The Morality of Evolution

Studying Darwin's work on evolution is an important part of the discipline of Psychology's scholarly spirit. After all, if we want to explore the human condition, a study of the origin of our species is an indispensable cog in the wheel. Human nature is build up of many facets and one of those is undeniably our collective ancestry - our biological, physical, social, and psychological past.

Throughout the years, the study our evolutionary psychology and the corresponding consensus regarding its true nature have shifted perspectives depending on new uncovered information, more evidence for past findings or solidifying old assumptions, and the zeitgeist. To my mind, these perspectives can be broadly summed up into two main categorical ideas to date: evolution (and therefore people are) is immoral and favors the strong gene dominating or killing the weaker gene, or evolution (and therefore people are) is amoral and actions happen without any value judgment or principles behind.

But what about the idea that evolution is moral? Is it possible that nature favors the survival of genes that strive to reach a better and more ideal state, while protecting the vulnerable and nurturing the weaker genes in its surrounding because, as evolved and conscious species, we know innately that we are only as strong as the weakest link among us? I believe this is possible.

The discipline of psychology as it explores human nature can give evidence to an, as of now, understated part of a person's natural urges -- the instict to serve, to do good, and to pursue progress and the ideal not only for oneself but for all in the gene pool of humanity. 

If evolutionary psychology is moral, how can we explain the brutality among our existence? If nature and people are innately good, why do bad things happen? Personally, I think bad things should not happen. When they do, that means an error has occurred. It makes sense that because we are still evolving, imperfect creatures, mistakes will still happen. Some mistakes will be grave and difficult to come back from. But, our history as a species is long. We should learn and adapt. As a matter of fact, the only way to survive is to learn and adapt. And if it is true that evolution is moral, that the genes that survive are those that are closer to our better nature, then it would mean that the best type of adaptation is to learn from past mistakes that had pulled us down to moral squalor and to then rise up to our more conscious selves. 

If the unconscious, according to Freud, is made up of our repressed trauma and base sexual and agression drives which leads a person to be psychologically infantile when they are unable to rise above these, then to strive to be conscious should mean to heal from our personal and collective trauma, to control baser urges, and to fully realize the flourishing of our better and more moral nature.

Ang Pakikisama ay Hindi Pakikipag-Kapwa

Sa kulturang Pilipino, ang pakikisama ay karaniwang nangangahulugan ng pakikisabay sa ginagawa ng iba. Halimbawa, sumama sa iba sa inuman, makisabay sa usapan ng grupo, o makisalo sa handaan sa opisina, eskwela, o kahit sa bahay. Nangangahulugan rin ito kadalasan ng pakikisabay o pagsama sa kagawian ng isang dominanteng grupo. Minsan, kahit mali ang mga gawi ng karamihan, may nakikisabay pa rin dito dahil sanay makisama.

Sa kabilang banda, ang pakikipagkapwa ay nangangahulugan ng mas malalim na bagay para sa kulturang Pilipino. Kapag sinabing "kapwa", hindi ito ibig sabihin na ibang tao lamang. Kahit rin minsan ginagamit ito upang tukuyin ang ibang tao kasama ang sarili, iba rin ito ng kahulugan sa "tayo". Kapag sinabing "kapwa", nagbibitiw ng paninindigan na ang sinumang iba ay kapantay ng sarili. Hindi ito simpleng salita na nangangahulugan ng "tayo" o "ako at ikaw" o "kagrupo ko". Ang paninindigang kakabit nito ay mayroong moral na implikasyon. 

Sa ganitong pananaw, iba ang kahulugan ng pakikisama sa pakikipagkapwa dahil bagama't maaari tayong magkamali at makisama sa mali, walang sinuman ang maaaring makipagkapwa para sa mali. Sinasabi nito na hindi kailangan mabura ang sariling prinsipyo para lang mabuhay kasama ang iba, na kadalasan ay binubura kapag nabanggit ang "pakikisama". Ang pakikipagkapwa ay nangangahulugan ng paninindigan para sa tama, sa moral, at sa respeto sa pagkapantay-pantay ng bawat tao kahit magkakaiba ang estado at kinalalagyan sa buhay. 

Instinct

There is a well-known experiment by a psychologist named Martin Seligman, where he administered controlled electric shock to a cage with a dog inside. At first, he would only let the electric current run on portions of the cage. He would see the dog move to safety to the unelectrified sections of the cage. But on one test, he electrified the entirety of the cage and there was no safe surface. 

