I just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. Some of the most interesting parts of the books are the descriptions of the main character’s classes in “History and Moral Philosophy.” This takes place in the future and looks back at the “failures” of our society and compares them with their solutions in the future. Some of the most interesting parts are about morality, the survival instinct, and how it relates to democracy.

The teacher in the book, Mr. Dubois, says “Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. … We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.” This is an interesting concept. Certainly when you look at animals you don’t think they are born with a moral sense. What’s more interesting is where he says our moral sense comes from. “What is ‘moral sense’? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it.” Where the moral sense comes in, is whose survival is imperative to you: “survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale.” He claims that their theory can solve any moral problem, on any level: “Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility to the human race.”

This discussion of morality gets really interesting when he ties it in with their political system. In their system, you must serve your country (in some capacity: military, science, research, engineering, etc) before you are allowed to vote or run for office. But this service is not required, moreover it is done on a volunteer basis and discouraged so that only those who are truly committed accomplish it. Mr. Dubois explains that “Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. And that is the one practical advantage. He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than any other class of rulers in history.”

I’m not advocating this system of government, but this argument makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve argued in previous blog posts here that one of the biggest problems with our government is that people are too concerned with themselves than the best interests of the country. Politicians are more concerned with raising enough money to keep their jobs than serving the country well. Many voters are more concerned with how the policies affect them than what it means for the country or for future generations. Restricting the decision making to only those who actually put the best interest of the country ahead of their personal interests would make the system more successful. I’m not quite sure how to do that. Even when we have candidates who put the country ahead of themselves, they don’t necessarily get elected because there are enough voters who don’t do so. Certainly some interesting questions to think about.

Here’s a quote that sums up how I wish the government (and its voters) operated: “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” — The Iroquois Confederacy