A study of history will reveal, apart from learning that mankind rarely learns anything from history, that many of our most impressive or effective ideas, skills, thoughts, or achievements, in all walks of life, have come from some of the most unlikely people. I understand, from reading Colin Blakemore’s "Models of the Mind" that Conan Doyle, Henry James, and Schubert were almost innumerate. Darwin and Wordsworth were considered stupid by their families. Einstein hardly spoke a word until he was four. Eisenhower was an obscure major in the Philippines at the start of the 1939-45 war. Even Churchill, a man for his times if ever there was, had the reputation of being slow as a schoolboy.

In a somewhat similar way as the theory of Chaos can suggest how the flapping of a butterfly’s wings might influence a tornado elsewhere, history shows that the influence of an individual can be out of all proportion to his or her apparent position in society at any given time.

The incompatibility of Communism and Capitalism, both derived from "natural philosophies" proves that Nature presents an inadequate model on which to base any moral code . In seeking a moral strategy for survival, none of those exemplified by Nature in the raw will do. Instead, I propose the strategy "Survival of everybody", or "Survival of each person".

In the natural world variation and selection work together to produce evolution. The test for successful evolution is the short-term survival of suitable genes. It is therefore unnatural to make the moral policy for the human race to be the long-term survival of everybody’s genes. I would suggest, nevertheless, that unless we do, we risk significantly increasing the probability that none of our genes survive at all.

Evolution can not be denied. Sooner or later some environmental or social pressure will be brought to bear catastrophically on the human race. If luck is with us, some small incremental change in the genes of some small proportion of the human race will allow its survival. I doubt if we would become a separate species. The geographical separation needed for such a drastic change is now unlikely to occur on our small planet, but if we had to colonise outer space, who knows? That, however, is the good news. If luck were not with us then........extinction! No-one yet quite knows how the dinosaurs went, but there is nothing left of their millions of years of dominance but a few fossils and the birds.

If I understand the modern evolutionary ideas of Neo-Darwinism aright, the greater the variety in our gene pool the more likely we are to overcome survival pressures, whether we notice them or not. We should not therefore impose prejudicial survival criteria. We should not try to develop a genetically super race, nor remove people or races with genetic traits we find merely "different". Ethnic cleansing is counter-productive. If a major environmental disaster befell the world, it would not be Mr Average, nor Mr Perfect, who would best survive, but some of our presently regarded genetic eccentrics. If this were not so, the postulated disaster would no doubt not be thought of as a disaster. Such is life! What we require is continuing bio-diversity in humans. We are already regretting the limitations in the plant kingdom caused by short-term commercial considerations.

From time to time, some may find it irresistible, even believe it necessary, to impose survival pressures on the cultural "evolution" of ideas. Even "Aptious Thinking", for example, may fall out of fashion; but ideas are hard to eradicate. Unlike species, ideas can re-evolve. Extinction hardly ever applies. In the long run, the truth will out, because truth is ultimately a convergent process. Our moral strategy, therefore should be to try to maximise the chance of there being at least somebody around to derive it, appreciate it, and to develop it.

Having determined that the survival of all individual persons is our basic objective, we need to develop a moral framework that will encourage its success. Again, I would claim that the best approach is to proceed logically, without reference to perceived external prejudices.

In the interactions between any two people, there are only two possible primary moral attitudes: respect or disrespect. These may apply either to the self or to the other person. Using the jargon of Transactional Analysis, there therefore can only be 4 possible life views in any relationship:

These are clearly possible moral attitudes, but I must emphasise the most important aspect of them: there are no other ones possible. Which one(s) should we therefore choose for our basic moral strategy?

I would claim that there is no contest. The logical answer is option C: "I’m OK, you’re OK", the catch-phrase title of a famous best selling book. For the sceptical, however, I suggest they ask a computer-buff friend to program on a display screen a simple game of "Survival" in which randomly moving, random-radius circles interact with each other.

The rules of interaction can be chosen by the player, as being any combination of A, B, C, or D, where the OKness relationship is expressed as an exchange between each pair of circles that come into contact with each other. The OK ones receive, say, an additional unit of area taken from the other. For the non-OK ones, this area is taken away, sometimes additionally, and discarded.

It soon emerges that the only option that allows an initial set of circles to survive is Option C. This single concept of mutual respect, "I’m OK, you’re OK", beats all the other options, individually and in combination.

If this is considered too simplistic a test, then let me refer you to a fascinating series of experiments performed on computers under the sponsorship of Robert Axelrod, in 1984, in which of all the many simulated life strategies devised by interested experts world-wide the outright winner was:
a. Co-operate on the first encounter;
b. Thereafter, do whatever the "person" you contact did to you on the previous occasion you met.

This strategy works, not by beating others into submission, but by eliciting behaviour that allows everyone to do well, or at least better than they otherwise would. I regard this as further evidence of how truth yields a convergent result. More obviously one gets instant convergence if everyone adopts the strategy of mutual respect and co-operation in the first place. [Later comment 1999: I recently heard that this strategy has been improved significantly by adding the following clause to the b. option: "with probability one third, otherwise co-operate again." I consider this adds even more support to my argument.]

