still you love the same
Singing hallelujah
Singing hallelujah”

(Mp3 available for purchase on Daniel Zott’s website)