There are things that we accept by default, without trying to analyze them. The most unpleasant thing about this is that as a result of analyzing these self-evident things, it may turn out that there is nothing obvious in them, and moreover, they are completely unobvious, and sometimes even false, and we have always adhered to them as an unconditional support and built our goals on it , actions, evaluations and reactions.
Consider such a thing as “justice.” It is logical to assume that the ideal corpus of laws should lead disparate ideas of justice to a common denominator. At the same time, the volume of injustice will be the smaller, the more there will be agreement in a society regarding the issue that is regulated by a certain law.
Different ethnic groups have ideas about justice that can be diametrically opposed, but the deeper the cultures penetrate each other, the more the notions of justice begin to converge. The presence of international law is an extreme form of approximation of the notions of justice, but it concerns only a small number of aspects, mainly economic and crudely legal. Whimsy killing will everywhere be considered unfair in the modern era, while for example in matters of acceptable clothing for women, family law, etc. there are still tremendous differences between different cultures.
In turn, the notion of justice undergoes influence from existing laws, because people tend to perceive laws as something that reflects justice not because people have decided so, but as something given by some higher powers (even if it is not religious even if people do not use such terms in their thoughts about the law). Thus, there is an interdependence, mutual influence of “concepts” and the law.
When the supreme power enforces the law and begins to actively change it to please a very narrow stratum of the population, while adhering to the law that has the character of a conditioned reflex, the population’s discontent with the violation of “justice” is growing – for example, this is happening now in Russia, when the interests of oligarchs close to power are openly elevated over the interests of the state as a whole (for example, such is the law on reimbursement to oligarchs for their losses under sanctions). When a law is created under the influence of public sentiment, which may even be absurd in its essence, a minority of the population begins to experience an acute sense of injustice, and the tension in society grows. Such are, for example, laws on “propaganda of homosexuality” (as if sexual orientation is a function of advertising and propaganda) and laws on “offended believers”.
All this is clear and obvious, and so much so that it never occurs to us to think about – why does the concept of “justice” exist at all? No one asks himself seemingly meaningless questions, for example, is there a need for justice? Why does the feeling of justice and injustice arise at all? No one asks the question of whether it is really true what I consider to be fair, and how to define it at all, and is there any point at all in this question?
In the field of justice, people behave, in fact, like robots, being absolutely subordinate to the notion of what is just and unjust that is spontaneously established in them. In itself, the questioning of the justice or injustice of something can cause people the greatest frustration, which can manifest itself in the form of rabies and aggression against asking these questions, which proves the fact that ideas about justice are imported by man into their paradigm without the slightest critical consideration. After all, if a person has experience of critical consideration of something, then he gradually, either by himself or through communication or books, gradually forms a certain system of arguments and counterarguments, which he can present if someone starts to question his system of notions about justice.
How is it that such an important part of human life, on which the system of laws that governs the entire life of society rests, remains almost completely inviolable for critical thinking? Probably, it is this high significance of this system of ideas for personal and social life that leads to great fear of its critical examination, because if the analysis turns out that one or another part of public institutions is absurd, if it turns out that now the concept of man injustice will come into sharp contradiction with the existing common ideas and even with the laws, then a person will find himself in a situation of extremely painful confrontation with the surrounding society.
Imagine that an ordinary person suddenly, as a result of a discussion under pressure from arguments, will come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a “perversion”, but a variant of the norm, widespread in different cultures, at different times, and very widespread among animals. etc. That homosexuality is not contagious is not determined by propaganda. Of course, some person may be influenced by certain texts, statements, images, etc. to realize that there are homosexual tendencies in him – more or less significant, but this does not mean that some kind of propaganda gave birth to these inclinations in him, or that he was infected by someone from them. It is precisely the awareness of the impulses already present in him.
So, such a person will find himself in a completely unbearable situation for him, since the whole surrounding society will henceforth become a bunch of dangerous people who can cause him great harm, up to the complete destruction of his social and even physical life if his current attitude towards homosexuality. Of course, he will hide it from others, but even this itself will create a huge crack between him and the world around him, which will create tremendous discomfort.
Since almost one hundred percent of people never even think of analyzing their ideas of justice, and experience more or less strong aggression towards someone who suggests that they do it, the concepts of justice are, by virtue of this, a kind of mausoleum, a temple. This means that a kind of tumor arises inside the mental world of a person, closed by a rigid cyst. Since the system of concepts about justice permeates the whole life of a person and regulates the smallest aspects of his life, then in the end, the whole human psyche becomes more or less cemented. The brain also becomes cemented, because in the mental field of a person there are extremely numerous areas that cannot be touched by thought.
When I talk about brain cementation, I mean not only the purely mental aspect. We still do not know exactly how human memory functions, and even more so, how conceptual, behavioral memory exists, but it is clear that one way or another it all boils down to a certain set of electromagnetic cycles inside a neural network. And if a system of strongholds appears in this network, which must be strictly protected from any influences and disturbances, then it is possible, and it is even likely that this blockade is finally carried out using purely physiological mechanisms, and part of the neural network simply loses its natural flexibility. It is just the same as pieces of rewritable flash-memory turned into a DVD-disk, on which some information was cut out by a laser forever. After all, it would be energetically unfavorable for the brain to constantly remember those hundreds and thousands of taboo topics. It is much more effective to somehow cement certain areas of the neural network, to make them fundamentally inaccessible for rewriting, i.e. for critical review. As a result, a person does not need to constantly remember that the topic of child sexuality cannot be raised during intercourse. This topic is simply cut out entirely. This person will never doubt the desirability of suppressing sexuality in children simply because the corresponding thoughts will be rejected by them even at distant approaches to the corresponding contours of the neural network, and this rejection may become more and more physiological over the years – the corresponding neural contours are more and more will be represented by mothballed, cemented contours, almost dead, in fact.