At first the dog tried to find a safe spot, but when it realized there was none, it just slowly lay down in one spot of the cage and accepted the shock. Even in subsequent experiments where there was a safe spot on the other side of the cage that could be reached by jumping over a low barrier, the dog did not try to escape. This experiment brought about a famous concept in psychology called "learned helplessness". In a nutshell, it is about how both animals and humans can learn to be helpless in situations where they perceive harm as inescapable.

Seligman would later become known for his work in the field of Positive Psychology. The focus of this field is directly opposite to that of inducing learned helplessness. It is about looking at strengths rather than weaknesses, and developing healthy coping when faced with problems.

But, personally, I think Positive Psychology these days have gone on to spawn ideas that seem to circle back to Seligman's learned helplessness, namely those ideas that has been termed collectively as "toxic positivity". Many people are already familiar with this term casually. It is typically used to indicate something that seemingly glorifies only the positive aspects of a situation to the point of appearing to dismiss its legitimate negative sides, just to avoid experiencing negative feelings. "Walang nega, good vibes lang" is a colloquial phrase that easily comes to mind.

I think both animals and humans have an innate drive to reject helplessness. Faced with adversity, an instinct kicks in to fight back. Some may call this survival instinct. But, I think, if it is to be a healthy and sustainable quality, it has to do with something more than just survival. Mere survival is not enough of a reason to sustain perseverance amid difficulties. To supplement survival, some have added pleasure-seeking into their life's goals. At best, it means to chase your happiness, whatever that may be for you. At worst, it gets people caught up in chasing false leads to get to more money, more power, and just more of everything, until greed takes over and no amount of reason can get them out of the endless chase. Just as in learned helplessness, a wrong assumption had already been formed, and they are now helplessly at the mercy of getting more money and power, stuck in a rat race, like a drug addicted person chasing the next fix. Some say, we should temper baser instincts with faith or religion. But we know that comes with its own poison - unreasonable dogmatic extremists who impose their belief system on others while they live a hypocritical lifestyle unmoored from their own beliefs. In all cases, it brings to mind the image of people who are surviving, but who are nonetheless helpless and broken.

So how can we truly go through difficulties without letting our spirits break? How can we live above mere survival and not settle for toxic positivity, broken pleasure-seeking, or fatalistic beliefs? I truly believe no one can answer that for another person. Every person has to find that answer for themselves. But no one can answer something without asking it first. Sadly, for too many people, even the act of asking themselves this simple and, to my mind, an all important question, goes neglected. It is buried as a priority way below daily distractions and activities, unscheduled leisure and scheduled work -- never to surface again until perhaps at a final, regret-filled hour. 

I have asked myself this question many times, but my answer won't matter here, because again, it might not be your answer. But, I will say this, I believe that compromise do not mix with values and principles, and that change for the better is not meant to be slow. And, I think that if psychology can prove to us that helplessness can be learned, or reveal that positivity can be toxic, then perhaps it can also give evidence to another side of the human condition. One that can reflect the idea that to be driven to realize progress founded on unwavering values and principles is as much a part of the human spirit as any other instinct we might have. 

Malaya at Mapagpalaya

Ang Sikolohiyang Pilipino ay naitatag bilang disiplina sa pundasyon ng mga pananaliksik ng tinaguriang Ama ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino na si Dr. Virgilio Enriquez. Ang bisyon sa likod ng disiplinang ito ay napapaloob sa mga katagang kakabit ng pangalan nito, na parang bang isang motto or ethos: Malaya at Mapagpalaya.

Ang isinusulat ko na ito ay hindi isang leksyon tungkol sa kasaysayan o pagtatatag o di kaya'y mga assumptions sa likod ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino bilang disiplina. Ito ay isang paglalahad lamang ng aking personal na pananaw ukol dito. Isa sa pinaka-mahalaga para sa akin na aspeto ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino ay ang bisyon nito na maging isang disiplina na "malaya at mapagpalaya". 

Mahalaga ito sa akin dahil i-dinedeklara nito na ang sikolohiya bilang disiplina ay hindi lamang tungkol sa pagiging maunawain sa problema, o pakikinig sa hinaing at pagiging maintindi sa bigat o suliranin ng ibang tao, o di kaya'y pag bibilang lamang ng numero at pagtingin sa tao bilang specimen na pwede lang suriin base sa kanilang maliliit na kilos o galaw. Deklarasyon ito na ang sikolohiya sa Pilipinas ay mayroong tungkulin na maging malaya at mapagpalaya.

