The Alpha Male Monkey
Jun. 19th, 2007 08:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nemorathwaldI mentioned this essay on The Sci Phi Show and said that I'd put it back at the top of the site when the episode aired so the listeners could see the illustration, so here it is.
Imagine if transportation was defined as a device that uses horses or sails-- automobile drivers would be accused of denying the existence of transportation.
We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:
Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"
Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."
Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"
Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."
Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:
It looks like this:
We're all equally at the top."
Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."
Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."
Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."
Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."
Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"
Me: *facepalm*
As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.
Imagine if transportation was defined as a device that uses horses or sails-- automobile drivers would be accused of denying the existence of transportation.
We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:
Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"
Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."
Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"
Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."
Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:
It looks like this:
We're all equally at the top."
Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."
Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."
Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."
Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."
Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"
Me: *facepalm*
As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.
Tags:
Consider the Talmud
Date: 2007-06-23 05:51 am (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara
or the long accretion of rabbinical commentary and analysis of the Mishnah, an analysis of the Torah. Rabbis argue down the centuries over how the Law plays out in a given situation. Not only do they interact with the original text of the Torah, but they interact with prior analysis of the Torah in trying to figure out how to act in the world. The rabbi of the Gemara is no infantilized pet, following an Alpha Monkey in a blind stupor: he's an earnest, careful mind in active pursuit of justice, shalom, the good.
Likewise, it's difficult to reconcile a mind like Stanley Hauerwas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hauerwas
or Richard Hays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hays
with your picture of the infantilized pet. I'm just trying to introduce a modicum of reality in your assumptions about people who follow the hierarchical moral model. They're often quite analytic. More than that, they're often careful in their analysis of the limits of the writings that underpin their moral model. Hays, for example, who is an orthodox Christian, is pretty clear that it's impossible to derive a single principle on which to base a system of ethics from the New Testament.
Many non-academic followers of hierarchical moral models also seem to be diligent in their analysis of ethical situations. Because they want to reverence the thing at the top of their hierarchy, they don't act willy-nilly: they discern. Accurate discernment of another's will requires analysis.
I'm just trying to show that obedience doesn't always mean mindlessness, and in fact often (as in the case of the Rabbinic tradition, and as in the case of the field of Christian ethics) requires the opposite, a fully engaged mind.
Re: Consider the Talmud
Date: 2007-06-25 02:17 pm (UTC)because it is said by an authority,
or if it is said to come from angels,
or from Gods,
or from an inspired source.
Believe it only if you have explored it
in your own heart
and mind and body
and found it to be true.
Work out your own path,
through diligence.
--Gautama Buddha
I think that summarizes what you said. And at the same time, it is the individual's responsibility to create his or her own belief structure, based on one's own spiritual experiences. If you follow someone else's path you miss the inspiration that caused them to take that direction, and you end up a tourist, not an explorer.