Lest it should appear that I am suggesting some kind of egalitarian approach, let me explain that I distinguish between a person’s "Value" and their " Worth". Worth is constant: that property of persons which renders them potentially of value. Value is variable: the current recognition by society of that worth.

"Every individual has a place to fill in the world, and is important in some respect, whether he or she chooses to be so or not." {Nathaniel Hawthorne}

Our moral strategy implies that we should assign equal worth to all, whatever the relative values of individuals at a particular time. We cannot predict the future. The stars in their courses...are simply stars in their courses.

"Stars don’t gossip....They don’t care how we live our lives on earth." {Josten Gaarder}

"I’m OK, you’re OK", at first hearing, may sound not unlike "Love your neighbour as yourself", the second great commandment of the Christian faith. There are two significant differences, however. The first difference is that we have derived "I’m OK, you’re OK" by reasoned logical argument. It is not some fiat handed down from on high. It is the only valid conclusion of the simplest but most far reaching strategy of all: mutual survival.

As to the second difference, I am prepared to accept that the man who resurrected "Love thy neighbour..." from the Book of Leviticus, intended it to be synonymous with "I’m OK, you’re OK". The church in history, however, has introduced a deliberate distortion. The trouble with "Love your neighbour as yourself" is that it is not positive enough. As with a similar slogan "Do as you would be done by", neither contains any explicit statement about one’s attitude to oneself. "Love your neighbour as yourself" equally fits "I’m not OK, you’re not OK". Indeed, it often carries that nuance. Numerous people accept the concept of original sin, or fall from grace, or some equivalent, and suggest that all we humans are unworthy sinners needing some kind of redemption.

For some unfathomable reason many of such people seem to believe that Nature is good, but that Human Nature is bad. They cannot have it both ways. The fall of man, as in the Garden of Eden, is a myth. Morals came from the rise of mankind (perhaps arguably mostly from womankind), not from Nature, nor from divine command.

If one accepts the overwhelming evidence that Nature is amoral, then, at birth, a human baby can only be an innocent product of nature. It contains its brain, a powerful computer, with the best operating system in the world, but with few applications programs loaded. Nevertheless, the human child is one of the most helpless of nature’s young. Its computer brain takes very little time to deduce, from its very real dependence on others, that it is not OK. This may not be a perfectly logical conclusion, but in the circumstances, it is almost inevitable. Circumstantial evidence abounds.

"Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless." {B F Skinner}

Correspondingly it is concluded that others, who provide succour, or who otherwise are independently surviving, are clearly OK. I am convinced that our original feeling of unworthiness develops from an early childhood confusion and equation of helplessness, or inadequacy, with unworthiness.

For many people, maybe even for most people, this early attitude is reinforced by life’s hard knocks. So much so, that eventually such people even feel comfortable with their "unworthiness". Often one hears a response to a seemingly unjust happening, "I’m sure there must have been a good reason for....", or "Better people than I....", or even "I guess I’m just unlucky as usual...." or worse "We’re just ordinary people, not like them".

Then there is the proverb: "There’s one law for the rich and one for the poor". Some even seem to glory in being a disappointment to themselves; "I’m only a ****, what do I know?" or "I’m sure someone else could do it better than I". I tend to agree with Eric Van Lustbader’s character who said,

"A person with no self worth lacks the ability to put value on human life... any life!"

A smaller but significant number of people eventually manage to acquire a skill, develop a talent, or otherwise succeed, or feel the victors, in one of life’s skirmishes. Many of these may make the transition from "I’m not OK, they’re OK" to "I’m OK, they’re not OK", equating others being less successful with unworthiness. It is easy to forget, or ignore the fact, that the less successful people have been the means, directly or indirectly, of one’s own success. Where is the skill, or kudos, in winning a one-horse race? Every one in a contest or race makes some contribution, however small, to the glory of the winner. In the Tales of the Arabian Nights it is acknowledged: "No worth is made greater or worse by what is acquired or lost".

The challenge of life, and of the education we give our children, is to encourage people (everybody) to become aware that accepting their own intrinsic worth, and that of everyone else, is the best strategy for individual and collective survival. Each person should consider himself or herself as being first among equals. Not that one is more equal than others, but that one is at least as equal as others. To put it another way, you are equal among the first line worthies; there are no second places.

Personal success, in a competitive environment, may be one way to achieve a sense of individual self worth, but it does not contribute significantly to accepting the worthiness of others. It is important to appreciate that such success is not mandatory. One does not have to do better than others in order to do well for oneself. Even with equal opportunities, there is no way that human beings can be equally successful. Blind chance will see to that, if nothing else. This is no reason, however, why mutual respect of each other’s potential, or worthiness, should not be acquired by all of sound mind.

It is but a short step from this basic moral strategy to the logical corollary that individuals must take responsibility for their own actions. If we expect the respect of others then there must be no passing the buck.

View my guestbook