Sir, – DrJamie Saris and Prof Bernard Mahon, Maynooth University, take issue (August 11th) with my column on the liberal agenda ("Is the liberal agenda based on a delusion?", August 7th). They make one valid point, but otherwise I cannot understand their concerns.
I claimed the liberal agenda is based on the assumption that humans are born in a state of innate goodness, an assumption that originated in the Enlightenment reaction against the doctrine of original sin. Saris and Mahon say that this assumption is a “straw man” created by me. But I quoted the foundational liberal philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau to support my claim. I could also quote many other eminent authorities, such as the renowned political philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who said “What the entire Enlightenment project had in common is the denial of the Christian doctrine of original sin, believing instead that man is born either innocent or good, or malleable by education, or capable of radical improvement by education”.
I then explained how this basic liberal assumption has been disproved by evolutionary science, genetics, anthropology and psychology.
Surely there is nothing controversial in this, but Saris and Mahon seem to disagree. We are born imperfect and many of our flaws having a genetic basis. Do Saris and Mahon dispute this?
I also said that the “noble savage” concept of simple people far from western civilisation who live in blissful harmony with each other and with nature is often quoted to illustrate the innate goodness of humanity.
To the best of my knowledge, this concept has been pretty much disproved by anthropology. I am thinking, for example, of the story of the blissful life of Tahitian islanders told by anthropologist Margaret Mead that was severely criticised by later research. Also the recent book War Before Civilisation: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence Keeley.
Saris and Mahon do have grounds for claiming that I “assert that noble actions run counter to evolution”. I certainly make no such assertion but my article might seem to imply this.
The reason is that the piece I submitted to The Irish Times was too long and the subeditors had to leave out bits to fit the page. I am entirely responsible for these omissions that included the following paragraph: "I should point out however that animals have evolved some altruistic behaviour, but it is usually displayed only in relationships with kin. And detailed study has shown that the animal world is awash with the same flaws that we see in human behaviour – intra-species aggression, deceit, even infanticide and cannibalism". – Yours, etc,
WILLIAM REVILLE,
Emeritus Professor,
School of Biochemistry
and Cell Biology,
University College Cork.