A couple of weeks ago, the lead
article of the New York Times Sunday magazine dealt with ethics and
evolution. The author, a Harvard professor, argued that ethical
behavior is encoded in us through evolution not unlike our innate
ability to use language. I read the article as I was preparing for my
Judaism 101 Class on Jewish Beliefs and Ethics. I couldn't help but be
struck that if we are naturally ethical then, why do we need all of
Judaism's laws and teachings concerned with ethical behavior? If we
have evolved into a species that has ethical behavior encoded within
our DNA, than Judaism's injunction "Justice Justice Shall You Pursue"
is at best redundant. What need would we have today with the Ten
Commandments if we're naturals in not stealing or murdering or bearing
false witness. We could just skip this week's Parsha and sleep in
because Mishpatim which means rule is filled with laws and statutes
that make for proper behavior in society. To say the least, the
article was bad for business, that's bad for my business at least.
While I tried my best to read it with an open mind, I wasn't
convinced. All of the news of the past weeks and months and years
didn't help to convince me any more that we are ethical by nature.
Just the opposite. After these past few years of seeing former
neighbors in Iraq blowing each other apart, I don't see how the human
species is naturally ethical today as a result of evolution. Pick up
the paper and we appear to be ethically Neanderthals still. Of course
most people lead relatively quiet lives of relative ethical behavior
but the exceptions are in sufficiently large numbers that they are
more than the exception that proves the rule. The light of democracy
in Africa, Kenya has seen vicious violence of mass killings of one
tribe against the other. I listened to an interview this past week of
a man who was involved in the killings of members of another tribe.
That other tribe was forced to flee the village. He was asked what he
would do if they tried to return. In a calm voice he simply said that
he would kill them as if that was the natural thing to do. This man is
not naturally ethical.
I was especially intrigued by one example the author gave. He
described how a class of three year olds was given some behavioral
instruction by their teacher. In one instance the teacher then told
them to change their behavior and the children complied. In another
instance, the teacher told them to behave differently which involved a
compromise of some ethical behavior. He reported that the children
were not similarly agreeable to behave differently thus demonstrating
a naturally inbred ethical orientation. I shared this with a class
recently and one former preschool teacher said the researcher couldn't
have spent too much time with a three year old class. Naturally
ethical was not her experience. I guess the idea of natural ethical
behavior as a result of evolution was bad for business for her as
well. We send our children to Preschool to become socialized, learn to
interact with others and learn right from wrong. Hopefully as the
children grow they come to internalize ethical teachings so that it
does become as natural as breathing and eating but does it really
start out that naturally?
I recall a classical experiment that I read about first in a college
class in Social Psychology that shows just the opposite of what this
professor describes. The subjects in the study, college sophomores, as
they often are, are told by a certain authority figure wearing a long
white lab coat appearing to be a scientist or a doctor to press a
button which would cause a shock and some pain to a person sitting in
an adjoining room. The person sitting in the adjoining room is an
actor in the experiment. The first time the subject pushes the button
they would hear a mild expression of discomfort from the next room.
With the next push of the button the response was louder and it grew
into a shriek of pain. Of course the subjects were hesitant to
continue pushing the button but when the authority figure scientist
would tell them to continue, that it was in the interest of science
and they would assure the subject that the person in the next room
would not be permanently harmed and the subject would bear no
responsibility, the subjects continued to push the button in
surprisingly large numbers. I don't recall these college sophomores
being as ethical as the professor describes these third graders. The
experiment was part of an attempt to understand how the masses,
otherwise apparently decent people can come to exhibit even evil
behavior such as in Nazi Germany. We are willing to be swayed too much
by authority figures who appear more potent that our DNA.
Judaism has a different take on this. Judaism teaches that we are each
endowed with two inclinations. One is an inclination for good and the
second is an inclination towards evil. In Hebrew it is called the
Yetzer Hatov and the Yetzer Hara. Depending on our life's
circumstances and influences and our free choice we will come to
express one over the other. The whole purpose of Torah is to inspire
our Yetzer Hatov and suppress our Yetzer Hara. The Yetzer Hara will
never be extinguished and neither should it because it even serves
some positive purpose in itself.
In our Parsha of Mishpatim we find laws that are intended to result in
more just and ethical behavior. We find rules dealing with an
indentured servant male and female. There are laws dealing with murder
and the difference of premeditated murder or a murder committed
unintentionally and laws dealing with kidnapping. The Parsha contains
laws dealing with stealing and how the penalty is repayment four and
five fold. There are laws dealing with damages and damage caused by
one's ox. Few of us have a goring ox today but we have other
instruments that cause damage. The punishment for someone who had an
ox which had never caused any damage before was much less than an ox
that had previously caused damage. Did that pit bull ever bite anyone
before this? (My apologies to pit bull lovers for this example) If a
person borrows an item from someone else and the item is damaged what
is the level of responsibility of the borrower. Is it more or less
than a person who is being paid to look after that item or another
person who was given the same item to care for but was doing it for no
payment?
The Parsha climaxes with a discussion of various Mitzvot dealing with
righteous behavior. We find teaching such as "You must not carry false
rumors... when you see the animal of your enemy lying under its burden
and would refrain from raising it (that's what we might naturally do)
you must nevertheless raise it with him. Do not take bribes for bribes
blind the clear sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the
right. You shall not oppress a stranger for you know the feelings of
the stranger having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt. Is
it any wonder we Jews have such a passion for justice?
I have a vested interest in saying this, but I am not convinced that
the human species has evolved to the point of being naturally ethical.
I think we have the potential within us and if so inspired we can
reach great heights of ethical, just and altruistic behavior. I think
three year olds need good teachers and wise parents who show them
right from wrong. I think we need to be wary of authority figures
whose intent is to promote evil. I think we Jews need the just and
ethical teachings of Torah today as much as any other time in our
history. I think we will be well served by reading again this year
this Parsha Mishpatim.
Shabbat
Shalom
