The Unexamined Culture

Socrates famously said "The unexamined life is not worth living", which to me means that you should think about your life and consciously decide to live it in a certain way, rather than just living the way everyone else does, or because you think it is expected of you, or because it's easiest.  It doesn't mean you have to be unconventional or make big changes in your life, just that you should decide whether the way you're living is the way you want to be living, and if not, then you can try to figure out how to make it so.

A corollary to Socrates' dictum is that it's worthwhile examining other people's lives (especially people you admire), either directly by observing them and talking to them or by reading biographies.  By learning more about how other people live their lives, you may discover a way of life that hadn't occurred to you or which you might have deemed unrealistic.  You may also find hints about how to bring your life closer to your ideal, or cautionary tales about what not to do.

But no one lives life in isolation.  We are all part of a society, defined primarily by its culture, that is, a set of rules about how to live with other people.  But where do these rules come from, and why are they the way they are?  Some philosophers posit a social contract, in which individuals voluntarily agree to abrogate certain freedoms because they perceive it is in their interest that everyone do likewise.  Essentially this is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

David Hume makes the cogent observation that while a social contract is an appealing concept, it is unlikely that any present society derives from an actual contract or explicit agreement.  Others have pointed out possible exceptions, such as 18th-century pirates and the Mafia, but these are few and limited.

Evolution surely applies to cultures as well as species.  Wherever they come from, cultures compete with each other, unless they are completely isolated.  A culture (or cultural value) that promotes prosperity, for example Max Weber's "Protestant work ethic" is more likely to survive than one that does not.  Supposing a large variation of cultures at some distant age, over time some of these cultures would likely prevail over others.

But it does not follow that surviving cultures necessarily are those with the "best" set of rules or values.  For one thing, "best" according to the survival of the culture does not necessarily imply "best" for the individual.  Even where the good of the culture is aligned with the good of the individual, it is still possible that a culture reaches a "local maximum" which is nevertheless not the best possible state.  For example, in some game theory situations, there are two stable states: one in which everyone "cooperates" (according to a purely abstract definition of cooperation) and another, with less total benefit, in which everyone "defects".

Moreover, just as a species which is well-adapted to one environment may no longer be successful if the environment changes, cultural values which may have been adaptive a millennium or even a century ago may no longer be as useful now, and could even be counterproductive.  For example, Yahweh's commandment in Genesis for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" made sense thousands of years ago when populations were small and mortality high, but it is clear that at some point it ceases to benefit society or individuals and becomes a detriment.

So it seems to me that, just as we should examine our own lives, we should examine our culture, with reference to other cultures past and present, and where we find values which are irrelevant or counterproductive, try to change them.  How to do so is a topic for another day.  I'll leave you with a paraphrase of Socrates:

The unexamined culture is not worth living in.