It is understandable that nationalism is a response to discrimination and aggression against minorities defined by ethnic markers. But it is a mistake to assume the aggressor’s premise that such ethnic markers are humanly significant.
Tribalism or ingroupism is a human instinct. Any human group tends to create bonds based on arbitrary markers—practically anything can become “ethnic”—to defend the in-group from the perceived threat of the outside group. This has been observed even in the simplest societies.
An altruistic conception of human life must eliminate all forms of ingroupism, as it subordinates the individual (human) to the group (non-human). Nationalism, patriotism, ingroupism… no one should be deceived by the supposed goodness of “bonds of solidarity”… it is a form of superstition, necessarily aggressive and irrational.
It is a shame that in recent decades many prestigious authors have spoken out against the irrationalism of beliefs in the supernatural, but almost none against groupistic tendencies that are responsible for far more wars and violence than religion.
I see your point that ingroupism itself is irrational and counter-intuitive to altruism. But lets take this a bit further—what forms the basis of human relationships? Randomness rules this world and your relationships are a clear example of that—they are driven by chance. To say that bonds based on arbitrary markers is irrational is to deny us of our humanity, deny us of reality.
Human instincts don’t arise from randomness however, they are designed by evolution. Therefore I think the answer in altruism doesn’t rely on negating humanity but rather balancing it with our conscious free will. This requires recognition and understanding and is not easy.
Human instincts don’t arise from randomness however, they are designed by evolution. Therefore I think the answer in altruism doesn’t rely on negating humanity but rather balancing it with our conscious free will
Sigmund Freud wrote that “civilization is the control of instinct.” If we adhere simply to genetic evolution, Homo sapiens would still be living a prehistoric existence as a “hunter-gatherer.” But Homo sapiens is a “cultural animal.” In a sense, it is the only cultural animal, since it makes cumulative use of cultural creativity throughout its historical trajectory.
Tribalism, supernaturalism, male dominance, and, above all, aggression, are human instincts that the civilizing process also tries to control in an evolutionary way, but not biologically, rather culturally.
The idea of a civilization in which altruism would be the general expression of economic relations may seem as unthinkable to us today as commercial air travel might have seemed to the wise Aristotle. But it is perfectly logical and in accordance with human nature as a cultural being.
An ideological movement based on improving behavior in the sense of benevolence and altruism (the conditions that give rise to human relationships of maximum trust and consequent effective cooperation) could be an extraordinary opportunity for social progress.
It is understandable that nationalism is a response to discrimination and aggression against minorities defined by ethnic markers. But it is a mistake to assume the aggressor’s premise that such ethnic markers are humanly significant.
Tribalism or ingroupism is a human instinct. Any human group tends to create bonds based on arbitrary markers—practically anything can become “ethnic”—to defend the in-group from the perceived threat of the outside group. This has been observed even in the simplest societies.
An altruistic conception of human life must eliminate all forms of ingroupism, as it subordinates the individual (human) to the group (non-human). Nationalism, patriotism, ingroupism… no one should be deceived by the supposed goodness of “bonds of solidarity”… it is a form of superstition, necessarily aggressive and irrational.
It is a shame that in recent decades many prestigious authors have spoken out against the irrationalism of beliefs in the supernatural, but almost none against groupistic tendencies that are responsible for far more wars and violence than religion.
I see your point that ingroupism itself is irrational and counter-intuitive to altruism. But lets take this a bit further—what forms the basis of human relationships? Randomness rules this world and your relationships are a clear example of that—they are driven by chance. To say that bonds based on arbitrary markers is irrational is to deny us of our humanity, deny us of reality.
Human instincts don’t arise from randomness however, they are designed by evolution. Therefore I think the answer in altruism doesn’t rely on negating humanity but rather balancing it with our conscious free will. This requires recognition and understanding and is not easy.
Sigmund Freud wrote that “civilization is the control of instinct.” If we adhere simply to genetic evolution, Homo sapiens would still be living a prehistoric existence as a “hunter-gatherer.” But Homo sapiens is a “cultural animal.” In a sense, it is the only cultural animal, since it makes cumulative use of cultural creativity throughout its historical trajectory.
Tribalism, supernaturalism, male dominance, and, above all, aggression, are human instincts that the civilizing process also tries to control in an evolutionary way, but not biologically, rather culturally.
The idea of a civilization in which altruism would be the general expression of economic relations may seem as unthinkable to us today as commercial air travel might have seemed to the wise Aristotle. But it is perfectly logical and in accordance with human nature as a cultural being.
An ideological movement based on improving behavior in the sense of benevolence and altruism (the conditions that give rise to human relationships of maximum trust and consequent effective cooperation) could be an extraordinary opportunity for social progress.