The Human Condition

1200 words

I.

My reflections here run counter to assumptions now made almost universally, not least in the so-called alternative scene, with which I am otherwise allied.

The challenge is how to contain implicit conflict. For this, some roots of inevitable conflict have to be named.

I bracket out the existence of Evil, so much more evident than that of any deity, whether solitary or multiple. Apart from acknowledgement as a first step, there is no sure or single bulwark against Evil, which is qualitatively different to all-too-human failings or everyday jostling to maintain identity.

The most fundamental feature — not only of the human condition — is fertility. Either too much or too little. Either one’s own or that of others. And in particular that of other tribes or societies. Note that “fertility” refers not only to the production of infants, but raising them to reproductive age and equipping them with the wherewithal to integrate into society.

The “alternative scene” loves to mock Malthus, claiming he has been refuted. He has not. I have dealt with this at https://character-and-ethics.com/Too-many-people.html. Not all of us relish the thought of living lives cramped together with countless others, even if this is technically possible. Overpopulation leads to conflict, which means violence.

In the late twentieth century something changed. Young women were enabled to control their fertility without suppression of sexual urges. It is young women who bear the burden of childbirth and most of the care of the newborn. As you well know, it is also, whether they like it or not, young women (and not old) who are the focus of sexual attention.

Hence, now, it is young women who are in charge of the fertility of a society. The corollary is that it is men who monitor, and if necessary intervene in, the fertility of other tribes.

Contrary to what the alternative scene imagines, attention has always been paid to numbers reproduced — with awareness of ill effects both long- & short term of excess. Those ill effects include the burden of raising too many children and the resulting inadequacy of the result. More importantly, they include the imposition created when other tribes or rogue elements in one’s own tribe reproduce to excess. These impositions are routinely curbed through force or the credible threat of force. Laissez-faire is rarely an option.

II.

The tale of the human condition does not end there, at least not for the counter-narrative espoused here.

A second fundamental observation is that people are varied. This is implicitly denied by the ideology of Christianity, which is wedded to the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would be done unto.” I have refuted this absurdity with “A Rogue's Charter, or Not All That Glitters is Golden” at https://www.klasseverantwortung.com/english/gold.html. In all its very different versions the Golden Rule assumes a sameness of people which does not exist. This weakness of Golden Rules has long been known.

It is indeed essential to society that there be different kinds of people, and not just men & women. In practical matters we depend on a division of labour, with different talents and propensities.

I go further and contend that we need a division of labour also with regard to morality. There is no such thing as a man for all seasons. No-one is responsible for everything, but everyone is responsible for something.

Appreciation of the contribution made by people very different to yourself does not make them your soul-mates. They are not ordinarily candidates for solidarity. There will be others, a small minority hopefully, who may be considered enemies, and not just opponents.

III.

A third observation is change over a lifetime. It is readily acknowledged that there are newborn, toddlers, children, adolescents and adults. This is not enough.

People mature at different rates. Also, they find themselves, that is, their footing in life, at different rates. Each stage in life has different privileges and obligations. There is no such thing as a man for all seasons.

Much misunderstanding derives from the word Morality. My anchor here is adherence to the Common Law and the customs of courtesy. There may be exceptions, not least because rules are blurred: much relies on discernment, which has to be learnt. Moreover, with each new generation there is re-invention of some rules.

I distinguish Morality from Ethics. Much as I distinguish playing a piece of music from composing one. Ethics is about which responsiblities an individual assumes. And which responsibilities they normally relegate. “Normally”: In a crisis other priorities may intervene.

It is against this backdrop that I plead for a class society. Not one based on inherited roles, but on professional roles chosen or assigned in mid-life. A professional class is defined by a commitment to a line of work which generates income.

Many will have no inclination or need to choose a class. The word “professional” is descriptive, not evaluative.

Any choice of class should be made in mid-life, not early. Sometimes only after induction by current members of the class concerned. Each class involves unique privileges and obligations.

It is not possible to switch class arbitrarily. There must be loyalty to the class chosen. Anyone wishing to withdraw can join, or rejoin, the vast ranks of those who work mainly with their hands.

Reminder: society needs people of different talents and propensities. Otherwise there would be no need of society and we could live as hermits.

Note that all advanced societies have been class societies, but mostly based on inheritance and lacking in safeguards against rogue actors and subversion.

These reflections are relevant to the headlined Human Condition because civilisation requires classes. As soon as a population becomes substantial and concentrated, the division of labour extends to the assumption of different responsibilities — responsibilities which may clash.

IV.

Loyalty to the class one has chosen by maybe age thirty, does not imply friendship with others in one’s class. It is loyalty to a specific place, not unlike a geographical space. It means fighting one’s corner, whereby “fighting” means the defence of specific values or principles.

It is a rejection of revolving doors, with inelibility for membership of another class. For example, an entrepreneur may relish and receive the material rewards of success in the marketplace: on pain of confiscation, they must be prevented from deploying their wealth for the pursuit of political aims. If they wish to change life direction, this may only be done gradually and upon renounciation of the accumulated wealth.

The loyalty commended here must stem from the sense of identity of the person involved: it must be embedded in their character. Those whose ambition extends beyond the corner they have chosen need to have their character examined by a jury composed from the whole of society.

Empire-builders and megolomaniacs must be combatted by scrutiny of their character and how they have arrived at the power they invoke.

“Loyalty to the class one has chosen … does not imply friendship with others in one’s class.” Friends, candidates for friendship and allies must be distinguised. Kindred spirits can be found far & wide, but remain rare.

See: https://character-and-ethics.com/against-universal-love.html