Dinadala sa isipan ng ganitong motto o ethos ang halos mitolohikal na imahe ng isang taong pinili umangat mula sa kasadlakan at kumuha ng matalim na sandata para sirain ang kadena na naghihila pababa sa kanya, habang tinutulungan ang iba ring nakakadena na makakuha ng kanilang sandata at masira ang lahat ng amunang humahadlang sa personal at pangkalahatang kalayaan ng isang tao, at lalo na ng isang Pilipino.

Nang aking mabasa ang mga sulat ni Dr. Virgilio Enriquez ay tila may pintong sinipa pabagsak sa loob ng aking utak. Nagbukas ito ng bagong perspektibo, bagong pagintindi hingil sa mga bagay na luma nang matatagpuan sa ating buhay. Mga dati nang problema ng bayan. Mga dati nang suliranin ng tao. At ang nagpapatuloy sa laban para sa tunay na kalayaan, para sa atin at sa kapwa.

Redemption

Nobody should endure pain or suffer for any reason. The only reason nearly acceptable is if someone committed a crime and suffered as a punishment. Some religious beliefs propagate the idea that our sufferings as human beings are a way to cleanse ourselves of sins. That we are all born sinful, carrying the sins of our ancestors, and must suffer to purify our souls. I don't want to venture into analyzing or opining about religious dogma, but I reject such belief. 

Even in the case of an immoral criminal who must suffer the consequences of their actions, it still begs the question why and how such vile acts were permitted to begin with or why such a vile being was allowed to exist. In our depths of despair, it becomes necessary for some to believe in a higher power or conjure a godlike entity, in order that they may still hope and believe that their suffering were not in vain.

The only thing I believe in is the first statement I wrote above. There are a lot of different takes on why suffering exists. This is my take: it shouldn't. The only thing that gives me hope is the idea that any and all sufferings are unjust and justice means an elimination of such in all its forms. Until want, despair, poverty, abuse, and any and all types of corruption are definitively and completely eradicated, the work to bring about the end to that which should have never existed must never stop.

Moral Bankruptcy as a Psychological Illness

Seeing people in power who abuse and exploit the vulnerable and defenseless can elicit different reactions in us, like fear, despair, or anger. Sometimes, the reaction can be that of wanting to understand - a certain curiosity, of how such a morally bankrupt person can exist among us. The latter can be likened to witnessing a train wreck or a car crash and not being able to look away.

At worst, such misguided curiosity can lead us to become stuck, like a deer staring into the headlights of a car about to kill it. We obsess with media depicting mass murderers, serial killers, pedophile criminals, rapists, and sexual abusers. We have engrossed ourselves to much in depictions of twisted realities in the form of self-looping psychological narratives that lead its audiences to nowhere but a steep fall from a meaningless cliff. In short, we begin to consume slop in the guise of exploration and learning.

We become too slow to recognize that the best we can get out of examining a morally bankrupt person's life and the times that gave rise to them is to learn from the mistakes committed that bred such hate, so that we may never repeat them nor propagate the illness of moral bankruptcy.

False Leads?

Some would say that engaging in discourse about morals, values, intents, motivations, or right vs. wrong and good vs. bad is only an exercise in chasing false leads leading to logical dead-ends and falling into an unavoidable self-righteousness trap. But, I would say, that humans, like all evolved creatures, have certain built-in, integral functions that define their very beings. And one such fundamental function we have as humans is the capacity to make sense of who we are. 

It might get repetitive, boring, or preachy to some, but the fact that human beings are not meant to be power-hungry, money-obsessed, amoral cheaters and liars, bears repeating. We sell ourselves short if we think that just because we aren't perfect and we make mistakes that somehow that is a license to keep making mistakes toward our own persons, or worse, a license to exploit and harm others.

There is such a thing as, "to be on wrong side of history". To be judged in hindsight as someone who caused their fellow people more harm than good, more suffering than peace. To be judged as those to have made grave, moral mistakes against their fellow men and all of humanity. Even in light of this undeniable truth, there are still a few who argue that history can be rewritten. That one must only acquire wealth and power and that those who have both can turn even lies into the truth. Those who argue this have been proven wrong, time and again.

We have the capacity, as human beings, to eliminate our physical, social, and psychological ills. The barrier to our realization of this capacity to its full potential is our tendency to choose a known harm over the unknown search for a cure. But we know from history that those who chose to settle with flawed and harmful ways, failed to progress, and did not realize the promise of a better future. 

At the risk of chasing false leads and falling into a self-righteousness trap, progress in our collective understanding of ourselves requires that we venture into roads that may be considered dead-ends, that we examine what may be considered losing arguments, that -- all the while guided by sound reason, an unwavering spirit and an internal moral compass -- we come out of the other side of this search more knowledgeable, more progressive, and less afflicted than when we began.