There are people who reject morality, reject their commitment to justice and sincerely believe that this is in fact true. But in fact this never happens. Such people simply do not pay and do not want to pay attention to the fact that they simply replaced one system of concepts with another, and mistakenly begin to consider themselves completely free from morality, from concepts of justice. A convenient example of this is the justice system that exists among criminals – by the way, it is called exactly this way in Russian – “the system of concepts”. Can there be such a person who rejects justice entirely? Which at all does not operate with this concept or its surrogate. Who does not seek justice and does not reject injustice? This question is purely theoretical, since any child from the first moment of his social interaction begins to adopt, including the concepts of justice. And even different Mowgli do not live in isolation – they are in one or another interaction with animals, and animals also have their own system of “fair” behavior, although, of course, it is not formalized by them on a mental level. We all have the experience that some behavior of a dog in a pack is perceived by the pack as normal, while some actions of an individual dog may suddenly cause a sharp aggression of the pack, and we don’t even understand what happened. These are quite rare phenomena, because any animal perfectly understands the danger of committing “unfair” actions that go beyond the generally accepted one.
It is possible that the system of notions about justice was once formed spontaneously and very differently in different societies. Perhaps, once this aspect played its role in the interspecific struggle: those societies in which the system of notions of justice contributed to greater cohesion, flexibility, adaptability, those societies won in the long run, and natural selection still tens, and maybe hundreds of thousands years ago, rejected those societies in which notions of justice were incredibly different from those that exist now, so that we could not even imagine now — how amazing they could be. Now we live in the conditions of a “just globalism”, when some fundamental ideas about the fair are so customarily considered unshakable that even a thought will not go into the area of challenging them. For example, it is unlikely that we will now find a person who would like to live in a society where the murder of anyone you meet just at whim is fair. It is unlikely that at least one of the modern people even ever fantasized about this topic – it is so obviously absurd, because even in modern animals we do not observe such behavior. Perhaps, once and among animals such communities arose, flocks, but they could not withstand competition for obvious reasons.
Now, however, humanity has reached such a level of development that everything is gradually subjected to critical examination. We even began to openly question the existence of God, which would have brought a fire even a couple of hundred years ago (and in the USA, for example, the consequences for open atheists are not much softer than a fire, not to mention the countries with the dominant most peaceful religion) . And we can now begin to consider our system fair and unfair, believing it with common sense.
People sometimes fantasize about how a perfect world could be for them. At the same time, they begin to draw themselves some fancy pictures, such as mastering neighboring star systems or the world filled with sitting in the lotus position of the buddhas, or the world in which people blissfully lybym under themselves and each other and constantly kiss each other.
Meanwhile, our world would be fantastically amazing if only one very small thing had been realized: if all people had begun to think at least a little. He asked a person something, but before he answered, he thought about it, began to pick up arguments and counterarguments, adhering to logic, and answered the results of his thoughts. He offered something to the person, and he thought about it – he would weigh the pros and cons. Such a world would be so infinitely different from ours that we would call it a paradise.
Now people use their ability to think almost exclusively in the performance of their professional duties. Rarely, but still apply. However, our ability to think is still almost not applied at all to various aspects of our personal and social life. People manipulate dogmas – innumerable dogmas, enveloping all types of their vital activity in a gigantic network. Met a friend – say hello. There is no point in this greeting, and there is no point in saying “good morning” to your mother when confronted with her in the morning in the corridor. There is no point in saying “thank you” to a child who has eaten and is leaving the table, but try to just discuss it with someone? You suddenly find yourself in front of a furious, stupid buffalo. And even if someone can overcome his almost instinctive aversion to this kind of reasoning, even if a miracle happens and someone agrees with your arguments, he still almost certainly will not introduce this understanding into his private life, at least at the family level. This action itself causes in it atavistic, almost religious fears.
The next stage in the evolution of humanity will consist precisely in the fact that people will begin to apply their ability to reflect on their everyday life. They will begin to examine the fairness of all sorts of rules, regulations and concepts. They will begin to follow the conclusions they draw. The process of reversing moral globalization will begin – people will begin to be divided into societies, which can differ quite strongly from each other in their justice systems. Now it would immediately lead to a fierce war between them – now people are still very wild, but in that future such societies will coexist and interact perfectly according to certain systems of laws, intercommunal contracts. And then the healthy competition mechanism will start again. Those societies that will be more attractive to many people will grow faster, increase quantitatively. There will be a very interesting process of competition between them – not economic, but psychological. It will be, so to speak, competition in personal comfort, in the saturation of life. Intercommunal international legislation will continue to exist, a certain common denominator will continue, but it will more and more narrow its sphere of influence, it will determine an ever smaller number of phenomena, allowing different communities to create their own concepts and rules. A community whose internal institutions will conflict too sharply with those of other communities (but within the framework of intercommunal law, otherwise it could not appear) will not be able to provide its members with an acceptable level of personal comfort, and it will thus dry out.
Thus, humanity will return to communal existence, but at a higher stage of social evolution. Humanity will again be broken up into thousands, into millions of tribes, glued together by intercommunal law and formed not on the basis of kinship or territorial principle, but on the basis of each person’s personal preferences. The competition of social systems, which will arise in this case, will be so intense that in this boiler just volcanic activity will begin on the birth of extremely charismatic and bright personalities, and in large numbers.
Now every bright personality is an extremely rare phenomenon, but in that future society such people will begin to appear in the thousands, millions, tens of millions. Accordingly, a lot of things that now seem natural to us will change dramatically.