What does this say about human nature and our propensity for violent behavior? Some measure of violence is built into our DNA. And yet the ability to cooperate and to love are there as well. I prefer to think that most people land on the good side of the good to bad behavior scale. Am I being realistic?
I recently read two books by social psychologist Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of our Nature, Why Violence Has Declined, and Enlightenment Now. In the former book, the author makes the strong case that violence in human society has declined over time. The incidence of war, homicide, assault of all kinds all trend in a positive direction, no matter the timeframe. The reasons are varied and complex, but the most prominent explanation is that we human beings prefer not to die. Further, we are willing to cooperate to make prevention happen. In the latter one, we learn that in spite of everything, life is getting better over time, due to the increasing enlightenment of humanity.
Why is this information in my blog about the environment? Because there is absolutely nothing that I am more indignant about than the environment. I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who wants to pollute or make it easier for others to do so. I consider such behavior morally repugnant. But it is probably a good thing to take a step back and think about my own righteous indignation.
Life is getting better! Contrast this concept with any news you see, and also with prevailing attitudes of most observers. That violence is increasing and our way of life is deteriorating is a central tenant of both the right and the left philosophies. These books prove them wrong!
Yet human nature isn't entirely sugarcoated. It’s not all rainbows and unicorns. We’re still violent, self-serving animals. The point is that we can learn to control our not-so-good urges by making such behavior unacceptable.
If you have indeed been angry enough to hurt or kill someone, have you thought about why you are so angry? Was it vengeance? Revenge for a real or perceived wrong is one of the most common reasons for violence. Could it be fear? Anger and violence is often a result of fear and the concept that someone should be hurt before they hurt us. Or, could it be Righteous Indignation?
I will discuss righteous indignation further, but first, let me tell you about how my wife murdered a dog. My wife is a kind and peaceful soul, and she is not in the habit of killing or hurting people or animals. But once upon a time, we lived in a remote area in southern Ohio, close to one neighboring house, but no others. We were friendly with our neighbors, but they had a mean dog. This dog killed our cat, bit me, and once came into our yard, charging our daughters, ages 2 and 3, who were playing there. I was able to stop him by getting between our girls and the dog, but that was the last straw. What if I hadn’t been so close by? The two of us were indignant about the dog and its owner.
One day, when no one was home next door, Debbie made a nice beef and rat poison stew and brought it over to feed to Tippy. Tippy loved it and lapped it all up.
At first, it was the worst of all possible outcomes. The neighbor took Tippy to a vet and got his stomach pumped and an IV. He recovered, and our neighbor, who wasn’t rich, was left with the bill. She did ask how we thought Tippy may have gotten hold of rat poison.
But there was a turn of events. Weeks later, our neighbor let Tippy out on a cold day. He took one step, then keeled over with a heart attack. I believe that the rat poison had weakened his heart and caused it. I can’t say that we were saddened. In fact, I’ve never been so proud of my wife than I was at that time.
I consider the story an example of killing in self-defense. You might also consider it a case of righteous indignation used constructively (at least for our own family). We felt absolutely in the right to protect ourselves. We humans generally feel that violence is justified in such cases, whether you agree in this instance or not. Other forms of violence are not so justifiable.
Righteous Indignation is retribution, anger, and/or contempt combined with a feeling that it is one is right to feel that way. It is anger without guilt. It may be based on religion, race or ethnicity, or political viewpoint. Those who feel righteous do believe that their anger, hatred or even violence is justified. But others, some of whom may not agree with their ideology or religion, may disagree.
David Brin is a Ph.D. Physicist and popular Science Fiction writer. He famously challenged academic and other research psychologists to study the addicting effects of righteous indignation. There are several points to be made here:
1) The author freely admits that the topic is outside his primary area of expertise. In fact, that’s why it’s an open letter.
2) He believes that, despite the reduction in overall violence, Righteous Indignation is a growing problem. He believes that social media exacerbates it.
3) He believes that our brains react to righteous indignation exactly like they react to addictive drugs.
In fact, there has been some measure of research on that last point. When we experience righteousness and when we take addicting drugs, the same centers of our brain light up. It feels good to be right! Brin argues that our incidence of righteousness is on the increase. If you are with six people who feel one way about something, and there are six others who take the opposite stance, chances are that you will talk amongst yourselves to reinforce your own beliefs. Of course, the others will do the same. Social media creates an echo chamber where we hear more and more of the reinforcing messages and less of those that we disagree with.
There have been times in our history when righteous indignation was necessary. How would our Greatest Generation have won World War II without the certainty that they were right? That it was a matter of good versus evil, and we were on the side of good. On the other hand, consider that perhaps Nazis felt righteous in exterminating human beings because of race and religion.
What is the downside of all this? Intolerance, lack of understanding of others and even ourselves, and possibly even violence, war or genocide. Not everyone can be on the good side every time. I think it’s best to at least understand what is happening when we do take a side.
It’s fine to have a point of view. It’s not so fine to not understand that, or to let it win against our better angels.
