[S]instinct, Part IV: Lust

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.

[S]instinct, Part III: Envy and Greed

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

greed

–noun

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

en·vy

–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.

[S]instinct: Part II, Laziness

Lazy [ley-zee] adjective, -zi⋅er, -zi⋅est, verb, -zied, -zy⋅ing.

- averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.

The first of the 7 Deadly Sins I will address is Laziness (i.e. sloth or apathy); a sin married women everywhere might label as the spiritual bane of their teenagers and husbands.

The caricature of laziness is seen as a person preferring the luxury of rest over the benefit of work. However, in order for this sin to be committed, there must be work to be done. Rest itself is not sin. Rest as priority over work is a sin as much as refusing to rest altogether (Exodus 20:8-11).

The natural/instinctual argument would be that laziness results from the desire for conservation of energy. Through general need as a natural, physical creature, we must rest. We must conserve our energy, or our bodies/minds will wear out from too much stress. However, the individual must work as well. He must work to seek out energy supplying sustenance (or in a more modern sense, he must work for the finances that provide the capability to purchase such sustenance and comforts making rest more beneficial; housing, bedding, etc). However, the lazy individual avoids exerting himself in the pursuit of these, and, instead, capitalizes off of the work of other individuals around him. He is not compelled to work by need, and, thus, does not seek to work. It is taking advantage of the labor of those around you. This poses a reflective question: Can an individual be lazy in isolation? Could Tom Hanks be lazy on the island with no one other than his stained volleyball companion? It is inevitable that he, as a living, biological creature, will not rest himself to death. He will not starve by sitting around if he is capable of moving. Once his need becomes strong enough, he will be motivated to work, he will seek out sustenance, he will seek out some element of comfort.

His capability to find this comfort may be greatly hindered if he waits too long, but he will nonetheless cease to be lazy. In the fable the Ant and the Grasshopper, a Grasshopper observes as the Ant stores for the winter months when food is less plentiful. The Ant warns the Grasshopper that he must work or he will not have food, but the Grasshopper claims that he has plenty of time. This is because of his disinterest in work. When winter comes, the Grasshopper has no food and receives a stern moral lesson from the Ant regarding laziness.

The question is, was the Grasshopper lazy?

Looking strictly at the present, he is not. Looking at it with a sense of the future, he is. He is unprepared for the future moment when his stores run out or trial comes in the shape of winter. His workload is essentially doubled because of the scarcity of food at the time he begins working. However, at this point, he ceases to be lazy. He will not sit until he dies, but work to overcome such obstacles in order to survive. Yet, if value is placed upon the rest that is needed when he is aware of the hardship he will face, he will be considered lazy for not doing what needs to be done when it was easier to accomplish. If he is unaware, I would posit he is not lazy.

Rest does not become morally wrong until it becomes more important than the instincts we understand and hold as ideals in our societies. There are two such instincts which, when violated, result in laziness; sharing the common workload of the group and being prepared for future hardship through awareness.

One form of this laziness is essentially “rest addiction” resultant from the desire for neuro-chemical reward of rest over the desire for survival. This will ultimately be defeated in true hardship once higher biological needs are starved.

However, the main form of laziness we see in the first world is the consequence of social relationships. Rest here becomes sin when it capitalizes off of the work of others due to the abundance of provision that comes from good relationship. However, this taxes the provisions of the group in such a way that can be understood by simple math. If there are 4 people making contribution and 5 people consuming, there is a deficit. While each person contributes more than they can consume, in this sense it does not seem a terrible deficit and is survivable.

Wikimedia Commons

When a society is bearing a larger burden of consuming non-workers, the deficit b egins to be larger. This causes laziness to be an even greater sin as you have non-capable consumers such as children, invalid, and elderly who cannot contribute. This is because you are not only taxing the work of others, but consuming the provision of those who cannot work.

“Those who do not work, will not eat.”

- Appropriated from II Thessalonians 3:10 by Capt. John Smith of the Jamestown settlement in 1608 as discipline for laziness in the colony.

In review, the “wrongness” of laziness might be defined as, not simply a lack of work or motivation to work, but the taxing the contribution of others for one’s own restful gain or as valuing rest over preparing for future hardship in light of one’s awareness that it is coming.

The human species is far more capable of looking ahead and planning than others. However, one often has just as hard of a time thinking situations will change greatly in the future as we do believing the world has ever been different than the one we have been raised and live in. We are not lazy if we do not prepare for constantly immanent crisis, but we are lazy if we do not prepare for those likely to occur.

Stay tuned for the next part of this series!

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.

For quicker updates, subscribe to the RSS feed.

[S]instinct: Part I, Introduction.

How do we define sin? It is a question not addressed often by theologians. Grace is more their territory. The question is more commonly addressed to the ethicist. The question(s) being: “How does an individual determine right and wrong?” and “Is it universal or subjective?”

We know right action from wrong action. We make these determinations every day. But how? How did these become wired into us? For average Christians, the response draws back to the Garden of Eden where the consumption of a special, forbidden fruit imbued the naive progenitors of the human species with this moral wiring. My personal belief is that this is an explanatory myth regarding the fact that there is something wrong in this universe. The fundamental Christian religious belief is that the destructive elements of all existent reality is an aberration from what is perfect.

My personal belief goes the route of evolutionary development of life. Within this route, one must question the development of morality. One often hears the argument that you cannot fully believe in evolution and have morality.

Where do you get your morality? If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn’t matter, my life doesn’t matter…If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality—it’s survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it. – Rick Warren

This argument is flawed.

First, how does one reconcile the fact that the sense of morality extends beyond the human species? Chimps, dolphins, elephants, etc. These creatures have a primitive and basic sense of morality. Where does it stem from? Surely they didn’t accidentally munch on the forbidden fruit while grazing in the Garden?! Essentially, the only “special” nature of the morality we understand is a result of our advanced culture and our ability to verbalize and meta-analyze what it is we are even discussing.

Second, it ignores social development as an evolutionary trait for survival. What is a key factor shared between the human species and other “moral” species? Community. We are communal creatures. One man can walk alone and survive alone; but in a group he is far more likely to conserve energy and survive longer. He is able to combine his ingenuity and strength with that of others and accomplish more. It is because of community and intelligence that Man has become the dominant species on this planet. Our collaborative inventiveness allows us to change our survival tactics quickly when our context changes.

What does this have to do with morality? In my (and many biologist’s) opinion, morality is a development out of socio-communal evolution. Morality (and sin) can be defined by looking at what it addresses, namely, our relationship to one another as human beings. If we do not relate well with one another, we will not be as capable of survival. Man lives best in community with others.

However, this social evolution stands apart from standard evolution. Survival instinct is more primitive than social instinct. Our drive to relate well with others comes in conflict at times with our drive to survive. This is where sin enters the picture. I want to discuss in the following series how sin is defined by this conflict. How sin EMBODIES this conflict.

Rather than look at a list of commands like the famous 10, I figured I would address the list known as the “7 deadly sins” which has been used by the Catholic church as a list of the “mortal vices” that endanger the soul of man, as compared to the “venial sins” or minor sins which, according to the church, result in a less critical separation from God and threat of damnation.

- Laziness

- Pride

- Lust

- Gluttony

- Greed

- Envy

- Rage

In the next series of blogs, I want to look at these sins and their relationship to survival instinct. Why are they considered sinful? Is there a time they can be defined as not sinful or when their occurrence might be deemed impossible?

Remember, sin can be centrally understood in affecting our relationship with one another. The command to love our neighbor is intimately related to the command to love God. Ideally, in the final post of this series, I will address this other side of the coin; the relation of religion and theological/spiritual belief to socio-communal evolution and morality.

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

Luke 10:25-28

Stay tuned for the next part of this series!

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.

For quicker updates, subscribe to the RSS feed.